Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

This page trancludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Contents


Requests for arbitration

Zeitgeist (film series)

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEarl_King_Jr.&type=revision&diff=669687314&oldid=669677006

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyTheGrump&type=revision&diff=669687432&oldid=669666578

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASfarney&type=revision&diff=669687563&oldid=669683044

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJonpatterns&type=revision&diff=669687684&oldid=669663347

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APincrete&type=revision&diff=669687813&oldid=669115767

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Robert McClenon

The topic of Zeitgeist (film series) has been the subject of considerable battleground editing. Moderated discussion was attempted at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and resulted in three RFCs, two of which are awaiting closure, and one of which is about to close. The discussion has resulted in frequent personal attacks and has been subject to tendentious editing. An example of the personal attacks was: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZeitgeist_%28film_series%29&type=revision&diff=665286949&oldid=665283024

A previous AN thread was archived without conclusion. An ANI thread is now running, involving a request to topic-ban one editor. However, that editor is not the only editor about whom there are conduct concerns. A full case is requested to identify editors to be sanctioned. While some aspects are already subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB911, WP:ARBAP2, and WP:BLP, the entire topic may need discretionary sanctions.

Statement by Earl King Jr.

That article brings out hot debate on the talk page. Too hot. Too aggressive and to personal. The talk page needs current and future review with little to no tolerance of battling or personal attacks or tendentious editing. I suppose one way to do that that fairly distributes responsibility is too look at the overall behavior of all persons connected for perspective. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Firstly, I would like to reiterate what I have already said on the current ANI thread - that I don't think arbitration will be necessary if Earl King Jr. is topic banned, and that if he is, I will voluntarily stay away from the topic myself. In the event that this does go to arbitration, I will of course present evidence concerning the background to the post that Robert McClenon links above - evidence which amply demonstrates that not only has EKJ routinely used article talk pages as a soapbox for his own opinions on the topic, in an entirely inflammatory manner, but that he has blatantly violated WP:BLP policy in doing so. Something which the community (or at least that part of it that posts at ANI) has repeatedly refused to address. If 'personal attacks' are really the issue here, the attacks made by EKJ on a named individual need to be the starting point of any discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sfarney

Difficult to comment without a specific question. I will try to collect a list of issues with a summary statement, if that will help, but I don't know how anyone can arbitrate an issue without a statement. Can we be more specific? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that this is a controversial subject, I recommend the most neutral language. Since the film and the movement are now combined, and may or may not be again separated, I must include my comments on both. An encyclopedia is by nature a neutral source of information. And given the breadth of audience who will use it, neutrality is a vital element. Human knowledge advances by breadth and freedom, not narrow orthodoxy. And every group so far that thought it was totally right and could violate that idea has eventually be proved wrong. But what is neutrality?

  1. Information must always trump attitude and opinion. Loaded, value laden words and statements should be tightly corralled in an area such as "reception," "objections," or "controversies." Outside that corral, mixing information with opinion is highly improper. Specifically, using the lede to announce these films are about "conspiracy theory" or "pseudo-documentary" is wrong.
  2. Not all "reliable sources" are really reliable, or quotable. When an RS offers ill-formed opinion in place of fact, it is not appropriate for WP. When I started looking at this article a few weeks ago, reviews were cherry picked to say the films were "bogus" and "crap." Wikipedia can and should rise higher than that.
  3. When a primary source makes a clean statement of its own goals, that statement should be permitted, even if couched in a "they say" clause.
  4. I firmly believe that the existence of WP is dependent on respecting and following the copyright and BLP rules. We are not excused from libel and slander by putting the words in quotes and arguing that someone else said it first. Every publication has its own rules for libel, and some have very deep pockets to defend those rules or take the hit. Wikipedia does not. Specifically, we get nowhere by calling a living person an "antisemite," even if the word is credited to some RS keyboard, and even when that word is in the opinion section. Messing with people's professional reputation can get us shot -- and if we do it, we probably should be.
  5. The value and respect for Wikipedia by the general public tacitly depends on these rules. Fox News loses audience by slathering its reports with opinions. It winds up preaching only to the choir. We shouldn't let that happen to Wikipedia in either direction. If you really want to reach past the choir, clean up the language. Honest, neutral information gets through everyone's information censors. Opinions are stopped and searched at the borders. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

When I first started reading this article about two months ago, it was nothing BUT opinions. The editors objected to some of the statements in the films and never got past it. King argued that it's not a documentary because it is not factual. Never mind the definition of a documentary, it isn't one because it isn't factual. It's propaganda, conspiracy, etc. A whole RfC and hundreds of thousands of bytes argued on whether it is a documentary. I believe that point was eventually won in favor of a documentary. But this is an improper use of sources. Sources establish fact. Sources also offer opinion, but sources differ on opinions and people do not come to Wikipedia for opinions. When people look for opinions, they read the Jerusalem Post, Fox News, or the editorials of St. Louis Dispatch. They do not come to Wikipedia for opinion. Furthermore, if Wikipedia tries to state as fact what these sources present as personal opinions, the Wikipedia becomes a fraud, and a misrepresentation of the sources it pretends to quote. A documentary may be said to be propaganda (as many documentaries are) and it may be called "propaganda" by a reliable source (as many do), but it is still a documentary by the Academy of Motion Pictures. And that is the only reliable source, not some $10 a word opinion factory in the Washington Times. If Wikipedia publishes opinions as facts, it will be fraught with contradictory statements, all from reliable sources. It will be a Tower of Babel, a chattering confusion like the Internet itself.

A few weeks ago, the article was little more than one long expression of contempt, with no statement of what the film is, what the movement is, or anything else. It was fact-free, like a diet soda or a "news" item in People Magazine. As King recently explained, he has many times in the past reverted statements from the primary source, and strongly hinted he would do again, so I haven't bothered to try.[1] Disallowing Zeitgeist producers or Zeitgeist movement to speak for itself is a violation of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." But King has made very "free" with WP policy and rules, and never admits when he is proved wrong. This strongly suggests that King's misstatements, inventions, and ignorance are intentional -- he will not be corrected beyond the moment because he has not learned anything because it was not a mistake to begin with -- it was intentional abuse of policy.

