Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ashtul

Appeal declined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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: Ashtul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: "To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction as documented in the related AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week."

Administrator imposing the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: diff

Statement by Ashtul

First statement

Sandstein, my reverts on Carmel were a misunderstanding of the fact it was subject to WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction as well. It wasn't even part of the first appeal b/c it happened after. I am not that stupid to do a violation again after being reported.

While I understand that 1RR rule should be enforce, I don't see anywhere how long it should be. For an honest mistake, I think 7 days is too severe. Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

Second Statement

I just stumbled upon this so I thought I will give a 2nd appeal a chance.

Seems like Zero who claimed here @Sandstein:: The general 1RR restriction for Palestine-Israel articles was imposed by the Arbitration Committee, not by a single administrator. Zerotalk 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC) hold a different standard for Nishidani, (who was blocked in the past several times) a different standard here. The fact of this case is that N is a good editor who broke 1RR. He should get a short block like anyone should expect when they break 1RR. The rest is hot air. A block doesn't appear on Nishidani's block log so I guess the 1RR blocking rule didn't apply to him.[reply]

In addition, as Callanecc noted on my appeal, Cathar66 wasn't blocked.

Last, my revert is 200% justified which wasn't taken into account either. On Carmel, Har Hebron article, Hammerman's quote isn't about Carmel at all but rather about Umm al-Kheir. Nicholas Kristof's quote is partially about Carmel but then move to Umm al-Kheir thus WP:IRRELEVANT or at least WP:INAPPROPRIATE. The quotes are WP:BIASED and not even connected to the article itself. Just standing there to say Israel/settlers are horrible. Now, to make things worse, a picture of Umm al-Kheir is present (added by one of Nishidani advocates) since -"In the background: Carmel."

Regards, Ashtul (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PhilKnight

I've copied the unblock request to this board. Anyway, I think the edits in question were under WP:ARBPIA, so a block could be applied. A 7-day block for a first block is fairly long, but within admin discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider his second statement to demonstrate a battle ground mentality, so in this context, I think a 7-day block is entirely reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I've commented in the related enforcement request section below that I think that the topic-wide 1R restriction isn't well thought through as written, but it does seem to have been adopted by ArbCom, so it is to be enforced.

It does not appear to be contested here that the edits at issue violated the 1R restriction. Considering that the wording of the restriction reads "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense", it appears to be the intent of the author(s) that no particular consideration should be given to the possibility of a violation resulting from a mistake or misunderstanding. This may be because the intent of the reverter does not affect the disruptive effect of edit wars, which the sanction appears to be intended to suppress. In any case, a mistake or misunderstanding appears improbable here: the edits at issue occurred while a request for arbitration enforcement was pending against the same editor for the same reason, which would have given them ample opportunity to familiarize themselves with the sanction.

As to the block duration, I believe that given the persistently contentious nature of the topic area, a duration of seven days is appropriately long to encourage Ashtul and perhaps others to be significantly more cautious in their editing in the future. In any case, blocks should generally last as long as they are needed to prevent problematic conduct, and I'm still not confident that Ashtul really understands the scope of the restriction and what sort of (particularly restrained) conduct is expected from editors in this topic area, based on their prior statements. The appeal should therefore be declined. Sandstein 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Nomoskedasticity

While the AE discussion was taking place, Ashtul reverted again [1] -- not another 1RR violation, but an amazing action for someone who was at that time being discussed for an obvious earlier 1RR violation on the same article (and the history gives the other previous reverts, if anyone is wondering whether the most recent one is actually similar). This comment accuses me (falsely) of being involved in BDS and shows a more general tendency to cast other editors as enemies -- something this topic area really doesn't need. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cptnono: what?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Cptnono

You increased your length of blocks for first time offenses, Sandstein. I'm also concerned that the editor was just about to "get it" and a 24-48hr would have sufficed. In regards blocking without warning, my understanding from reading the case was that it was intended to stop socks/meats/infrequent editors, not editors who are continuously editing in good faith. Why else would such a harsh restriction be implemented. It seems like an oversight to enforce a standard when it was meant for something else.

That being said, there have been questions of socks in the area and there is a new editor poking around. I guess just take this as constructive criticism, Sandstein.

Then you deserve more criticism than Sandstien, Zero. Are discretionary sanctions meant to both protect and better the project or are they supposed to be punitive? Of course Wikipedia is losing editors when 1 week seems like nothing.Cptnono (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You bring an article in the topic area to GA and then we can talk about what the project "needs", Nomoskedasticity. I didn't do it with Nish, Ashtul, and certainly not you.Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "what"? "something this topic area really doesn't need." Maybe the topic area doesn't need you. Maybe it doesn't need me. It is not up to you decide. You would be surprised that new editors might start off kind of shitty then go on to do good things. It doesn't happen by treating them like scum. So how about you take a break from the topic area while Ashtul is taking a site wide break because I don't think the project or the highly volatile topic area needs you.Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Zero000

Since Ashtul has done hardly anything except edit-war, I think a 7-day block is light. Zero^talk 06:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ashtul

If the sanction is solely for 1RR (and the edits/behavior were otherwise reasonable) then 1 week for the first offense seems excessive. I would suggest reduction to 24/48h (which will probably end up being time served by the time this appeal resolves). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too familiar (that is, not at all familiar) with AE, but I tend to agree with Gaijin42. Cheers, --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 00:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Ashtul

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

Decline appeal. The block was valid so there is no reason to grant an appeal based on that. Given that they've previously edited articles which are under 1RR, including at least one with the edit notice, I don't accept that they were not aware that 1RR was in force as a reason to lessen the block duration as as the duration in this case fits within normal administrator discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for those reviewing that I've added the standard 1RR editnotice template to Israeli-occupied territories (previous version from Nov 2010) and Carmel, Har Hebron. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that Cathar66 wasn't blocked for violating 1RR on the same article if we wish to take that into account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"My revert was 200% justified" completely misses the point. I am also minded to decline the appeal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GodBlessYou2

Topic-banned for six months. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 GodBlessYou2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GodBlessYou2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPSCI#Discretionary sanctions :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Jan 11 Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism (reinserting preferred content after reverting).
Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism (reinserting preferred content after an RfC on the talkpage went badly see previous attempt on Dec 28
Jan 9 Jan 9 Edit-warring on a usertalk page to argue about his POV-pushing.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Dec 30

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Subject of a WP:FTN thread started by the initiator of this request that contains additional discussion: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#GodBlessYou2. He was notified of this discussion: Jan 6. Please see the usertalk page of the user for more discussions as to the problematic behavior. Believe that a broad topic ban from all religion/science/pseudoscience/creationism related pages is in order.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning GodBlessYou2

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 GodBlessYou2

I will confine my response to the original charges made above according to the diffs cited.

1. Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism.

These edits were related to Fine-tuned Universe. It is not creationism nor classified by WP as such [2]. (See also, categories: at bottom of article.) While critics may like to classify FTU it as creationism, I sincerely question if this article falls under the pseudoscience and fringe science editing restrictions.

Even if I'm wrong on that account, my only edits have been related to adding citations to two books and attempting to add these to the list of ==Further Reading==. Both books are written by astrophysicists who address the fine tuned universe issue in a manner intended to make it accessible to non-scientists with an emphasis on why this hypothesis is compatible with both science and religion. I continue to remain confounded by one or two editor's efforts to block this content. More so because two articles by Stephen M. Barr are elsewhere included in the article under External Links. Why the effort to block my adding a book of his on the subject?

2. Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism.

An RfC by Cposper [3] sought opinions on adding one sentence and one source. Numerous editors agreed the source should only be used in the context of other sources and with attribution. I came to the article in response to this RfC. I drafted a section to show Csposper how to use multiple reliable sources to address the issue in a more balanced way. The RfC did not address my draft and is not binding on it. Check the dates. Most all of the RfC's comments were written before my draft and my draft addresses and incorporates most of the helpful comments. It does not preclude new content that addresses the same issue in a more substantive, balanced way.

3. #Jan 9 The so called Edit-warring on a Jytdog's talk page first, does not fall under the fringe and pseudoscience arbitration rules.

Second, and most importantly, the edit conflict was clearly regarding difference in our understanding of policy guidelines governing the deletion of comments on user talk pages. This was addressed by Doncram in this diff [4]. It is further discussed in my own diff here [5]. Arguably, the confusion was due to Jytdog referring me to Wp:TPO in this form [6] rather than to WP:OWNTALK, because WP:TPO clearly indicates at the very top that comments should not be deleted. The confusion has resulted in efforts to clarify this problem per this discussion on the policy guideline page. In short, this wasn't edit warring. It was a sincere effort to prevent what an editor, whom I perceived as one with a history of deleting valid content, from hiding a record of disruptive behavior on his talk page contrary to policy as I understood it, and was even stated as such in the link he provided to defend his deletion.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, every edit in the article I have made has been relevant and well sourced. There wouldn't be any basis for this complaint if the editors making the complaint showed more respect for the good faith contributions of other editors. In general, it is my impression that these articles are subject to a lot of WP:OWN protectionism. Prime example: tag team deletion and talk page equivocations[7] over adding the book by Barrs to the FTU Further Reading list. Seriously?! –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my proposed new section to the article on the creation evolution controversy, you will see [8] that I have not been editing the article but rather confining myself to the talk page to try go the editors to actually discuss the 14 sources and proposed content I have offered. Instead, there is, what I perceive to be a refusal to recognize that there are any differences between my extensive contribution and the one proposed by Cpsoper. I am sincerely trying to get them to focus on the content, but they are so anxious to shut me out (not very collaborative in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, in my opinion) that they are ganging up on me both there and here. I believe the process recognizes that consensus can change, especially if an editor like myself goes to the effort to develop a well balanced section that is clearly topic relavant and based on 14 sources covering both sides of the contentious issue. It may not be perfect, but it is something that can be built on using WP:PRESERVE methods. In my view, it is my accusers who should be reprimanded for not making more effort to work with editors to incorporate material. The only reason I came to these pages was because of Cpsoper's RfC which, on investigation, led me to believe his contributions were being rejected without any effort to help him incorporate them per PRESERVE. My mistake was thinking the other editors here would welcome my efforts to help Cpsoper learn how to find and use a wider range of reliable sources, something AndytheGrump said would be needed in his response to the RfC,,. but now he's angry at me for implementing his advice. Go figure.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Heimstern Läufer comments below. I strongly object to his classification of thise edits as related to pseudoscience. Most importantly, I object to the assumption that my notification of this policy was sufficient if the scope of pseduoscience is going to be different than that by which the articles are marked.