King has even argued that my BPL notification titled "Non-factual smear on Zeitgeist the film page" was itself a BPL violation.[2] The logic is awkward and difficult to follow, but apparently, when I say our Wikipedia article is a smear (vilification[3][4]) of producer Peter Joseph's reputation by calling his statements "antisemitic," somehow I am violating BPL on the reviewer whom WP is quoting.[5] It is tortured logic to reverse the spear and force me to hold the blade. But the worst of this is the logic by which one Chip Berlet arrives at his accusation of antisemitism. It seems some of the arguments in the film sound similar to arguments Berlet has heard from a list of antisemites. Therefore, the film must have "borrowed" the ideas from those antisemites, and therefore, the films must be antisemitic. Another reviewer who cites Berlet's opinions admits that the films do not mention Jews, and therefore the films contain "covert antisemitism." I do not argue whether Joseph is antisemitic in his personal life -- but our sources do not support the slanderous accusation. The statements are not statements of fact, and their reasoning is simply not factual. But through the abuse of RS authority that King says we must follow, we must quote those statements from the reviewers, else we would be "censoring reliable sources." But to complete the hypocrisy. those are almost the ONLY statements from the reviews that we cite. In my way of thinking, we cannot quote those accusations without smearing Peter Joseph himself, because he wrote, produced, and narrated the film. Pincrete agrees that a person could not produce an antisemitic work without being an antisemite,[6] which confirms my argument that accusations of antisemitism against the films are really accusations against producer Joseph and therefore BPL issues. [The BPLN is stalled now because of the ANI and this action.]

In conclusion, I have worked with dozens of other editors in varying degrees of disagreement over the years. King seems unwilling or unable to collaborate on editing that does not match his opinions. I am suspicious that he has worked on little else in the last year outside this group of articles. His pattern of editing closely matches WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE.

Statement by Jonpatterns

There is an ongoing problem with the actions of a particular editor. It looks likely action will be taken on this, and that this ArbCom will be rejected. Therefore, I'm not going to comment further here at this point.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Pincrete

My involvement extends only to the last 2-3 weeks, becoming involved only as a result of an RFC. I agree with most of what Arthur Rubin says immediately below:

  • Earl King Jr. has sometimes been uncivil, bordering on personal attacks, also tactless in a manner which may have inflamed discussion. He would probably like the article to present a very negative impression of the film and 'movement', however, in my limited experience, I believe he has 'backed off' on behaviour and content when reasonable arguments are presented calmly. Small but significant steps have recently been made in both balance and readability ('documentary style', neutral synopses, removing 'conspiracy crap', 'trademark' and the needless repetition of 'conspiracy theories', have all been changed with little 'drama'). Possibly he should be sanctioned, but a topic ban is not justified and would reduce attempts to make the article WP:NPOV.
  • AndyTheGrump has made personal attacks and needlessly 'personalised' disagreements, but has largely been a positive influence in my short experience.
  • Sfarney repeatedly personalises all discussion in a manner which is combative, on a number of occasions, when asked to stop by me, he intensified and appeared to regard it as his right to do so. I endorse Arthur Rubin's comments about his actions re: BLP. Grammar/Sfarney took little part in discussions on the 'incremental' improvements which I refer to above, appearing to be more interested in 'grandstanding' and 'gladitorialising'. I believe he should be warned about his behaviour, which is persistently disruptive.

I'll supply diffs if required. Since I won't have this on my watchlist, I would be grateful if someone would 'name' me if my attention is required.

nb I strongly resent Grammar/Sfarney's use of my name above to support an argument which he knows I disagree with. The diffs he offers are clearly pointing out the difference between being XYZ and having been described by ABC of being XYZ, a distinction which he consistently refuses to acknowledge or sees as irrelevant (The first is an assertion of fact, the second is an attributed opinion). This is an example of the sort of selective mis-quoting and pointless 'philosiphising' which wastes so much time on talk. Pincrete (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved non-party Arthur Rubin

There are definite problems here, which do not seem to be being properly dealt with on the drama pages. As I see it:

  • Earl King Jr. has been uncivil, and his accusations of editors "supportive" (my term) of the films and/or movement of being "fans" (his term) borders on personal attacks. However, I believe he has a reasonable approach as to what should be in the article or articles. Possibly he should be sanctioned, but a topic ban would reduce attempts to make the article WP:NPOV.
  • AndyTheGrump has made personal attacks.
  • Sfarney has made some personal attacks, and violated WP:BLP on the article talk page and in WP:BLPN while accusing Earl King Jr. (and me, in restoring text) of violating WP:BLP in the article. I'll supply diffs in the evidence phase, but much of the offending text was still there as of the end of the month.

Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

We have a Community General Sanctions proposal (redrafted to our normal standards) in play on ANI for the topic area; the vague idea got 5 yes 2 discussions/questions (one of which was the note it was too vague) prior to my redrafting / reproposing. I would not close since I redrafted, but it looks likely to pass if the same support level transfers to the redrafted, enforceable one. IMHO, it would be wise to wait and see if that consensus and pass happens and if neutral admins working with general sanctions can settle things down, rather than the full effort of a Arb case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I have been deeply involved in the disputes over these articles until early this year, particularly disputes with Earl, departing due to my commitment and ArbCom's advisement to stay away from contentious topic areas following the GamerGate arbitration case. My rather minor involvement since then has been strictly limited to the sidelines until today. At the current ANI case I explained my prior involvement in the disputes mentioned by the initiator of that discussion and cited past instances where Earl's conduct was raised. The current topic ban proposed for Earl is the fourth I can recall. I initiated the first in this thread started by Andy and @Somedifferentstuff: initiated the second one in this thread. As can be seen above, since then @JzG: and @Dennis Brown: have proposed topic bans. From what I have seen and based on my own interactions with him, I think Earl is probably the biggest source of disruption and conflict in that topic area. More than enough evidence exists at present to support a topic ban, perhaps even a site ban given the copyright issues he shows elsewhere. Should the current ANI discussion result in a topic ban for Earl and general sanctions for the topic area then I think this arbitration request will not be necessary. If either of those fails, especially if both fail, then an arbitration request is probably the best way to resolve these issues.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Committee should avoid declining the case until the ANI discussion is closed, I think. At the moment it is not clear that consensus there will see community sanctions implemented or a topic ban for Earl. Should either of those fail, especially if both fail as is possible at the moment, then arbitration is unavoidable. Earl's conduct is long-standing over many years and, in my experience interacting with him, I am not sure anything short of removal from the topic area will resolve the problems he creates and I don't feel waiting for the community sanctions to try and fix his conduct issues is desirable. While I get you won't want to accept a case if both the sanctions and topic ban measures succeed and I agree it would be unnecessary in that event, there should be some allowance for the ANI discussion to close first before you make that call of letting the community handle it. No point in forcing the request to be re-filed and statements remade should the ANI discussion not reach a consensus.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JudeccaXIII

I want to clarify some things since I was kind-of involved with having the article protected. I requested administrator Ed Johnston to protect the article for reasons be 2RR violators & the disputes in the article's talk page. The request is here. Before the request, I had sent warning notices of 2RR violations both to Sfarney and Earl King Jr. Sfarney cooperated with my notification, however, Earl King Jr. removed the notice with the edit summary of ...Ikan. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by mildly involved Dennis Brown

Part of the problem is a common one, too many proposals going on at one time. I proposed a topic ban, it was going strongly, then someone does a GS (overkill, since it boils down to one person), and then he takes it to Arb. Well meaning, but you end up getting zero sanctions when you muddy the waters so much. Regardless, I don't see evidence that the community can't handle it without Arb intervention, so taking the case seems out of process. We need fewer processes, not more. If we would have just left it at the topic ban, there would be no further problems that a block can't fix. Dennis Brown - 01:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by completely uninvolved Softlavender

An ANI, a GS draft, and an ArbCom request, all filed on exactly the same day? And while multiple RfCs are running? Doesn't work. Choose one (or two), and let them run their course and then after a few months ascertain their efficacy, and if necessary, then ArbCom. There's a reason that one of the blanks to fill out here is "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Sanctions are likely to be required, but given that the Zeitgeist movement is pretty much covered by WP:FRINGE I'm not convinced that a new case is needed. There seems to me to be good evidence of long term POV-pushing by Zeitgeist fans, but we do actually have the tools to deal with that and it does not rise to the level of Gamergate or some of the other festering sores on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by completely baffled Rich Farmbrough

  • There is a proposed sanction at AN/I. Therefore "other resolution methods" have not been exhausted. Reject, without prejudice.[1] All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
  1. ^ Without prejudice to a later ArbCom case being brought if the community cannot deal.

Statement by Z1720

I commented on the Zeitgeist (film series) talk page when I saw an RFC proposed by Robert McClenon in late-May.

I observed many conflicts of interests from editors on both sides of the argument who were trying to push their POV. Instead of figuring out what is best for Wikipedia, some editors were trying to win an argument. The above-mentioned RFC (and other threaded discussions) can be seen on the Zeitgeist talk page. Eventually I decided not to comment anymore because I thought my time and efforts would be better served in other articles. If editors still want my opinion on the topic they can comment on my talk page and I will be more than happy to help.

From what I observed in late-May/early-June, the dispute is between some editors who want to give more coverage to the Zeitgeist movement (that emerged from the movie) and those who want to purge information on Wikipedia of the movement because it is potentially a WP:FRINGE topic. I hope uninvolved editors will seek a remedy by consensus so we can put more time into improving the article and Wikipedia.

If this case is accepted I would ask the Arbitration Committee to consider the WP:Battleground behaviour of editors on both sides. I also hope the ArbCom will look at potential violations of WP:COI of editors within an RFC. The proposed remedies should aim to allow uninvolved editors to develop consensus on how to move forward with this article.

Please do not hesitate to comment on this case page or my talk page if you have any questions/concerns about my statement. Z1720 (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Zeitgeist (film series): Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Given that this is being discussed currently at ANI, I would like to see the outcome of the threads there before deciding whether or not to take this case. Yunshui  06:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, given the way things are going there, Decline, with no prejudice towards the filing of new case request if the proposed community sanctions are not implemented/are proved to be ineffective. Yunshui  11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I would also like to see the community processes given a chance to work before initiating a case. Watching those processes but leaning to decline. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Decline. Without prejudice to a case being requested should the community mechanisms fail, but they appear to be working at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I feel like cases should be requested after other dispute resolution processes have been tried, not while they're ongoing. If these are closed and the problems continue, then perhaps it is time for a case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline We can hear this later if it's required (I don't think it is currently), but as it stands I think it just obfuscates other dispute resolution mechanisms which are ongoing. NativeForeigner Talk 13:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline due to current ANI thread. Only when all other avenues of dispute resolution are tried should we look at this. Doug Weller (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline. Community sanctions have not been attempted, meaning that this request is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline. To use a crude analogy, the DR process is a progressive dinner. You can't just skip all the prior steps and decide they weren't worth trying. The ANI looks like it might well solve this, but if it for some reason fails, there is always the option to refile here. Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Motions

Requests for enforcement


Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Handpolk

All Rows4

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning All Rows4

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Kingsindian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 15:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
All Rows4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 2 July Violates WP:NPA stating that I falsified sources
  2. 2 July Again, after I asked him to strike it. I said I will take him to WP:AE if he does not desist.
  3. 2 July Again, refuses to strike it.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

None that I can see.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

While the last DS notice on the user's talk page is in June 2014, so slightly more than a year ago, his talk page comments indicate that he is familiar with WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Since I am accused of source falsification, I have to go a bit into the content. This is just for clarifying the issue: I am not asking you to adjudicate a content issue. I urge you to read the whole section on the talk page.

  1. All Rows4 removed a statement 3 June about the role of Sayeret Metkal, an Israeli elite army unit in the Sabra and Shatila massacre, claiming WP:REDFLAG and stating that the sources were not WP:RS. The sources are:
    1. Fawwaz Traboulsi, ("one of Lebanon's leading academics") A History of Modern Lebanon by Pluto Press, distributed by University of Chicago press.
    2. Alain Menargues, Les Secrets de la guerre du Liban by Albin-Michel, "one of France’s foremost literary and educational publishers".
    I found these sources eminently WP:RS and reverted this change 30 June, and immediately opened a talk page section stating that WP:REDFLAG was inappropriately used, and he should use WP:RSN if he finds the sources not WP:RS. I did not verify the claim itself.
  2. Shortly after, another editor added a "clarify" tag to the sources. I was the one who hunted down the Traboulsi source and reproduced it on the talk page. Since I cannot read French, I requested Nishidani to see if he could hunt down the Menargues source. There is a long discussion on the talk page about the various issues involved.
    The Traboulsi source actually cites Menargues. It states that Sayeret Metkal entered the camps to "liquidate a selected number of cadres" but does not explicitly state that 63 people were killed. The Menargues source is incompletely verified (I have since opened a request on Resource Exchange), but a second-hand opinion source does state that he makes the "63 people killed" claim.
  3. All Rows4 repeatedly violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA stating that I falsified sources, despite the fact that I was the one who hunted down the sources and tried to verify the claim. All Rows4 has simply engaged in removalism, violating WP:PRESERVE.
  4. My aim is not to have any sanctions on All Rows4. I am quite willing to believe that he acted in good faith in invoking WP:REDFLAG, as I said on the talk page. I simply want him to strike his personal attacks. If he refuses, the WP:AE admins can decide the proper course of action. And of course, you are welcome to sanction me if you decide that I did indeed falsify sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talkcontribs) time, 17:28, 2 July 2015‎ (UTC)

I think Rhoark might be somewhat right. These are just talkpage comments, about a peripheral matter, doesn't really matter for article content. I will just forget this happened.
I would like to withdraw this request. Of course, WP:AE admins are welcome to check my conduct if they wish. Kingsindian  21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Can someone close this? I have withdrawn this request. If nobody sees any problem with my own actions, there is no reason for this to be open. Kingsindian  17:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notification

Discussion concerning All Rows4

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by All Rows4

I stand by the charge that Kingsindian has falsified sources. He added the following statement, into an article covered by WP:ARBPIA: "On 15 September 1982, 63 Palestinian intellectuals, notably lawyers, medical staff and teachers, were individually identified and killed by an Israeli unit called Sayeret Matkal.[1][2]".