Clearly, fine-tuned universe theory is not considered pseudoscience by Wikipedia categories, the article itself, or by scientists. It is speculation about origins of the universe issue, but that itself does not render it pseudoscience. And what is my "offense" there? Trying to include two books by astrophysicists writing for people interested in the intersection of faith and science in the further reading list, book which delve into depth into the fine tuned universe theory. I continue to be puzzled why I am being prosecuted for attempting to add these sources when clearly it is protectionists who feel they WP:OWN these pages who are hounding out even the most modest edits which support the idea there is no real conflict between science and religion.

Secondly, the confusion regarding the user talk page was due to confusing organization and statements in Policy regarding deletion of comments. It has nothing to do with the psuedoscience discretionary sanctions and should not be considered in any decision.

Third, the article evolution-creation controversy is about the controversy between these camps. Not about the science, or the pseudoscience, properly speaking, as those are addressed in separate articles. It is about the charges and counter charges advocates on both sides make against each other, which may include some science and pseudoscience, but also includes charges of discrimination, which is really political and not the subject of the discretionary sanction being employed against me. My edits on this article are an effort to bring a bit of WP:PRESERVE collaboration to the page to simply support the rather obvious fact that the stated claims and counter claims have been made [9] were clearly done in faith and mostly confined to the talk page. There is no violation of policy.

Finally, your assertion that my edits "are about an attempt to use scientific reasoning to support creationism" is simply false. Show me a pattern of such edits. In fact, I'm not a creationist. I've not argued for creationism. As per the evolution-creation controversy, I have simply dared to acknowledge that there are reliable sources, and numerous wikipedia articles, about the claims made by academics that they are discriminated for questioning the adequacy of evolution and also reliable sources identifying those who have responded to and denied these claims.[10]

Any judgment against me based on the false charge that I am advocating creationism is simply unfair and demonstrates a failure to look carefully at my edits. The real issue, the real reason these complaints have been made against me, is that when I make what I feel are clearly reasonable contribtions and they are shouted down by people with WP:OWN behaviors, I dare to persist instead of being bullied away.[11]. Please do not give the bullies an easy victory based on contributions to pages which don't even properly fit under the discretionary sanctions rule.

I've double checked, and even the evolution-creation controversy page is not marked as being in the category of psuedoscience or fringe science. So the notice regarding discretionary sanctions for these categories should not be applied outside those categories. It is totally unfair to apply topic specific sanctions against editors when the articles are not identified as being within that topic...and properly so....this article is about the controversy between people in these camps, not the actual science or psuedoscientific claims.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking all my article contributions [12] you will see that I only made one edit of Creationism and the diff for edit [13] shows I only tagged a request for a citation regarding the claim that there are three kinds of creationism. That was immediately reverted by Dominus Vobisdu [14] without any explanation. That's it. My only other edit to a pseudoscience article was in regard to Extraterrestrial hypothesis [15][16] both of which simply attempted to clarify the wording in the lead about the lack of any published scientific evidence in favor of ET activity and the U.S. government's official denial that any such evidence exists. Both edits were again reverted by Dominus Vobisdu who appears to claim ownership over articles in which he has some presumed expertise, as a microbiologist and teacher.

In total, in the WP:Category:Pseudoscience, I edited only two articles, with a total of only three attempted edits, all reverted. None of these four edits were pushing religion or confusing pseudoscience with science. I can see no possible way these edits could run me afoul of the psuedoscience discretionary sanctions.

Please reject this baseless charge and rebuke those who have brought it against me.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by John Carter

Tend to support some sort of ban, indefinite or otherwise. I also tend to think that the topic area could use some more attention. I don't myself see clear evidence, in just a quick review of course, of a separate Criticism of evolutionary theory page, for instance, which I think would be reasonable. Some months ago I picked up a book published by the Jehovah's Witnesses (clearly biased, and nowhere near being a reliable source in and of itself, I know, but it was one of a number of freebies I glommed onto at an academic book giveaway), and there seems to be from the apparently reliable sources it cites a reasonable basis for an article on scientific questions of evolutionary theory, either particular aspects of it or the theory in general. An article like that, or on any number of other related topics, might well be valuable and useful. When I finish my current never-ending effort of developing bibliographies of reference sources, I may well attempt generating a list of articles on this topic in encyclopedic sources, but others are free to do so before then if they so see fit. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main article I indicated does in fact exist, under Objections to evolution, and I am grateful for that information. I still think there may be reason to develop further development of articles in the broad topic area, but that is true of most topics and there is no particular reason to think this one would be more of a priority than others. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jps below is probably right. While there is a distinction between "science vs. religion" and "pseudoscience," the bulk of that distinction lies in areas that would probably best be called "philosophy", including perhaps "philosophy of science". The Creation-evolution debate is for the most part, except in some extremist groups, considered closed in the science vs. religion debatae, because, so far as I can tell, most religions have come to the conclusion that creation and evolution are not incompatible. Those groups still postulating "either/or" in this matter in favor of creatiionism are basically dealing with the broad field of "creation science," and so far as I can tell that is counted as part of pseudoscience. Having said that all that, if the AE admins have reservations, I could see maybe going to ARCA again and requesting clarification. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adamfinmo

~~I am involved here and I will try to collect some information and post it here along with a more lengthy statement later in the day. --Adam in MO Talk 19:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

I had intended on adding more here but I think that Andy pretty much has it dead on. Considering this user's behavior at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy and a refusal by them to recognize the consensous reached in the last RFC, I suspect that GBU2 will certainly be considered for a topic ban soon.--Adam in MO Talk 02:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

I'm not great with diffs so hopefully this is sufficient. On Dec 26th another user added this [17] which was quickly reverted. The talk page discussion led to an RFC . Two days into the RFC, with consensus clearly against the inclusion at that point on Dec 28th GBY2 added this section to [18] the article. It was reverted as there was an ongoing RFC covering similar material. On Jan 7 the RFC was closed with consensus against adding such a section [19] On Jan 11 GBY2 readded the section (even bigger this time) [20] against the consensus just a few days old which was again reverted.

Here we have GBY2 edit warring on a user talk page [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], until finally stopping after being threatened with a block [26]. This can be chalked up to not understanding talkpage rules but it displays the tendentious attitude in almost all of GBY2's editing.

On Jan 6 in Fine-Tuned Universe GBY2 added two books to further reading [27], this was reverted. They then tried to add one of the books as a ref [28], this too is reverted. They add a book back to further reading claiming vandalism [29] this is again reverted, this time by a different user who goes on to add it correctly in the right place. On Jan 11th GBY2 once again tries to add the further reading [30] and yet a different user reverts them. They try to add it yet again [31] and are once more reverted. All the while consensus was also against the inclusion of these books/sources on the talk page yet GBY2 forged ahead regardless.

All of GodBlessYou2's contributions are in the realm of religion, mostly creationism and its offshoots. This mainly started at [32] where they displayed they didn't understand what constituted an independent reliable source in regards to scientific or fringe claims. Capeo (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design is pseudoscience and the section GBY2 tried to insert both during and after the RFC depended mainly on the "documentary" Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and reviews of it, as a source.Capeo (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So now not only has GBY2 tried once more to insert the same exact section that has no consensus, as Andy points out below, but they also added this gem [33] to an essay, essentially claiming we're all lazy for not finding their inclusion worthwhile. Capeo (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now GBY2 has started another RFC on the same wording already dismissed by consensus [34], worded such that however you answer you'd be agreeing for some level of inclusion and based on a very strange interpretation of WP:Preserve. Capeo (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndyTheGrump

A further example of GodBlessYou2's refusal to accept consensus at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy - combined with a blatant misrepresentation of demonstrable facts: [35]. GodBlessYou2 writes that "...the only appeal is to a stale RfC. The RfC was about one reference and one proposed sentence." The RfC closed less than a week ago. It mentioned no reference, and made no specific proposal regarding text. [36] This gross misrepresentation, combined with a refusal to accept consensus, suggests to me that at minimum a topic ban is required. Though frankly, given that this refusal to accept consensus seems to be an ongoing issue with this contributor (see this [37] discussion on another topic entirely, where GodBlessYou2's reponse to a clearly-developing consensus was to make the same proposal again, slightly reworded, and insist that it be discussed again) I have to wonder whether we would be better off without such contributions at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to 'pseudoscience-relatedness', it is worth noting the specific context of GodBlessYou2's confrontational behaviour at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy - his insistance that the article contain material on the claim (not even generally supported by Creationists), that Creationist scientists have been systematically discriminated against by the scientific establishment. While Creationism itself certainly isn't of itself scientific, or pseudoscientific, the claims made by some Creationists regarding mainstream science (particularly but not exclusively evolution) are certainly seen as pseudoscientific by many (including, it should be noted, the U.S. courts in their rejection of 'Intelligent Design' as legitimate science), and an assertion that such Creationist 'science' is being suppressed would seem to me to fall within the remit of the sanctions. It is, after all, common for proponents of fringe viewpoints to claim a conspiracy to silence them. Using Wikipedia to promote such fringe claims amounts to promoting Creationist 'science' - and doing so in a manner that does so not on its scientific merits, but on the basis of a fringe conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory that amounts to an attack on the legitimacy of science itself. If this doesn't fall within the remit of ArbCom sanctions in relation to pseudoscience, it would seem to me to certainly be covered by more general policies regarding appropriate weight, legitimate sourcing and the rest in the article concerned - and accordingly, if GodBlessYou2 isn't to be sanctioned for his tendentious behaviour at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy here, the matter will need to be resolved elsewhere. And for the record, I would like to suggest that the 'fine-tuned universe' article may also be within the scope of sanctions relating to pseudoscience - and certainly seems to be subject to some systematic POV-pushing to exclude commentary from the scientific mainstream. I'll not offer further evidence on this for now, however, since I've not really studied the subject matter in the depth necessary to entirely disentangle the legitimate debate from what appears on the surface at least to be special pleading based on preconceptions based around religious belief - certainly an article supposedly about a scientific debate seems to use the word 'God' rather a lot. The problem again isn't that religion has something to say about the universe - of course it does, and of course it should - but that particular views developed from a religious viewpoint are being promoted as science in an undue manner. Maybe these views aren't pseudoscience - if only because the scientific mainstream has little settled opinion to contrast them against - but the promotion of specific scientific hypotheses because they accord with a particular religious perspective is certainly undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And so it continues. GodBlessYou2 has just posted the same arguments yet again, based on exactly the same falsifications previously used to try to Wikilawyer around a clear and conclusive RfC result. [38] At this stage, I'm beginning to wonder whether this should be taken to ANI, with the intention of discussing an indefinite block on WP:COMPETENCE grounds. This isn't just a failure to drop the stick, it is a failure to actually even respond to adverse commentary at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And on it goes - with GodBlessYou2 now stating a bogus 'RfC' (clearly lacking even a façade of neutrality) over content already rejected on multiple occasions. [39] I have began to suspect that this tendentiousness is actually intended to bring about sanctions on GodBlessYou2, who will no doubt then consider his claims of a 'conspiracy' proven. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to GodBlessYou2's assertion above that " It is totally unfair to apply topic specific sanctions against editors when the articles are not identified as being within that topic", I would point out that the word 'pseudoscience' appears four times in the body of the creation-evolution controversy article, and that the talk page contains a header indicating that discretionary sanctions applied to the page. And perhaps more to the point, I find it impossible to believe that GodBlessYou2 is unaware that the objection from the scientific mainstream to Creationist/'Intelligent Design' arguments against evolution in the debate covered in the article is that in as much as they amount to anything approximating scientific discourse, they are pseudoscience: something that "is not scientific" although "its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific". [40] Accordingly, I have to suggest that GodBlessYou2 is engaging in yet more of the tendentious Wikilawyering that brought about this case in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jps

I echo what AndyTheGrump says about pseudoscience-relatedness, and argue strongly that the edits under discussion here are 100% pseudoscience-related contrary to the attempted demarcation offered by Sandstein below. To give a kind of seminar tutorial in this subject, the National Center for Science Education (I would argue the foremost authority on identifying pseudoscience in the context of the creation-evolution controversy) identifies the precise aspect of the fine-tuning argument which is pseudoscientific here: [41]. This is exactly the same aspect that GodBlessYou2 is pushing. Claiming that the conflict thesis of religion versus science is somehow a separate issue from science versus pseudoscience actually skids dangerously towards adopting the position of intelligent design pseudoscientists make in their Teach the Controversy — another argument that is itself rank pseudoscience promotion. In other words, it is clever propaganda meant to legitimize positions that are pseudoscientific — intending to make them look like a conflict of worldviews rather than pseudoscience. Remember, the discretionary sanctions are on topics that are "broadly construed" precisely because this kind of gaming is so common in contentious areas (of the "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" level of intellectual argumentation). jps (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sławomir Biały

Sandstein's argument seems to be that the edits in question do not fall within the mandate of the PSCI decision, because they concern the culture war rather than science. If that were truly the case, then Sandstein's argument would be quite convincing. However, it does not seem to me that the edits in question do concern the culture wars per se. Rather, they concern the Creationist claim (as advanced by one particular piece of unreliable propaganda) of exclusion the scientific process because, they allege, their "scientific" work is censored by the establishment. This is not a statement about religious belief versus science, but specifically that the Creationist agenda of "questioning evolutionary theory" (in the style of Teach the controversy) are legitimately scientific. For example, from [42], "This consensus is so embedded in academia that some critics believe it has created a chilling effect on scientists who might raise questions regarding the adequacy of evolutionary theory." Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

I recommend a topic ban from creationism-related pages for civil POV-pushing beyond the bounds of reason. Godblessyou2 has now got a third RfC, within a few weeks, going, on essentially the same issue on the talkpage of Creation–evolution controversy, ignoring that there has all along been solid consensus against what he wants to do. (Before somebody points out that he didn't start the first RfC, I'll mention it myself.) I gave him a pseudoscience discretionary sanctions alert a while back, and I have already warned him several times against uselessly wasting editors' time.[43][44] The first diff, from 31 December 2014, contains my reply to his (incredulous) question whether discretionary sanctions can be imposed for arguing for inclusion of material on the talk page: "yes, discretionary sanctions can be imposed for arguing on the talkpage, if it's taken far enough and uselessly exhausts too much of our most precious resource (=the time and energy of out volunteers). It's been done". To me, the amount of beating a dead horse and the level of civil POV-pushing GBY2 has demonstrated on that talkpage over several weeks is well ripe for a topic ban from creationism-related pages. I would already have instituted such a ban myself, except that when I went check out the article talkpage yesterday, to take stock, I realized I may be considered too involved (even though I've never edited the article), since I "voted" in the first RfC. But a topic ban is what I think should be done. This is the kind of thing that burns out good-faith competent editors.

@Sandstein: Godblessyou2's whole argument is about whether or not creationist scientists are discriminated against by academe, as regards getting their papers published, getting hired to pursue their research in an academic setting, etc. Yes, creationism may be taken as simply religious, but this is all about creationism as science — GBY2 is pushing it as science. In that context, it is certainly pseudoscience. I don't think the OP has the emphasis right — e. g., never mind the mistake about restoring posts to user talkpages — but I do believe sanctions under the pseudoscience DS purely for the way GBY2 has acted on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy would be wholly appropriate. We need to give some protection to the protectors of articles. Bishonen | talk 07:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Dominus Vobisdu

Since this case was started, User:GodBlessYou2 has continued to pursue his "proposal" by launching another RfC on the article talk page, which has been characterized by numerous responders as serious flawed and tendentious. See [[45]].

He also appears to be canvassing: [[46]].

This editor is deeply unsatisfied with the rigor of our sourcing policies. He has tried to loosen the notability guidelines for fringe films: [[47]]

And has proposed that sources should be considered reliable if they appear in Google News searches: [[48]]

He refuses to accept the fact that our policies forbid the additions that he wishes to make to this and other articles, and has a serious case of WP:IDHT. He also has a penchant for accusing fellow editors of working against him, and resorts to appeals to WP essays, which he himself tried to alter, to back up his behavior, blithely ignoring our core policies and overwhelming consensus by many editors in the process.

He (not so indirectly) accused his fellow editors of being "lazy" his edits to one of the essays, in that they should try to "preserve" something of his additions, even though they violate our core policies: [[49]]

This is indeed a pseudoscience related case, as the material he is trying to insert pertains to how pseudoscientists feel "persecuted" or "suppressed". He bases this all on in-universe fringe sources which he persists on insisting are reliable despite being told by many fellow editors that the contrary is the case.

WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR apply here, and I see little hope that this editor will ever be able to edit productively, particularly on controversial topics. He has squandered lavish amounts of his fellow editors' time, and will undoubtedly continue ad infinitum. I see no other viable option than an indefinite block under discretionary sanctions. Trying to reason with him has gotten me, and many other editors, precisely nowhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (User)

Result concerning GodBlessYou2

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

Three diffs of three different edits aren't evidence of edit-warring. We'd need dated diffs of each and every edit making up the edit war for that. This report may be quickly shelved if the evidence is not supplemented accordingly. Sandstein 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there's some evidence now of confrontative, tendentious editing. But can somebody explain how this is in scope of the sanctions? After all, evolution and the "fine-tuned universe" are not fringe science, and as far as I know the objections to evolution are essentially religious, not scientific (or even pseudoscientific) in nature and motivation. So where's the pseudoscience-relatedness in all of this? Sandstein 06:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump, I understand that there are forms of creationism that are portrayed as scientific, such as creation science, and these are probably pseudoscience and subject to sanctions. But the edits at issue here are not related to such "religion in the form of science" topics, but rather they appear to be related to the "religion versus science" debate that is at the core of the cultural controversies related to evolution, and that is not a topic covered by discretionary sanctions. So, unless other admins see something I don't, I'm of the view that this conduct is not within the scope of discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 09:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with AndyTheGrump and jps, and contra Sandstein, I view these edits as falling into the area of pseudoscience (excluding the talk page edit warring ones, which appear to be based on a misunderstanding of policy and for which DS seem like the wrong tool). The edits, from what I can see, are about an attempt to use scientific reasoning to support creationism, thus making it fall under the topic of pseudoscience. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right - distinguishing the cultural and religious issues from the scientific ones is tricky here, I think, and I'd prefer to be cautious - but if you think that this is within the scope of the sanctions, I leave it to you to determine which action, if any, is appropriate. Sandstein 17:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Sandstein and to others here: Bit busy now. Will try my dangdest to come back to this soon, but real-life deadlines are approaching. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this situation in more detail, I'm seeing a strong I didn't hear that problem here. I'm afraid that seems sufficient for a topic ban. As this is a first ban, I'll probably issue it for a finite duration. Will leave this open a bit to see if there is any more input. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JzG

Closed with no action against JzG. All parties are reminded that conduct at WP:AE is actionable and that abuse of the process to pursue personal grudges, cast unfounded aspersions about others or to advance an off site agenda will result in sanction--Cailil ^talk 11:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 JzG

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: A1candidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

12:45, 8 January 2015 - Violates WP:NPA by calling me an "acupuncture advocate"
14:08, 8 January 2015 - Violates WP:NPA by stating in the edit summary "go away, stupid person"
10:36, 9 January 2015 - Violates WP:NPA by stating "and now you look a bit silly"
17:02, 9 January 2015 Violates WP:NEWCOMER by accusing a new editor of being "a pertennial gadfly with an axe to grind"
13:43, 11 January 2015 Violates WP:CIVIL by stating "how the fuck are we supposed to control POV-pushing?"
00:47, 14 January 2015 Violates WP:NPA by stating "you were the problem then, and it sounds very much as if you still are"
08:33, 15 January 2015 Violates WP:NPA by stating "you are in a minority of one, and clearly obsessed with this particular article"
19:17, 15 January 2015 Violates WP:CIVIL by stating "of all the low-lifes in the world, the cancer quack is probably the worst" and "he is a perfect example of crank magnetism at work"
23:20, 15 January 2015 Violates WP:NEWCOMER by stating "given your extremely limited editing history, I am inclined to dismiss your concern"
23:29, 15 January 2015 Violates WP:NPA by calling me "an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

11 January 2015‎ - User:HJ Mitchell warned him to comment on content, not on contributors, and this warning was to be "logged as a discretionary sanction"

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

8 January 2015 - Alerted about discretionary sanctions regarding pseudoscience and fringe science
12 January 2015 - Alerted about discretionary sanctions regarding complementary and alternative medicine

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violates WP:NPA by calling an editor "the most severe (stupid person) was already dealt with at the previous AE". (02:37, 16 January 2015) His comment about a particular "OP" deals with a separate editor, not me.

Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violates WP:NPA by calling editors "fringe promoters on alternative medicine" (06:22, 16 January 2015). He claims that I am adding "grossly unreliable sources", without stating which sources, and he accuses me of pushing pro-fringe material without giving evidence in the form of diffs.

TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violates WP:NPA by calling me a civil-but-tireless POV-pusher (02:30, 16 January 2015). In this arbitration filing, he commented in an area reserved for uninvolved administrators only, despite his status as an WP:INVOLVED administrator as evidenced by his recent participation in the talk pages of Energy Catalyzer, Homeopathy, and Miracle Mineral Supplement: 19 November 2014, 2 December 2014 and 12 January 2015. Based on the evidence shown above, TenOfAllTrades is clearly an involved administrator.

Sandstein:

I am not an advocate of these treatments. I only support the scientific study of these therapies.
I have previously removed positive studies about acupuncture (diff) and Transcendental Meditation (diff). If I were to advocate for anything, that would be for the faithful representation of scientific and medical literature per WP:MEDRS.
A significant portion of TenOfAllTrades's recent editing falls under the category of pseudoscience, fringe science, or complementary and alternative medicine. In addition, TenOfAllTrades has participated in several content disputes about these articles (19 November 2014, 2 December 2014 and 12 January 2015) and is therefore an involved administrator in these disputes.

RAN1:

Please read WP:MEDRS carefully. The Cochrane review was removed because it does not support what was being stated in the article, not because it fails WP:MEDDATE (Cochrane reviews are generally exempted from WP:MEDDATE). The other review fails WP:MEDDATE and was therefore removed. I stand by my edits because they absolutely conform to WP:MEDRS.

Further discussion removed by an administrator because it relates to a content dispute and is therefore beyond the scope of this forum. Sandstein 17:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare:

There is a difference between being direct and being plain abusive and provocative. JzG uses foul language, makes baseless accusations, repeatedly bites the newcomers, and repeatedly comments on contributors instead of content. I do not claim to be a perfect editor and if you dig hard enough into my contributions, you might be able to find something that slightly borders on infringement of a guideline a while ago, but I believe I have nothing incriminating to hide. Feel free to search my edits, but until you find something incriminating, my conscience remains clear. I am not an advocate of acupuncture, neither financially nor otherwise.

QuackGuru

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a disruptive editor who has been repeatedly blocked for multiple counts of edit-warring and disruptive editing. Problematic behaviorial issues include:

30 March 2014 - Accusing me of sockpuppetry, without evidence
30 March 2014 - Removing my request for clarification and accusing me of sockpuppetry again, without evidence

24 May 2014 - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming the the tattoo marks of Ötzi the Iceman suggest some form of acupuncture "developed independent of China"
15 August 2014 - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming that the tattoo marks of Ötzi the Iceman are supposedly "acupuncture points"
16 August 2014 - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming that "acupuncture was previously used in Europe 5 millennia ago"
16 August 2014 - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming that "an acupuncture-like therapy was already used in Europe 5 millennia ago" and the tattoo marks correspond to "acupuncture points"
17 August 2014 - Repeated advocacy for pro-fringe material using unreliable, non-WP:MEDRS sources, despite earlier consensus against its inclusion
3 January 2015 - WP:Ownership of articles according to comments such as "I added a quote to ensure no editor claims the text is unsourced."

I reverted his edit because they contained many sources that fail WP:MEDDATE and he was advocating for pro-fringe material using a speculative claim that the tattoo marks on Ötzi the Iceman are supposedly "acupuncture points". This mass addition was performed without any attempts at discussion whatsoever, and that is why I removed it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01:36, 16 January 2015

Discussion concerning JzG

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 JzG

This is abuse of process by one of a number of fringe advocates who are engaged in a determined campaign to undermine the scientific rigour of our coverage on quackery. Given the determined and vexatious nature of quackery advocacy on Wikipedia, it is unsurprising that a dumpster dive through contributions of any reality advocate will turn up instances of tetchiness, especially since it is usually necessary to explain policy repeatedly, in words of one syllable, and even then they just keep asking, and will always keep asking until they get what they want - something not in our gift, because what they want is for science to completely change and their beliefs to become true. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gaijin42

The diffs that predate the 11th are prior to the warning, and the most severe [diff] (stupid person) was already dealt with at the previous AE that just closed.

In diff #6 the OP accuses Guy of WP:WRONGVERSION and threatens to take him to ANI, Guy responding on his own talk page that he thinks the OP is a problem editor seems pretty justified
#8 is not a civility issue at all, he is clearly talking about the subject of the article G._Edward_Griffin who is indeed a well known crank.

This seems like editors that didn't like the previous result trying to take two bites at the apple, but JzG could certainly tone it down a bit, while still holding the line against the quackery. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A1candidate My "stupid person" comment is a direct reference to diff #2 that you posted above. As for the "OP" one, I was providing the context for Guy's comment, not accusing you personally of anything. But I do find it interesting that you are finding so many diffs that do not involve you to complain about. If this is the way conversations generally go in this topic area, I am not surprised that Guy lost his cool. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc Since A1 mentions the CAM sanctions in his report against JzG, wouldn't that be sufficient to say he was aware of them at the time of his posting? Also he was a named party on the CAM ArbCom case where the sanctions were applied by motion and he commented there significantly. Either seems to satisfy point #2 of the "awareness" criteria? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dominus Vobisdu

There is a WP:GAMING tactic currently being used by several fringe promoters on alternative medicine articles to provoke other editors into reacting and then calling them out for being uncivil. This complaint is a good example of trying to eliminate opposition to fringe promotion. I myself stopped editing altogether for several months because of my disgust at this phenomenon. I believe that boomerang applies, and that the OP should be topic banned from all articles related to medicine, including alternative medicine and related topics, broadly construed. This has become such a serious problem that alternative medicine articles are now covered by discretionary sanctions because fringe promoters tried to evade discretionary sanctions related to pseudoscience topics. This particular editor has been tendentious and disruptive, and pushing pro-fringe material backed up by grossly unreliable sources. Civil POV pushing is an apt description of his behavior. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RAN1

Short comment: A1candidate’s TM diff was immediately preceded by a number of edits removing the sourced consensus that research on TM was of poor quality, making the lead statement to that effect unsourced. His justification for this was primarily MEDDATE on <10 year old articles. See here (~13:12, 10 January 2015). —-RAN1 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion removed by an administrator because it relates to a content dispute and is therefore beyond the scope of this forum. Sandstein 17:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Resolute

After seeing the comments at Jimbo's talk page that led to this request, I figured this would be a bad faith attempt at gaming the system by A1Canaditate. Having read this and the other comments, I am now convinced as such. In particular given how A1candidate is accusing people who disagree with him of various sundry violations simply because they disagree with him. I would agree with ToaT that this is more likely to be a WP:BOOMERANG situation than anything else. Reso lute 16:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

@Sandstein: Can you please clarify how the accusation of being "an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas" is true? If you're referring to acupuncture, and I assume that you are, I believe that you are mistaken. My only prior knowledge of acupuncture is what I see in the movies and on TV. But when I looked it up at:

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services[50]
The Mayo Clinic[51]
The National Cancer Institute[52]
The American Heart Association[53]
Encyclopedia Britannica[54] (which theoretically should produce an article roughly similar to ours)

Not a single one of these sources described acupuncture as pseudoscience, and these sources are about as mainstream and respected as they come.