Immediately after doing so, he explicitly admitted on the talk page that he had not verified either of the sources he used, and in fact, could not do so with regards to at least one of them as he not only has no access to it, but doesn't read French. [7]. For this alone, he should probably be sanctioned, but it is actually worse: In the same edit where he admits to not verifying the 2nd source, he tells us that the first source DOES NOT support the statement that he added: "The other source (Trablousi) mentions Sayeret Matkal going into the camps but not this incident specifically."

Another editor subsequently found and translated the French source that Kingsindian did not read, and it turns out that that source, too, does not support the claim. The claim that "63 Palestinian intellectuals, notably lawyers, medical staff and teachers, were individually identified and killed" is nowhere to be found there. As a side note, that 2nd source, which is the sole source for this claim repeated by other sources, is not a reliable source, but as Kingsindian never even read it, and it does not say what the statement he added claims , it does not even matter.

If needed, I will dig up from the archives of WP:AE multiple cases where people have been topic banned from this topic area for source misrepresentation far milder than this case. This sanction should be applied here. As one example , see [8] where 3 admins supported a 3 month topic ban for an editor who wrote that a source spoke of "more than 2,100 dead", when in fact the actual source said "more than 2000", and in another place attributed a statement to "Hamas Ministry of Health"" when the source actually said "Palestinian health officials". Incidentally, Kingsindian participated in that AE procedure, so he is quite aware that his misrepresentation are at least equally bad.

I do not believe that calling things what they are - in this case a misrepresentation of sources- is a personal attack. Indeed, the archives of WP:AE are full of cases where admins and other editors use this exact terminology to describe very similar cases of using lanaguage not found in sources. I am, however, willing to do this: If Kingsindian acknowledges he was wrong to-reinsert the contested claims without checking the sources , and while knowing that at least one of the sources does not support the specific claim, and agrees to not repeat this behavior, I will change the wording of my claims to "added sources that do not support the claim" instead of "falsified sources".

Statement by Rhoark

Both parties seem to be making good-faith efforts to follow policy and verify sources. This acrimony is not helping anything. I suggest everyone redirect from editor behavior back to the content. Rhoark (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

Well, Kingsindian has always, on the rare occasions he comes here, asked for leniency. I think this is more serious than it looks, because All Rows4, after he had read Kingsindian's complaint here where he could not have but noticed the issue of WP:ARBPIA, insisted on repeating his accusation that Kingsindian falsified sources. He didn't. He restored what appear to be 2 reliably published sources removed on dubious grounds by All Rowse. Al Rowse did not indicate whether he had read those sources. His reason in the edit summary was:

That is a wholly subjective point of view. There is nothing in itself smacking of an exceptional claim in the idea that Special Forces might have been on the ground after Israel had surrounded and sealed the camp a day before the slaughter. Special forces are always first in, in any combat zone like that. On the face of it Alain Menargues (long time Lebanese correspondent for the French Press) published by Éditions Albin Michel, and Fawwaz Traboulsi (Associate Professor of History and Politics at the Lebanese American University) by Pluto Press are not sources one removes at sight.

  • The second removal by Al Rowse, with the utterly silly pretext, 'Kahan commission said no such thing' was also restored by Kingsindian, quite properly, because Al Rowse has no right to remove something because it is not in the document whose conclusions at least he is familiar with (Kahan Commission, which wasn't sourced) but it is in numerous books, as he could have verified by googling for a few seconds (Mark Ensalaco,Middle Eastern Terrorism: From Black September to September 11, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012 p.138 ‘Israel’s complicity in the massacres is beyond reasonable doubt.’), I.e. All Rowse appeared to be removing was something that might not look good for a country's image or good name.

It is particularly absurd of him to accuse Kingsindian of falsifying sources (rather than doing what he himself didn't do, i.e. investigate the matter in depth before jumping to conclusions), when he himself falsifies the source, a source he accepts, by removing most of its content.

Kingsindian did the right thing. He consulted books, asked for collegial research to be done, which is pulling up further details, and using the talk page, which Al Rowse rarely does, and did rather late in the piece (the 63 number which he fusses about is in Ménargues, as any google search would have discovered. I find it offensive that Al Rowse, a consistent removalist, when checked, has accused a very level-headed, even-handed editor of independent judgement of source falsification, then did it himself, then, told of the complaint which asked him only to strike it out, had the hide to proceed, in full awareness of the Arbpia rules mentioned in the complaint, to repeat the infamy and suggest Kingsindian should be sanctioned. This is just for the record. This wear and tear is extremely tedious and leads nowhere, as usual. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

GWH. Kingsindian may have been oversensitive to an imputation of being a falsifier of sources (I get that very regularly, by people who don't read them, but me). I only posted here because Kingsindian has in gentlemanly fashion withdrawn, without obtaining minimum justice. He has a long record of disliking punitive measures here even for those who disagree with him. Not so the edit-warrior All Rowse who writes:' stand by the charge that Kingsindian has falsified sources', and suggests Kingsindian be sanctioned. I think that he too should back down, and retract what is not only unproven, but disproven. Kingsindian has shown style in withdrawing the complaint, All Rowse should reciprocate and withdraw his inane accusation which caused the bother in the first place. Kingsindian should not have to continue to work here with the shadow of an insinuation hanging over him. Honour is important to some people, or was, once. Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning All Rows4

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TopGun

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
TopGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)lTopGunl (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Log: Topic ban from India-Pakistan conflicts & Pakistani politics, Ban explaination by FPAS, Comment after requesting reconsideration (not declined reconsideration but has been made after the request, so I'm choosing to appeal to uninvolved admins).
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, [9]. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by TopGun

The sanction has been made without assuming good faith and with lack of proper judgment and not giving me a chance of explaining - this is quite unfair and punitive. FPAS has accused me of showing gross lack of competence which is not remotely the case. The edit for which I was sanctioned as per the only explanation I got on my talkpage was this [10] saying that it was not reinstating a version better than the one added by that user. In my defense, I had no problem if both got removed... I was infact reverting an SPA who first appeared at Talk:Kargil War in a sock infested RFC with several sock farms in play. I merely reverted this SPA on Indian Army based on his POV pushing. The version it consequently got reverted to (which was the original version beforehand - not my own addition to the article) contained possibly a slight POV which was mostly based around facts. This was removed in the next edit all together by another editor and I was completely fine by that. I did not dispute it, nor did I revert it... that alone showed that my revert to the SPA was a good faith revert on top of the fact that I hardly edit Indian Army. The edit in question is not worth anything more than a talkpage warning at max. It appears that this was an attempt to dish out even handed "punishments" to all involved in the dispute at Talk:Kargil War even though socks were the ones causing the havoc.