As best I can tell, the POV that acupuncture is pseudoscience is a WP:FRINGE or minority POV (perhaps even significant minority) but certainly not scientific consensus. This appears to a case where editors who claim to be arguing in favor of scientific consensus are actually arguing against scientific consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pekay2

I fervently agree with aqfk. I would add--this whole fringe, quackbuster focus is an anachronism in my view. History is replete with yesterday's quackery as today's science, and yesterday's science as today's quackery.--Pekay2 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QuackGuru

A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on 26 June 2014. A1candidate deleted MEDRS compliant sources and his edit summary did not give a valid reason to delete all the text or sources from Acupuncture. A1candidate made mass changes to Transcendental Meditation without consensus. A1candidate deleted text from the lede and body that describes Traditional Chinese medicine as largely pseudoscience after there was a long established consensus.[55] See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_92#Traditional_Chinese_medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Callanecc, in case you missed it A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on 26 June 2014. So admins are able to take further action against A1candidate at this time. Of course, he deleted the notification. A1candidate was also notified of the sanctions for acupuncture on 12 January 2015. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JzG

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

The quality of the diffs provided, when examined in context, suggest that A1candidate is a ripe candidate for a boomerang. WP:AE is not meant to be used by a civil-but-tireless POV-pusher to try to eliminate editors who seem to have a much firmer grasp of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:MEDRS. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request is unfounded. Insofar as the diffs submitted as evidence postdate the civility warning, they are not personal attacks, at least not to a sanctionable degree. Instead, a look at A1candidate's editing history makes it appear likely that JzG's assertion that A1candidate is "an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas" is true. They seem - at least since Summer 2014 - to edit exclusively in this topic area, including such articles as Transcendental Meditation, Traditional Chinese medicine and Acupuncture, and their edits seem to be intended to present these methods in a more favorable light. I invite comment by admins, and evidence by others, as to how and whether this might amount to sanctionable conduct.

I'm also of the view that A1candidate's contention that TenOfAllTrades is an involved administrator is not supported by any evidence submitted here. Involvedness might arise from a personal, direct dispute with A1candidate, of which we have no evidence, but not merely from the fact that TenOfAllTrades has edited in the same topic area. TenOfAllTrades's view that A1candidate is a "civil-but-tireless POV-pusher" is an administrator's assessment of misconduct and not a personal attack. Sandstein 11:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with that assessment and am inclined to decline to take action against JzG regarding this complaint. I'm not sure if I was just turned off by the excessive pseudo-legalese format in which everything was presented, but at a bare minimum, #1, 5, and 7 are also not at all evidence of misconduct. WP:CIVIL does not mean "unfailingly polite in all aspects of one's speech," and not all comments require that everything be footnoted and filed in triplicate. It is sometimes nice and even required to have that, but it would also be nice to live in a world with delicious calorie-free chocolate and no alt-medicine quacks. I don't (necessarily) think that A1candidate meets that criteria, but I think a closer examination of their recent edits are warranted. NW (Talk) 14:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, NW, are you sure you're an uninvovled admin? This comment seems to suggest that you are rather friendly with (and thus not objective regarding) JzG, and your recent comment a A/R/C also suggests that you are not impartial on this subject and you even stated that you wouldn't consider yourself uninvolved. Coupled with the relative infrequency with which you participate as an admin at AE, it would be easy for somebody to get the impression that you were 'defending your mates'. I've seen you admin in other areas for many years, so I don't believe that is your intent but I would respectfully suggest that you move your comments to your own section and leave the adminning to admins who come to this issue 'cold'. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question Harry, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. There are certainly a number of medicine editors who I would consider myself on good enough terms with to not take admin action. I would not say say that JzG is one of them; I think we may have worked together on an article at some point 3-4 years ago (Abortion?) but I honestly cannot remember. I do not believe that it was too extensive though. The comment I left on his talk page was intended to both clarify Arbitration policy and also to simply leave a humorous comment for all those editors who are serious about WP:WEIGHT who might come across it – which is not an insignificant group considering that JzG has a reputation for zero bullshit in this area and has the eighth most-watched user talk page on Wikipedia. For the recent ArbCom case request, I tried to err on the side of caution (I recall making a few comments as to what I remember as being accuracy of a few sources on Talk:Acupuncture a little while ago) but I generally have always tried to act as an administrator in alt-medicine articles generally rather than as an editor, as it is not really a topic area of particular interest of mine (my real life interests in medicine are not something I edit on Wikipedia much or even at all). The reason why I interact with it at all on Wikipedia is because I believe it to be the highest profile portion of WikiProject Medicine where WP:MEDRS is routinely flouted. I don't believe the facts that I come into AE with that perspective and don't participate much in the rest of AE is a significant problem, quite the contrary – I would rather stay out of requests if I don't know what is going on. But perhaps others disagree with that perspective. As always, I would appreciate feedback from you and anyone else. Best, NW (Talk) 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it happens that there is agreement among the admins here to close this without action, and even if you were involved, I don't think your comment was the deciding factor there, so it's a bit of a moot point. I'm satisfied with your reply personally. The geo-political disputes are more our stock in trade at AE (though I can see alt-med/psudoscience/fringe science or gender politics and sexuality becoming roe dominant in the future), and some of the admins who are tangentially involved there often comment here as admins but recuse if anybody raises a good-faith objection and generally let another admin close the request and log any action—it might be wise for you to do something similar to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dominus Vobisdu: You violate the prohibition against casting aspersions on others, an aspect of WP:NPA, by asserting that A1candidate "has been tendentious and disruptive, and pushing pro-fringe material backed up by grossly unreliable sources" without at the same time providing actionable evidence for this serious accusation of misconduct. Please provide such evidence in the form of dated diffs as soon as possible, within 24 hours of your next edit following this message, or you may be made subject to a block or ban. Sandstein 17:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, though striking the remark would also be acceptable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that filing this request – which is legalistic, poorly-judged in its choice of evidence, and appears principally to be trying for a second bite at the apple just closed by HJ Mitchell a few days ago – certainly represents prima facie "tendentious and disruptive" conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive, perhaps, but no evidence of "pushing pro-fringe material" and using "grossly unreliable sources" is apparent.
In response to some comments above, the removed comments are not helpful to admins evaluating this request. Involvedness requires evidence of a bias for or against a particular editor or contested content issue, rather than expressing an opinion in very broadly related topic areas. My comment above did not relate to acupuncture specifically, but to the totality of topics edited, which have in common that they are disputed with regard to their scientific validity or lack thereof. Sandstein 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best to close this thread – as it appears that there is little evidence or appetite for a sanction against JzG – rather than let it get sidetracked into a tangent bickering about A1candidate's conduct? If there are editors with specific concerns on that front, I suspect that they will find that a well-formed, dedicated enforcement request regarding A1candidate's behavior would be more focused and better able to address the issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with closing it without prejudice to a request being filed against A1candidate. I'm less than impressed with both parties, but JzG's tone was addressed in the warning last week; I don't know if he's heeded it, but there's nothing in the diffs that is absolutely outrageous (though the "low-life" remark in diff #10 would have been, had it been directed at an individual). It's not about knee-jerk "civility" enforcement, but about creating a hostile atmosphere in the topic area, and I note that that comment was made on a user talk page, not an article talk page (DS apply everywhere, but comments on a user talk page do not contribute as much to a toxic environment in the mainspace as comments on an article talk page do). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As all of the admins who have commented here so far are long familiar, dealing with this alleged "civil POV pushing" is a difficult task. It is a huge annoyance to have someone being an excessive stickler for the rules instead of actually being willing to work with other editors to figure out what everyone wants for the article so that it meets the underlying principles being WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, etc. This AE report is not a helpful report in that respect (it brings up, at absolute worst, very very borderline comments), but based on my review a few weeks ago of A1candidate's edits, I do not believe his editing style is what I would consider to be civil POV pushing. However, I would be willing to be convinced otherwise. NW (Talk) 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly the whole "Additional comments by editor filing the complaint" section suggests to me that they intend to disrupt, finding something in most comments made to complain about when most of which were blatantly not what they said they were is disruptive whether they know it was or not. Given that as well as conduct in other related comments (which Sanstein commented on) I would suggest that we take action against A1candidate. While civil POV-pushing is not necessarily a violation of policy, continuing to do so after having been informed of community norms regarding that and continuing to be disruptive is disruptive and likely tendentious as this this report. To that end I would suggest a short block due to disruptive conduct on this page (which includes trying to discredit editors who have commented rather than only rebutting their evidence). From what I can find where A1candidate has previously been notified of the ARBPS or Acupuncture discretionary sanctions so we would be unable to take further action against them at this stage expect an (unlogged) warning that they are walking on thin ice.

Regarding JzG, I agree with my colleagues that there is nothing actionable presented in this report. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in here before closing. As I read it this request is a) not actionable, b) the filer has used this board inappropriately. I see no coherent consensus for any action against other users or in fact A1candidate. My suggested closing is that "No action against JzG. All parties are reminded that conduct at WP:AE is actionable and that abuse of the process to pursue personal grudges, cast unfounded aspersions about others or to advance an off site agenda will result in sanction". Unless there are any objections to this I'll close in 24 hours--Cailil ^talk 11:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Searson

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 Mike Searson

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 162.119.231.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mike Searson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Offensive comment

08:42, 16 January 2015 Says of user:Lightbreather (LB) "Certain people with political agendas have placed politically charged articles in this project. Personally, I think this should only be the technical stuff. Reading the political bile some folks write makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel. An anti gunner writing a technical article about firearms is about the same as a child rapist writing about how to run a day-care center."

Longterm battleground approach to Lightbreather:

23:07, 6 November 2014 Deletes LB from firearms project. (Maybe this was because of her temporary topic ban, but he didn't delete another user who received an identical ban[56]).
01:00, 24 June 2014 Refers to a comment by LB as "total but not unexpected bullshit".
21:44, 28 May 2014 Says that he's only OK with LB improving the neutrality of the NRA article if she's OK with him adding the text "Enjoys dancing in the blood of dead children" to articles on "anti gun organizations".
20:56, 27 April 2014 Passive agressive personal attacks.
19:52, 22 April 2014 Says gun control advocates (LB is one) have "an evil agenda where they want to disarm anyone who disagrees with them on their road to despotism and tyranny."
16:32, 19 April 2014 Call LB a "troll".
22:47, 17 April 2014 Says of LB "These groups have paid shills who operate on wiki spreading their lies, hate and racism."
15:37, 17 April 2014 LB asked him to lay off with the personal attacks.
07:06, 16 April 2014 Says of LB "some people like writing misleading tripe"
20:13, 13 March 2014 Insults Lightbreather ("Are you that slow that you cannot see that?") when she asks for a citation.
07:37, 24 January 2014 Says LB is a "disruptive editor" and a "basket case"
18:12, 21 November 2013 The welcome he gives LB: "Welcome to the firearms project. I look forward to your positive contributions and trust that you will not attempt to push your POV"
23:53, 11 June 2014 Typical welcome to the firearms project
01:31, 13 November 2013 01:31, 13 November 2013 Says LB is "the proverbial "bad penny" that constantly undermines the hard work of others and previously arrived at consensus. That user is screaming for a topic ban."
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Topic ban for User:Lightbreather 03:29, 3 October 2013 Says LB is "too emotional or too biased to work with anything firearms related"

Other users

19:10, 10 January 2015 Deletes a comment with the edit summary "GFY". Urban Dictionary says it means "go fuck yourself".
18:59, 29 December 2014 "I read it before the best part of you ran down your mother's leg."
19:17, 29 December 2014 "Well, i took it out; why are you still running your cryhole?"
18:45, 29 December 2014 "thats how its spelled jackoff"
17:02, 29 December 2014 "gave direct link and a quote, to say it is not there means you are a liar pushing an agenda"
14:42, 29 December 2014? "first sentence in a linked source in a published book, editor who cammot see it is either psychotic or liar"
19:53, 28 December 2014 "cited in the article, where do these jackasses come from?"
17:00, 29 December 2014 Deletes complaint about personal attacks with remark, "WLB". Urban Dictionary says it means "whiny little bitch".
04:14, 20 September 2014 Following a disagreement, posts this comment on his user page: "Oh yeah, if you kick the hornet's nest on here, beware the deranged aspie dogpile!"
04:29, 26 September 2014 Deletes complaint about personal attacks with remark, "don't like it? stay off my user page"
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive856#Personal attacks and incivility by User:Mike Searson Filed 26 September 2014
18:55, 7 April 2014 Insults editors (and lots of other people) who use terms he doesn't accept: "whenever I hear someone use the terms "high capacity magazine", "assault weapon" or "Saturday Night Special" I take offense as those terms are perjorative in nature and reflect low intellect. If it is a man who uses the terms I instantly realize he knows nothing about firearms and is a better source of information about tofu burgers, scented candles and foot lotion."

Old stuff

08:34, 23 January 2012 Says of editors on Wikipedia: "you often deal with critics who could be compared to eunuchs in a harem" "For now I still believe in the projectm except for some of the losers it attracts. I really don't care about losers, but sometimes it's fun to watch them dance."
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#Here's as good a place as any I suppose 08:26, 2 February 2010 He admits he was wrong for calling another editor things like "Fuckchop", "Douchebag", and "Barney Frank", blames it on the other editor for making him lose his temper. In other exchanges he calls the editor a "cuntrag"[57] (even while he's accusing the other guy of making a personal attack), a "little twerp"[58] and "some loser"[59]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive178#Sam Wereb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 07:00, 17 January 2007 Ancient history? It shows he ain't ignorant of the rules. He whines about another user being "frequently sarcastic", making "bold personal attacks", harassing him and blanking his talk page of complaints. Seven years ago he knew all about WP:CIVIL and thought that this other guy was in the wrong. Since then he's decided it's the best way to act.
[60] 18 November 2006 More complaints about an editor who is "fond of deleting the libellous attacks he makes too and denies them after the fact". That guy has a familiar list of uncivil remarks from Mike Searson.[61]
Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive108#Espmiideluxe More complaints about other users for "personal attacks".

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 02:06, 18 April 2014

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I was shocked to see someone comparing another editor to a child rapist and expressing the desire to hit her in the head with a shovel. This is a guy who collects guns and knives. He's used crude and aggressive language with her for years. Sure, he's abusive with other editors too but the way he's treated Lightbreather is unacceptable. Or it should be. This is sick. It's obviously intended to drive her away and discourage anyone else with a similar viewpoint. That violates the ArbCom case and a bunch of WP policies. He's been asked to stop but keeps doing it repeatedly. He knows it's wrong because he started on Wikipedia complaining about personal attacks by other users. Enough is enough. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero "relationship" with Lightbreather, unless you count editing some articles in common and having a similar point of view. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHN: the other editor in a recent disagreement over a US military sniper, mentioned above. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also have zero "relationship" with Darknipples, now the subject of two SPIs this month.

The January 16 message from MS says things about "certain people, "some folks", and "an anti-gunner". Who is he talking about if not LB? Which people are doing the things he's complaining about? Is the corollary of his last statement that "pro-gunners" writing about gun control is like child rapists writing about the age of consent? I dunno. The message, or a message, is that there ain't nothing good an "anti-gunner" can bring to a gun article. Maybe he thinks they should only be edited by gun fans.

The brief reply from MS is crazy. Maybe he thinks I hacked his cellphone to learn his schedule. I dunno how he got the idea there's a "group" behind this filing. I did it all by myself. Making unproven allegations, even against an unregistered editor though including registered ones, is another potential violation of the ArbCom decision. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

15:50, 20 January 2015‎

Discussion concerning Mike Searson

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 Mike Searson

I am out of town with no pc access until monday. Which is why this group chose this time to ambush me. I will respond then. But will say this. I never compared any editor to a child rapist. The accusers took that among other things i said out of context and misreported them. Same with the shovel comment its a figure of speech from the military, another reason for their enmity. The discussion was about source material. As in published authors on the subject and the subject was the technical aspect of firearms. Read that entire conversation before passing judgement as well as the other diffs they cherry picked. Sorry to put you folks through this, glad they didnt bring up the time i broke that lamp in 1973, respectfully -- mike searson (no tildes on my phone) (Copied from User talk:Sandstein, 10:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Lightbreather

He has also referred to me as a cunt in the past.[62]

As for more recent crap, he just seems to enjoy baiting me (and other editors). For instance, what was the purpose of this discussion?[63] Or his comments in this discussion?[64] I didn't bite, nor did the other editor, but he does this kind of stuff regularly, and I don't appreciate it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I don't know the anonymous user making this request. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Beyond My Ken: FWIW, the Editor Interaction Analyzer shows five gun-related articles that Scalhotrod and the OP IP have in common. Lightbreather (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Going to call it a night soon, but I wanted to add, I've always thought it bizarre that Mike Searson is the coordinator of the Firearms WikiProject. Is it a coincidence that gun-control articles on Wikipedia are under discretionary sanctions when the leader of the project that oversees these articles (more than any other group) is so biased and hostile? Lightbreather (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod: No one pinged you, and the comment was struck. How did you know that you were mentioned here? (Here's an interesting Editor Interaction Analyzer since our mutual topic ban was lifted one week ago; note especially the BLUE edits.) Anyway, I agree that there are "POV Editors" at WP:GUNS, where gun-rights sources are rarely questioned, but gun-control sources often are. And conservative/libertarian sources are rarely questioned, but liberal/progressive sources often are. (If the things Mike Searson has said about me sound hostile, you should see what he says about Dianne Feinstein.) The project's POV has resulted in a body of articles that are decidedly pro-gun/anti-control POV, as well as missing articles that ought to be added, though "wholesale" is exaggeration.

The point of your second paragraph is to belittle the OP and anyone who might agree with him/her. The fact is, Mike has a very sarcastic tone, that no-one should have to appreciate. His words don't seem harsh - they are harsh. It is not clear that his January 16 comment wasn't directed at me. (It is cousin to another brash editor's crass "cunt" comment that "wasn't" directed at me.) And your last remark in that paragraph reveals how impressed you are with yourself.