I will also note that editors have authority over content (not admins) and as I said to FPAS on my talkpage, I would not have disputed if he had reverted me as an editor - as seen in the removal in next edit of the same - so he has no justification for the sanction in that regard too. There was no pov warring from my side. On the other side (on a related mess), any edits I had made in Talk:Kargil War or the article were either reverting blatantly disruptive editors or obvious socks that any sane editor would revert or strike. The RFC was eventually so much over run by socks that it had to be closed without going forward. In the RFC, after noting my own part in consensus, I started to avoid engaging others and focused on SPI and sock hunting along with trying to stop an editwarring editor (through proper course of action including WP:BRD, talk page discussion and AN3) who was disrupting the same article on an unrelated issue [11]. I edit intermittently, and when I do, I've not been accused or warned by an admin on my talkpage to be heading towards any kind of sanction since the last. What makes this revert such disruptive that it warrants a sanction without warning?

Some background: I have been dealing with a topic area which is highly sock infested. Starting from the abusive sock puppet, Darkness Shines who now returned to troll at this RFC and a few other articles (who I caught and reported along with his sock farm of IPs), there were some other obvious socks too. Dishing out sanctions even handedly is misjudgement and lack of common sense while handling such situations a fact accepted by an admin here with the statement that this is the exact aim of such socks. To cause so much disruption and muddy the waters so much that every one gets some kind of sanction. While this might have been considered something truly beyond control of unaware admins at that point in time, now when all are aware that obscure SPAs along with blatant socks are POV warring, this should not be allowed. Based on this and my block log addendum, working in this content area has earned me a lot of accusations and even admin actions - which were either reverted right then or later when the socks were recognized. My previous AE sanction was also later revealed to be resulted from a long time sock master abusing multiple socks since years and using them all to create fake consensus. I chose not to take this again to a noticeboard and avoid drama, but I'm mentioning this now to show the reviewing admin(s) the extent to which these two editors were socking and hounding my edits. This is relevant here because I suspect, in addition to Darkness Shines, OccultZone socks were also involved in this RFC (although blocked without report). In no way should I have received a sanction, not to mention a sanction escalated 6 month to stale actions that were previously related to / due to baiting of the mentioned sock masters based on FPAS's individual lack of judgment. Instead he should have asked a second opinion or acted impartially while using discretionary sanctions. This would be incompetent use of admin authority if not an abuse while imposing discretionary sanctions on an established editor. Although all my actions including my blocks, sanctions etc (baited or not) are all stale, the sock masters are still active and evidently hounding me and the topic area.

This massive hounding and trolling by socks should have atleast warranted a leeway to revert a (now blocked) nationalist SPA's POV to a last standing version without being sanctioned. Even if my edit was reverting to a POV version, it was not incompetent - the fact that I was catching so many socks is itself proof of competence in handling a POV sensitive, sock infested topic area. It is not an unforgivable offense to make such a revert and esp not one that warrants a quick sanction with no questions asked.

Therefore, I'd request to uninvolved admins that this sanction should be revoked / reverted.

PS. Pakistani politics (a part of the sanction) is an unrelated topic area I seldom edit (I don't know how that came in relation to "India-Pakistan wars and conflicts" disputes). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Response to Future Perfect at Sunrise

Your comment does not address the fact that I did not re-add the statement when it was removed. There was no disruption caused, no editwar (not even a second revert), neither was there any cycle of POV war which you claimed. It was a matter of content which I didn't dispute rather an editor that I considered not Kosher and all his editing in general to be disruptive (such as copy paste complete, exact, comments of IPs into RFC. I was bound to take a look at his editing history to see what other articles he was disrupting. Blanket reverting such SPAs does come in handy at times and the aim is to curb the content they are adding, esp. when dealing with such massive new accounts, out of 10s that I correctly caught to be disruptive and reverted their out right vios, one edit that reverted in bad content in a blanket revert (to another one of those disruptive SPAs) does not qualify as worthy of ban even if considered in context to the whole topic area. At this pace no established editors would be ready to put their hands into this and the socks get what they want (as it happened to the RFC, which got shut down with your WP:SUPERVOTE rather than no result as you ended it to be). I should not be made the scapegoat for what is wrong with the topic area - I'm one of the few editors who are trying to clean it up of socks... of both sides as I face them: [12] [13]). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Response to Human3015

I restored the edit you mentioned on its own merits and I agree with reviewing quality of edits, correct but that does not mean that I am in favour of socking which is evident by my report of the same editor [14]. I don't collaborate with socks or take their opinions into any consideration as you did here to file a report on sock's advise. It only appears the one you are mentioning just came back as soon as he saw you raise his edit and my topic ban [15]. In this case, I was dealing with more socks than a few editors could have dealt with alone. I did what I could - the net result was that many sock farms got detected and blocked (see barnstars on my talk along with diffs above)... there's no need to cherry pick this single mistake (which I did not redo when I saw it was just bad both ways). We don't punish or flog editors on wikipedia. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Human3015, that is pure accusation of bad faith / WP:AOBF, that too not based on action rather inaction of mine towards another sock while I was busy catching a full sock farm. I reported Indian Karate Girl (sock of a banned Pakistani editor) just as it appeared along with its "opponent" sock. Both were done as they happened. Please note that as you chose to comment at this AE appeal, your own actions (esp. the ones here) are also under review. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Human, you're involved... read the criteria on top of this appeal. You've had and have multiple disputes open with me including the one you are mentioning now. I think I've abundantly clarified your concerns that the edit in question was a mistake I accepted / let go long before any admin action. I'll just wait for other admins to comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Response to Shrikanthv

You (re)started the dispute on Kargil war (not me) that eventually lead to an RFC after editors having opinions about both sides had already achieved a consensus that was standing for long... but similar to Battle of Chawinda RFC, my stance in the dispute was correct as per results of Chawinda RFC. Anyway, what you are saying is purely content related. The fact that disputing content brings "turf war" (esp. of socks of banned editors) to an article should not scare away editors and is certainly no reason to ban them. Banned editors should never be allowed to scare away legit editing of an article. Although this has nothing at all to do with the edit that got me topic banned (which I have quite a few times accepted as a blanket revert and an obvious mistake)... I was merely in a content dispute here that was over run by socks (which I did a great effort catching and eventually shutting down). --lTopGunl (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Response to JzG

JzG, actually my stepping back would only help the socks. Since the time I've been topic banned, all those socks have resurfaced [16] [17] and caused much disruption before getting caught. Although I know my topic ban wouldn't stop me from filing an SPI or reporting a block / ban evasion (as that is illegit itself), however, many of these disruptive socks first appear to be genuine editors and I would really not be able to prevent such disruption with this ban (which I have been preventing before) as I won't be able to raise disputes. As for editwar, If you see most of my reverts don't go above 2 (and never ever above 3RR)... I've never reverted so much as to raise any issues of editwar itself, I also show clear indication by starting a talkpage discussion and stopping to revert that I do not intend to editwar whenever I'm in disputes (unless I'm reverting a WP:DUCK confirmed sock). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