As for me trying to humor Mike Searson in my replies to him, considering that gun-control articles are under discretionary sanctions, and considering how I've been treated in the past when I tried to complain about civility on Wikipedia, and considering that I am a woman in a man's world (Wikipedia), and that for millenia women have learned to grin and bear it in response to aggressive male behavior - Are you really claiming that you think my offense is feigned? I'm not going to say what I'd like to say to you, but instead, I'll just say... ;-).

Finally, it does appear that the IP has some knowledge of WP, but it is not clear that he/she has an agenda beyond wanting to edit anonymously, which I sometimes wish I'd done from day one on Wikipedia when I see how people like Mike Searson and you treat those whose POVs are different from your own. Who wants to edit, anonymously or otherwise, in an environment where a project coordinator is likely to show up and allude to physically harming those whom he disagrees with? Lightbreather (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda, Heimstern, and Sandstein: Regardless of your decision re Mike Searson, may I ask you to consider an interaction ban between Scalhotrod and myself? I would prefer a one-way, since past evidence has shown, as has the interaction analysis since the end of our topic ban, that he follows me around, but I would agree to a two-way if necessary. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Since Robert McClenon has asked for clarification on whether or not Ibans ever result from ARE, does ARE ever result in any action against editors other than the requestor and requestee? Lightbreather (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken

The Editor Interaction Analyzer shows ~~six~~ five gun-related articles that Lightbreather and the OP IP have in common. BMK (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRuban

That's a pretty frightening comment; managing to involve not only guns, but a threatened assault with a shovel, and a casual mention of child rape, in relation to ... editing a Wikipedia project. Not an article about war, not an article about a person's life, just a project. I can't guarantee it's specifically in reference to Lightbreather, but given the long history, it does seem possible; and frankly, it really shouldn't matter whom it was about, it's a pretty frightening comment regardless. This is not your standard Wikipedia namecalling, this is beyond the pale. BTW ... y'all don't have to get out the tools for me. I admit it, I, too, am Lightbreather. I am also Beyond My Ken and Scalhotrod. That way I ... we ... get to play not just solitaire Chess, but solitaire Contract bridge. Come, join us, be Lightbreather with me! --GRuban (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scalhotrod

Since I'm being mentioned, I'll comment as well. Mike has the unenviable position of being the coordinator for a project whose subjects happen to involve a lot of misinformation and outright ignorance of in the general public and media. I don't blame him in the slightest for not wanting political articles added in wholesale fashion to the project. I know first hand how easy it is to get sucked into the rhetoric and posturing of "debating a subject" within an article rather than just factually describing it. But the subject of gun politics is far from being alone in this aspect. Abortion, same-sex marriage, religion, and ISIS are all hot button topics that received attention from a great many POV Editors who feel that articles should state and say certain things.

That said, Mike has a pretty sarcastic tone that takes a while to appreciate or understand. If taken out of context, of course his words will seem harsh. The January 16th comment highlighted above is a perfect example of how Mike expresses himself. It was clearly not directed at one particular User and as the Project Coordinator, he's seen more than his fair share of POV Editors over his tenure. Anyone not realizing this is just entirely too impressed with themselves to think that Mike would find it necessary to comment about them specifically.

As for some of the additional examples, such as this one that Lightbreather pointed out[65]. LB, come on?! You responded to Mike's comment with a "wink and smile" ;) and now you're claiming that you're offended. You've dealt with Mike enough that I think you understood his point and responded accordingly. To use it against him in this context is just plain wrong.

As for everyone else watching/commenting, this just seems suspicious when an IP User that started editing on December 21, 2014[66] is initiating an ArbCom Enforcement proceeding. Clearly there is some prior knowledge of WP and an agenda in play. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question by User:Robert McClenon

Lightbreather has asked for an I-ban (interaction ban) with another editor. Does Arbitration Enforcement have the remit to impose interaction bans, or do they have to come from the ArbCom and/or the community noticeboards? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Faceless Enemy

I don't think he meant anything personal with his shovel comment. I don't feel it was directed at any specific editor (note the reference to "someone", not "certain people" or "them" or "her"). There are plenty of ways to phrase that so that it is targeted at another person, and I don't feel that it was phrased that way. As to "An anti gunner...run a day-care center." A bit overboard, but an anti-abortion activist may not be the best choice for technical information about abortions either. Likewise, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church is a bad source for information on LGBT issues. Of course, if any of the above can write NPOV stuff then whatever. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GabrielF

Mike Searson has a longstanding pattern of addressing other editors with hostility. His insults reference the gender, perceived sexual orientation, or perceived disability of his ideological opponents. Examples are numerous: referring to editors he disagrees with as an "aspie dogpile"[67], referring to an editor he disagrees with as a cunt[68], referring to a female senator the same way[69], making comments about the intelligence of other editors (see below), making comments that imply that editors who disagree with him are homosexual (see below).

Here's a representative quote:

whenever I hear someone use the terms "high capacity magazine", "assault weapon" or "Saturday Night Special" I take offense as those terms are perjorative in nature and reflect low intellect. If it is a man who uses the terms I instantly realize he knows nothing about firearms and is a better source of information about tofu burgers, scented candles and foot lotion[70]

I have seen the term "Saturday Night Special" used in reliable sources such as newspaper articles, books by historians and journalists, encyclopedias, and transcripts of Congressional hearings and debates. It's an important concept to articles such as Gun Control Act of 1968. I do not believe that an editor can have a fair-minded, civil conversation about an article if he can't hold himself back from making sneering, thinly-veiled references to the sexuality of those who use terms discussed in that article. The pattern of comments creates a chilling effect that discourages other editors from participating.

Mike has repeatedly been made aware that these comments are inappropriate, including in the ANI thread linked above. The fact that this pattern of behavior has continued leads me to believe than an indefinite topic ban is an appropriate remedy.GabrielF (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Pudeo

The first 16 Jan diff is mispresented. Read the actual section: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#Source_discussion_2. They are talking about sources the project uses for technical details; Lightbreather suggets one source should be cautioned because of pro-gun bias. Mike Searson responds wih the shovel to the head comment about anti-gunners writing articles about techical details. The comment was not about Lightbreather, not even implicit. The rest of the presentation is one-sided and may contain more errors. Keeping in mind that Lightbreather has had problematic user conduct before such as during the Gender Gap ArbCom case (block log), one-sided presentation should not be taken at face-value without having a look at Lightbreather's conduct as well. --Pudeo ' 06:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a SPI on the filing IP: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darknipples. --Pudeo ' 07:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Re Pudeo's comments above: Regardless of Lightbreather's "user conduct", and regardless of who is behind the IP that opened this request, it is totally unacceptable for any editor to use language like "makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel". Excusing such an approach on the basis that it is someone else who should be whacked in the head with a shovel entirely misses the point. If it were an isolated incident, a warning would suffice. However, given the string of evidence presented, Mike Searson should be warned that further intimidatory language will result in an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mike Searson

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

Awaiting a statement by Mike Searson. @Lightbreather: Notifying you of this request on which you may want to comment; if you do, please also indicate any relationship between you and the anonymous user making this request. Sandstein 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because Mike Searson doesn't seem to be active at the moment, I'll offer a preliminary assessment. The request appears actionable. The evidence indicates a confrontative attitude towards others. In particular, the recent edits of 08:42, 16 January 2015 ("makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel", comparing editors with different opinions to child rapists) and of 19:10, 10 January 2015 ("GFY" edit summary) are aggressive to a degree incompatible with working on a collaborative project to write a neutral encyclopedia about controversial topics. The use of aggressive, violent language aimed at a female editor in the context of disputes about gun control and gun violence by somebody who associates himself with a pro-gun point of view strikes me as particularly intimidating and inappropriate. The evidence of Mike Searson's past conduct shows that this is a persistent pattern of conduct, not an isolated incident. Unless fellow administrators see this in a radically different light, I am inclined to impose an indefinite topic ban. Sandstein 08:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather, please let's keep this request focused on the conduct of Mike Searson. If you believe that there is actionable evidence of misconduct – in the form of diffs – that could require an interaction ban with respect to others, you can make a separate enforcement request about that. Sandstein 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The worst matter here by far is the diff from 16 January, which is beyond unacceptable. That one is probably sufficient for a topic ban. Add that to the other ones under "Longterm battleground approach to Lightbreather" and it seems clear that Mike Searson's battleground approach is incompatible with further participation in this topic. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mike Searson is a great editor, especially on species articles, but the interactions with Lightbreather here are not acceptable. I am especially bothered by what Sandstein refers to - the "aggressive, violent language aimed at a female editor..." Even if I took Scalhotrod's comments into consideration and assumed only the most benign intent behind those words, this would still be precisely what DS are supposed to prevent. I'm with Sandstein and Heim on this. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: - courtesy the log, the answer is yes, at least in principle: AE has instituted i-bans in the past.