The edit I pointed out to TopGun is, of course, not the only matter at hand here, but it is representative of what's wrong with this entire topic area and with TopGun's own approach to it. TopGun is arguing essentially that because the other editor involved was a POV-pushing SPA, he was justified in blanket-reverting it without looking at the merits of the edit. Well, no, he wasn't justified in doing so. In the present situation on those India-Pakistan topics, where several sock farms and crowds of POV-warriors are fighting with each other, all because each of them (rightly) thinks the other side is POV-pushing and then (wrongly) concludes you have to fight that other side with dirty tricks, the very last thing we need is editors making blanket reverts as a routine reaction. The edit in question did not just contain "possibly a slight POV", as TopGun claims now. It contained the grossly obvious (and ridiculously misplaced) POV editorializing of " which ought to be a part of Pakistan. Therefore Pakistan Army had to step in"; it contained the unsourced and equally POV statement that "people of Kashmir wanted to be a part of Pakistan", plus it contained multiple instances of horribly bad grammar (to be fair, the remaining text around it is still equally full of those, but the alternative text parts Tejas MRCA had inserted instead were noticeably better). Tejas MRCA had provided a clear and informative edit summary [18] explaining that he was undoing an old POV edit by some other account that had slipped through some weeks ago [19]. It took only a minute to check the editing profile of that old account to verify Tejas MRCA's assertion (well, except for the fact that he'd wrongly labelled it as "vandalism", when it was "just" a gross POV edit). TopGun's knee-jerk reaction of reverting to this horribly bad edit, merely because he instinctively distrusted the editor who had removed it, was just the paradigm case of the type of action that keeps these vicious circles of revert-warring moving. A responsible editor would have taken the edit, looked at it, recognized what was wrong with both versions, and tried to reword it into something that did justice to both POVs. If you're not willing or able to do that, you shouldn't be editing this topic area at all. Fut.Perf. 09:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Human3015

I'm Human3015. There is some indirect mention of mine here, the main central article here Indian army was later edited by me, and there was some discussion between TopGun and FPAS on my talk page. I just want to say that, as said by FPAS this sanction on TopGun is not just for this one gross edit, but for his overall attitude. You can see user page of User:TopGun, it have many user templates, one if it is "This user supports unification of Kashmir with Pakistan". We don't have to think that he is hardcore nationalist just because of this one template but this can be just one of evidence. And he claim that he just blanket revert sock it doesn't matters merit of edit, ok, but see deep edit history of article Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Excipient0 who is sock of Nangparbat[20] first time deleted apparently relevant and sourced matter from said article [21], who was later reverted by many [22] including Cluebot NG [23]. But this time TopGun don't think about blanket revert of sock rather he go for merit of edit and lastly Excipient0's version restored by TopGun [24]. Here apparently relevant and sourced edit he feel original research, ok, it can be a original research even if edit war was started by sock still we should go for merit of edit. We should check for quality of edit as said by TopGun in restoring sock's version. But he forgot these point while reverting sensible edits by sock on Indian army. --Human3015 knock knock • 10:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • You reported Indian-Karate-girl only after you got topic banned maybe to show how neutral you are, while you never cared to investigate Excipient0 on Anti-Pakistan sentiment when he was active in edit warring and apparently a sock puppet at that time, maybe because he was pushing your POV. In fact, at last you restored Excipiant0's version. --Human3015 knock knock • 12:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • TopGun, you blamed me for doing this sockpuppet investigation on request of other socks. Ok. First of all I never consider any IP or New User as sock at first place, because I am involved in welcoming many IPs and New Users to Wikipedia by welcome template, so I'm very used to with such IPs or New Users, thats why I never started sock puppet investigation against Excipiant0 because he was new user. Also as our discussion is going on "quality" or "merit" of edit than who posts it, I thought advice of that IP was sensible, as I explained in that sock investigation anyone could have perception that he is sock of TripWire, as we know behavior of TripWire, he is also topic banned, see here in detail. Admin FPAS even called him "harmful" to project and "tendentious nationalist POV editor", these are findings of admin. But I was knowing it since long as we were involved in some articles. So as per my Wikipedia experience, such users do have some sock puppets, so my suspicion was worth and was based on the "merit" it doesn't matters who gave me idea for that. --Human3015 knock knock • 13:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Moreover, TopGun want to shift focus of discussion on me. I'm here actually uninvolved editor, because I have not done any ANI to Topic ban TopGun, or I have not requested FPAS to Topic Ban TopGun, but still TopGun moved my comment from un-involved editor to involved editor[25] maybe in the hope that in case Human3015 will also get topic banned. In the start of my comment I have explained my limited role in this issue. Moreover, since he got topic banned my talk page has received many advices, they want to highlight me also. As soon as TopGun topic banned advice by Nangparbat's sock, Indian Karate Girl, advice by TripWire, advice by TopGun himself, and most recent advice by Faizan. There is one "research" posted by Pro-Indian sock against one allegedly Pro-Pakistani "group" of editors related to "India-Pakistan Conflict" which also includes TopGun,[26] though this research is posted by a sock but as we are going by "merit" of the comment this should be considered. --Human3015 knock knock • 14:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • TopGun you said "we have many disputes open between us". You have to name few. I don't think that we have any pending dispute. As far as Indian Army edit is concerned its not dispute, you accepted current version as of now. On Anti-Pakistan sentiment you reverted me then I just left the topic without reverting you so no dispute is there also. Which dispute you are talking about? As far as detailed research of sock is concerned I have no issue over it. So what dispute we have which makes me involved editor? I have never reported you to any board like "Edit warring","conflict of interest", "DRN", "ANI", "Vandalism" nor you reported me for the same. So what pending disputes we have? And whatever disputes we had in past, that much of disputes you had with many other editors, why you are not involving them here? What makes me special? --Human3015 knock knock • 14:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Shrikanthv

Eventhough Topgun has contributed greatly to Pakistan related articles, I agree with this topic ban, seems to allways bring up turf war by bringing in controvercial wordings in the article often leading to long RFC'S e.g Battle of chawinda and can be looked here, finally had to inform all the communities involved and took long discussions to close, same ideology was repeated here at Kargil war the wordings change was totally not needed on who is superior to whom and after opening an RFC, we can also see vigorous reverts and strong sentimental tagging and commenting on each responce. as it is only a topic ban, that too related only with INDIA-Pakistan this should be of no great loss to his contribution and also should save lot of future RFC'S which will come if he is left to edit in this topic Shrikanthv (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TopGun

"Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar, which ought to be a part of Pakistan. Therefore Pakistan Army had to step in"? You're responsible for your edits, regardless of what SPAs or socks are doing. I could buy you were being hasty and reverting more based on who was editing than what the edit was. It would be better to simply acknowledge that mistake than write a wall of text of "socks made me do it". Mntzzr (talk · contribs) needs scrutiny for the original edit. Rhoark (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Rhoark, I agree, it might have been a POV version on par with the one added later, but is it a sanction-able offense while blanket reverting an SPA (not going in and typing in that text)? I don't agree - a note on talkpage would have suffice. I don't mean to say the socks made me do it, simply reverted to whatever version was standing last (my whole statement narrows down to what you are saying; that an editor should be given enough leeway - to make a few mistakes without being cherry picked - based on "who" he is reverting when dealing with explained situation). And as another editor completely removed it, I realized it was better now. Did I even remotely showed signs that I would add that version back after that? No. I think that is plain acceptance even before FPAS ever went through that edit --lTopGunl (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Result of the appeal by TopGun

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • It seems very much as if TopGun would benefit from a break from this topic. If I were TopGun, I would be very much inclined to walk away, wikignome elsewhere for a couple of months, and return refreshed, at which point an unambiguous record of (a) abiding by what is clearly a defensible restriction and (b) showing commitment to Wikipedia rather than one side in a hotly contested area, will make an appeal more likely to succeed. Or, just wait it out. I do not see any realistic likelihood of success for this appeal since TopGun has indeed been edit-warring from a specific POV, regardless of the merits of any of the edits reverted. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TripWire

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
TripWire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)TripWire talk 20:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Log: Topic ban from India-Pakistan conflicts & Pakistani politics, Ban explanation by FPAS.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, [27]. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by TripWire

I havent made any edits in the past few days and yesterday I find myself banned? This is unfair and is not done with good faith. FPAS has accused me of being an "editor whose presence on Wikipedia is motivated almost entirely to a desire to push a certain national POV", which indeed is not the case. Speaking truly, I dont even know which of my edit exactly made FPAS think that I am here 'to push a certain national POV'? Recently, I was only participating at the talk pages and out of the last 200 plus edits that I have made, only 4-6 are actual edits on a page! All the remaining are comments on talks pages. Out of those 4 or 6 edits 2 were to revert a declared edit-warrior (KnightWarrior25). Had the Admins not taken 2 days to blocked him when he was reported for 3RR here these reverts might not have been made. I dont know why he, after committing 7 x reverts within 24 hrs was allowed to play havoc by editing with impunity?

Moreover, not a single edit of mine in the past has been done without discussion on talk pages, I guess that's how things work at wiki, right? How is that POV pushing when you are only editing after discussion? BTW, most of the edits that I wanted to make are still under discussion and hence not been added to any page. How come then I was able to push a POV when the edits were never even made? Reverting a chronic sock like DarknessShines2, who has like 50 socks, only AFTER it was recently banned is POV Pushing?

As you already know that I am a new user, dont be mistaken that I joined wiki 2 years ago. As can be seen from my edit history, after registering two years ago, I only made 2 or 3 edits and since then I was inactive, I only became active a few weeks back. You cant expect me to start editing every possible article on Wikipedia, ofcourse being a newcomer it is but natural that I will begin by editing pages which interest me and then may be expand my edits to other broader topics.

What bothers me is that I haven't made any significant edit since 23 June and I still get banned for POV pushing?

Please note that I have a clean block log.

I am sorry, buy I have to say this that it seems as if because a large no of sock who were pushing Indian POV at the pages I was interested in were banned/ recently, hence FPAS is just trying to balance the equation by banning editors from the opposite side too. Therefore, I request that my ban is lifted.—TripWire talk 21:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TripWire

Result of the appeal by TripWire

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Neptune's Trident

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Neptune's Trident

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Thorrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 02:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Neptune's Trident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Scope_of_standard_topic_ban_.28I.29 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. July 4, 2015 Created a page for the company owned by brianna wu, violating topic ban
  2. 4 July, 2015 Editing the created page which violates the topic ban imposed
  3. 4 July, 2015 Editing the created page which violates the topic ban imposed
  4. 5 July, 2015 Editing the created page which violates the topic ban imposed
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 12 March, 2015 Topic banned from the gamergate controversy broadly construed
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

  • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
  • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Editor is in clear violation of the block already imposed on them

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neptune%27s_Trident&diff=670135134&oldid=670127448

Discussion concerning Neptune's Trident

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Neptune's Trident

If I can be totally honest, the reason I got banned from this topic was because I requested out of good will, (Redacted). This was NOT done out of malice or slander. I simply thought Brianna Wu, listening to her in interviews on NPR and other news outlets (Redacted). I didn't have any reliable sources to back that up so I was pretty much given a 48 hour ban from Wikipedia when I was just trying to improve the article, and my guess is some administrators thought I was being (Redacted) or trying to intentionally slander a subject of a Wikipedia article. I got upset and tried to explain this to the person who gave me the 48 hour ban that I was not trying to slander anyone or (Redacted) or put false information on an already locked Wikipedia article, and that was like red to a bull and another administrator gave me a longer ban on top of that. I wasn't going to respond to this since I'm expecting much the same reaction. I hesitated before adding the link to the Giant Spacekat article on the Gamergate article, thinking, I shouldn't do that, but I just wanted to make the one edit and leave it at that. I admit it, I made a mistake, yet the reasons for me being "banned" from the subject matter were totally unfair in my opinion. I said nothing about the ban since I felt it wouldn't do any good, I was clearly outnumbered, But I foolishly pressed the save button and made the edit on the Gamergate controversy article and here we are. Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

Just a note that I've redacted some of Neptune's Trident statement. WP:BLP applies here as well and I don't think repeating the exact details of the edit that brought on the topic ban is needed anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark

Neptune seems to be a WikiGnome with a strong aversion to talk pages, doing a lot of wikilinks, infoboxes, and company stubs. Most of the links in the section for evidence of awareness are broken, and don't seem to apply to this user. I certainly don't see them mentioned in the ArbCom decision. They were apparently topic banned in March due to a rev del'd edit to Talk:Brianna Wu, which if I had to guess I'd bet was a request to edit the infobox that hit on hot-button MOS:IDENTITY issues. If there's a rhyme or reason to the pages they choose to do their gnome thing, I don't see it. Certainly not any detectable battleground mentality. They may be a field test of IBM Watson, or a Roomba. I suggest a formal admonishment. Rhoark (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Neptune's Trident

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @Neptune's Trident: I'd really like to hear your response to this request. It appears that you have committed a clear-cut violation of your topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Arthur Rubin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
  1. 5 September 2013 Case Tea Party movement Arthur Rubin topic-baned
  2. 23 August 2014 Case Tea Party movement Arthur Rubin amendment
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 12:37, 3 July 2015 disruptive edit, removal of NPOV article page hat
  2. 05:22, 6 July 2015 disruptive edit, restoration of NPOV article page hat
  3. 05:30, 6 July 2015 solicitation of an editor to evade enforcement
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 5 September 2013 TBan as party to TPM case
  2. 14 December 2013 blocked for a week
  3. block log
  4. 23 August 2014 Amendment request; TBan lifted; indefinite 1RR imposed, with appeal available August 2015
  5. Editor restrictions summary
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 14 December 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
  • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 23 August 2014.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Respectfully request advice on whether or not a violation of sanctions has occurred here, first time AE filing here, thank you for your patience.

Background context: Americans for Prosperity is at the intersection of the Tea Party movement, American politics, and climate change. Since March 2015 the article has undergone an extensive collaborative good article drive. The article attracted increased attention as the article approached the completeness required by good article criteria. The article was subjected to content blanking including section blanking and deletion of numerous reliable source references on 22 June 2015. 1RR was imposed. Several threads concerning the neutrality of the article were started at article talk, including "NPOV issue," "NPOV tag," and "Koch Brothers and weight in coverage." Discussion was active and involved about a dozen or so editors, including the reported user. An entirely appropriate NPOV article hat was added 30 June, deleted and restored 1 July.

Reported user behavior: On 3 July the reported user removed the NPOV article hat, without discussion, despite the active, multi-thread, multi-editor talk page discussion on the neutrality of the article, and despite in fact of an existing article talk page thread entitled "NPOV tag." The reported user was requested to self-revert the disruptive removal of the NPOV article hat, at article talk and at his user talk. On 5 July, some content was restored not favored by the reported editor, and the reported editor restored the NPOV article hat, again without discussion, and again despite the article talk page thread on "NPOV tag." The reported user then solicited a fellow editor to circumvent the edit restrictions.

I respectfully feel slow edit warring over NPOV hats, soliciting to circumvent edit restrictions, and encouraging less experienced editors in arguing that a local consensus may be used to override our neutrality pillar, were not the type of constructive edits we had in mind when we granted the reported user a relaxation of his topic ban to one revert per week. I am disappointed an administrator is not modelling best behavior at this troubled article, and saddened to have to ask for comments on this behavior less than two months before an appeal is available to the reported user. Thank you for your time and attention on this.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

User talk:Arthur Rubin Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration. Requests Enforcement Arthur Rubin

Discussion concerning Arthur Rubin

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Arthur Rubin

I fail to see removing an {{NPOV}} tag which HughD disruptively added, and then restoring it after another editor reverted to a version just before another {{NPOV}} was added (the discussion after that tag resulted in the resolution of the issue which Hugh brought up), could possibly be disruptive. As for 1RR, one could argue that the "V"'s revert made my first revert moot, but I chose not to do that. My request at Onel5969's talk page did amount to canvassing.

In other words, only the canvassing was even potentially disruptive.

Hugh added the NPOV tag after his attempt to "blackwash" the article was reversed, in response to multiple discussions which resulted in none of his many requests being accepted.

This page differs from most noticeboards in that the reporter cannot be sanctioned. Perhaps something should be done about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No offense intended, Onel5969, but I believe I removed the NPOV tag once in your sequence of events. Perhaps HughD added it twice? No, I found it. Just after "HughD promptly reverted", I re-reverved, quoting guidelines (as Hugh's action 1). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No offense taken. I had meant to put that in. Thanks, I've added it now. Onel5969 TT me 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
May I suggest the the reporting editors failed attempt to get the article talk page consensus reversed on almost every content noticeboard be considered something like canvassing; personally, I consider it worse, as it is mostly edit warriors who monitor the content boards about subjects that they are not particularly interested in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Onel5969

  1. Consensus was reached on the talk page regarding several NPOV issues which were occurring. Of the several editors involved, only HughD was in disagreement.
  2. HughD has been blocked at least 4 times in the past 4 months for disruptive behavior. In at least two of those instances he unsuccessfully appealed the block.
  3. HughD began a pattern of forumshopping and campaigning listing discussions regarding this article on at least 8 different venues. A campaign which is beginning to bear fruit, as editors who had previously not worked on the article, have now begun appearing on the talk page, in response to HughD's other posting.
  4. Even though the article had reached an NPOV by consensus, since HughD did not agree (and at the time, prior to his campaigning, he was the only editor to not agree), he placed an NPOV tag at the top of the page.
  5. I removed the NPOV tag, stating that consensus did not agree with his tag.
  6. HughD promptly reverted.
  7. Arthur Rubin then reverted HughD's revert.
  8. Another editor then, even though consensus had earlier been reached, and current discussion had not reached a consensus to change that position, reverted the entire article to the original NPOV version - that is the editor who should be blocked from editing on the article.
  9. Since the article was now back in the NPOV version, Arthur Rubin added the NPOV tag.
  10. This appears to be just another one of HughD's actions in a pattern of disruptive behavior, and failure to seek consensus, or listen to that consensus once it is arrived at. Onel5969 TT me 20:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

(Uninvolved, except for participating in an RfC, at least I think it is an RfC)

Can someone explain to me this massive 50k-sized edit, claiming consensus on talk page, by someone who hasn't participated much at all there, and never previously made an edit on the article page? This edit was made in between diff 1 and diff 2, which probably explains the diffs. Some very strange things are going on here.

As a point of correction to Arthur Rubin, the reporter can indeed be sanctioned, if you provide evidence. Kingsindian  20:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No one has addressed it. It should be reverted. I am requesting rollback from an admin. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by HughD

Yes, user Onel5969 also pointedly removed an entirely appropriate NPOV article hat, while a multi-thread, multi-editor talk page discussion of neutrality was ongoing, but his behavior is not the subject of this report, thank you. Reviewers of this report are respectfully requested to ask commenting editor Onel5969 to kindly identify via a diff the point at which the talk page consensus, or talk page consensus minus one, on the neutrality of the article that he claims was achieved (there wasn't one). Hugh (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Further, kindly request links substantiating reprimands or other censure for claims of forum shopping, canvassing, or other. The commenting user has been relentlessly critical of any effort to utilize resources available to all Wikipedians in promoting a collaborative editing environment. Thank you Hugh (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Reviewers of this report are respectfully asked to note that commenting user Onel5069 is the user that the reported user attempted to enlist in a program of team circumvention of edit restrictions, one of many events conspicuously neglected from his chronology, above. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, Thank you for your engagement in this issue. In answer to your question, the edit you mention, was a good faith attempt, by an until recently uninvolved editor Viriditas, to revert the article, to a state prior to the "content blanking including section blanking and deletion of numerous reliable source references on 22 June 2015" mentioned above in the initial statement; by the way for the record please note this blanking was performed by commenting user Onel5969, please see diff 10:59, 23 June 2015 through 23:57, 23 June 2015 , another event conspicuously neglected from his chronology, above. Please let me know if I can help provide additional background on the recent history of this article. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully express to reviewers of this report that the reported user please not be encouraged in his attempt to plead guilty to a lessor charge of canvassing in hopes that his behavior in soliciting another editor to circumvent edit restriction sanctions not be noticed. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Capitalismojo

I fail to see the difficutly. AR removes a tag, AR restores the same tag. Why are we wasting time here with this? This seems to be merely battlegrounding by the OP. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Champaign Supernova

Zzzz. OP is having trouble achieving consensus on this article's talk page so he appears to be trying to pick off his perceived adversaries through an overly legalistic interpretation of discretionary sanctions. I interpret AR's edits in good faith and there is no ongoing edit war over the tags so let's all move along now. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken

FWIW, I bring this AN/I thread to the attention of AE admins. You will have to judge whether it has any relevance to this complaint. BMK (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Arthur Rubin

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.