@Lightbreather: - there isn't enough here, in my opinion, to consider an interaction ban. And if it is warranted, it would be a separate request, though whether this is the best place for it is a different question; it would have to somehow spring from this arbcomm case. Guettarda (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike Searson hasn't edited since 16 January. I suggest waiting *at most* two more days to see if he'll respond. There is a case that he has engaged in talk page disruption, given the aggressive language. If this were an WP:ARBPIA complaint we would probably be talking about a three-month topic ban at this point. Interaction bans are tricky and might be considered if nothing else were available. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on for many years. Is there any reason to think that a three month topic ban will help? I would argue that we should be thinking indefinite, with the allowance of appeal, plus a one way interaction ban. Guettarda says he is a good editor with regards to species articles; that's the only reason I'm not arguing for a long term block. NW (Talk) 01:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of Mike Searson's interim statement reproduced above, I agree that we can wait until Monday UTC and should then decide based on his definitive statement. Sandstein 10:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was the same as NW's: that a lengthy block might be necessary. Several of the comments taken individually are beyond the pale, but taken collectively they indicate an extraordinary level of hostility far beyond the occasional loss of temper or lapse of judgement. We all get angry, and I could overlook an isolated incident, but this seems to be a pattern of drastically over-personalising content disputes. And while the gender of either editor shouldn't really come into it, it's hard not to notice such intimidatory behaviour being directed at a woman; certainly if a man behaved like that towards a woman in the street, at least where I come from, passers-by would intervene. While I'm willing to wait for Mike to make statement if he does so quickly, I can't see how such a statement could adequately explain the conduct raised here; it could present matters in extenuation and mitigation, but to be compelling that would have to include a lot of evidence that Lightbreather has behaved similarly appallingly. Unless Mike's statement casts a completely new light on things, I recommend a one-way interaction ban (ie a ban on talking to, commenting on, or mentioning Lightbreather anywhere on Wikipedia) and an indefinite topic ban on gun control and possibly a lengthy block. amended 03:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GabrielF's description higher up on the page, and with HJ Mitchell just above. The amount of often sexualized aggression and hostility in the comments quoted by the OP is totally unacceptable. I don't care who it's directed at. Sneers like this… jeez. While a good deal of the stuff quoted is pretty old, this diff, singled out by Heimstern above as "beyond unacceptable", was posted just a week ago. At least a topic ban, for at least three months, from the firearms project is my recommendation. Six months would be better. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- The duration should be indefinite, with leave to request reconsideration after a certain period of time. Though those remarks are among the the worst I've ever seen from an established editor and I'm not fully convinced that a lengthy block is unnecessary, given the highly sexualised language and the references to violence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be fine with an indefinite ban or indeed a block. Bishonen | talk 01:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I am inclined similarly to NW and to HJ Mitchell. The stream of childish but vicious abuse spread across multiple edits on 28 December (not, I note, in relation to Lightbreather) does not speak well of this editor's ability to contribute effectively to even mildly contentious areas. The most recent (16 January) diff illustrates that the pattern of problematic editing is ongoing—if one feels that comparing one's adversary to a child rapist is acceptable, even in jest or as part of a dubious analogy, then one is not in a suitable state of mind for editing.
Looking at Mike Searson's (initial) response, while I have concerns about the arrival of a 'new' IP with an apparently deep background appearing at this noticeboard, in the absence of supporting evidence it strikes me that he has greatly overreached with his self-serving assertion that this filing was deliberately timed to take place as an "ambush" during his absence. Searson has not apparently made a habit of notifying Wikipedia editors of his planned comings and goings, and regularly has gaps of between 'a few' and 'several' days in his editing activity. I see no indication to support any reason beyond coincidence that this filing seemed to hit one of his slightly-longer absences.
As well, the idea that particular behaviors, attitudes, forms of address, or turns of phrase may be appropriate (or acceptable, or tolerated) in some situations, venues, occupations, company, or countries but emphatically not in others is not a new one. A nominally collegial, text-based discussion with fellow volunteers (some of whom may disagree with you) who are attempting to write encyclopedia articles reasonably calls for a different approach than then one evinced here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel

Blocked for a week and banned from editing BLP awards and nominations lists. Sandstein 11:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Cwobeel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cwobeel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:NEWBLPBAN :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

21:52, 23 January 2015 Restoring an unsourced BLP page with the edit summary: "nothing here is contentious".
4:02, 24 January 2015 Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated Internet Movie Database website.
4:05, 24 January 2015 Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated Internet Movie Database website.
4:07, 24 January 2015 Restoring unsourced BLP content discussed at BLPN with a single source to the user-generated Internet Movie Database website.
5:10, 24 January 2015 Two edits (making a single comment) to defend IMDb as an acceptable BLP source and an invocation of Ignore All Rules.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13:33, 12 December 2014 Alerted of discretionary sanctions by The Wordsmith
13:38, 27 December 2014 Admonished for WP:BATTLE by Cailil following an Arbitration Enforcement request.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A BLPN discussion was opened by the user Cirt. Cwobeel responded and maligned Cirt's actions: I leave it to you to continue blowing up the work of good faith editors for no reason other than being super-narrow in your interpretation of policy. Have fun.[71] and While you are at it, go ahead and do the same with List of people who disappeared mysteriously, List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career and similar lists. There are many to keep your fun going.[72] This seems to be more of the WP:BATTLE behavior that merited the first admonishment. I believe that the restoration sourced only to IMDb following these comments are indicative of a lack of competence and understanding of WP:BLP and WP:IRS.

(updated 16:22, 24 January 2015) Numerous credits have not checked out at Nicholas Cage's list including three 2008 Razzie nominations for "Worst Actor".[73]. Two did not check out at the Susan Sarandon's list, included an award Boston Society of Film Critics: they instead awarded Melanie Griffith in 1988. I stopped on the Nicolas Cage one after 5 checks in a row came up dubious or not accurate. Adam Sandler's list doesn't seem to fair much better (Razzie 2008 again), but a large part of the list is negative awards. This is just to confirm the existence of problems on all three.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification made to Cwobeel

Discussion concerning Cwobeel

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 Cwobeel

We are talking here about innocuous articles listing the nominations and awards of known actors and actresses, nothing contentious that would warrant any type of intervention, and super easily sourced as I did here [74]. I am glad to see that at least he is responding with improvements and adding other sources after me placing a {{refimprove}} template [75]. OTOH, this editor needs to stop posting AN/I and AE postings against me over past weeks, and this last one is another example. This is bordering on WP:HAR. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect:: It should be noted that we have many BLP-related articles in WP, in particular lists, that are unsourced for non-contentious material. (See for example Susan Sarandon filmography, and Nicolas Cage filmography, and we just don't go around blanking them and redirecting them. In these cases the approach should be to place a {{refimprove}} or similar template. The Yank Barry case was contentious to start with. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

statement by Collect

Where a claim is made which another editor deems reasonably to be contentious, WP:BLP is sufficiently clear. I would present the following as indicative of an example where a "nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize" claim was removed as inadequately sourced to show just why this is a proper position for editors to embrace rather than oppose. Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_1#Nobel_Peace_Prize_nominee, Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_2#Nobel_prize_in_lead, Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_4#Nobel_Prize_nomination_mentioned_in_Time_Magazine, Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_5 etc. where I postulate that a Nobel Peace Prize is, in fact, a major award. It is not onerous to expect that reliable sources are findable for major awards. Collect (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

Kww is an WP:INVOLVED admin and shouldn't be posting in the uninvolved admin section.[76] I ask that uninvolved admins at WP:AE not rush to judgement. There is more going on here than this RfE might suggest. There is a long standing dispute in the community as to whether it's acceptable to delete content for no other reason than being unsourced. I think most are in agreement that it's perfectly acceptable for an editor to remove content in which they have a good faith belief that that the material is wrong or unverifiable. There is much debate in the community as to whether it is acceptable to blindly delete unsourced content for no other reason that being unsourced. See WP:PRESERVE. Also, see the discussion at WP:BLPN and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film as evidence that there considerable disagreement in the community as to whether such conduct is acceptable. Many editors consider blind deletions to be WP:DISRUPTIVE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cwobeel

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

The request has merit. WP:BLP provides that:

"Contentious material about living persons (...) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

The material at issue was contentious because at least one person objected to its inclusion. IMDB is a user-edited website and therefore not a reliable source. The BLP policy must not be ignored, and in addition, the evidence provided that at least some of the material added from IMDB was incorrect indicates that the edits were not in fact an improvement to Wikipedia (wrong information is arguably more harmful than no information). The statement by Cwobeel indicates that they intend to continue violating the BLP policy in this manner. They are therefore immediately blocked for a week to prevent this. I'm leaving the thread open to invite the opinions of other admins about the possibility of a IMDB, awards or BLP topic ban. Sandstein 16:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support any closure of this AE that ensures that User:Cwobeel won't continue to add information sourced only to IMDB to these articles. Cwobeel's view that IAR applies was expressed in the BLP/N thread. There's no justification here for IAR, especially when it's been pointed out (above) that many of these award citations are erroneous. A BLP subject shouldn't expect to find obvious factual mistakes in their Wikipedia article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a prohibition on restoring any material removed on BLP grounds without a) unimpeachable sourcing or b) consensus at BLP/N, to be enforced by blocks of rapidly escalating duration in the event of non-compliance. A total ban on any biographical content related to living people would be hopelessly broad and a siteban in all but name (if that's the sort of severity of sanction we feel is appropriate, we should be looking at a one-year AE block and/or an indefinite block as a normal admin action), whereas a ban on any specific set of articles would be too narrow and too open for gaming, in my opinion, to adequately address the issue. The restriction I suggest would seem to be a middle ground. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that it does not prevent Cwobeel from adding problematic content if nobody reviews all of their edits, and they seem to have other ideas about what "unimpeachable sourcing" consists of than, well, most editors – a recipe for problems. I can't at the moment think of a better option than a ban from adding or changing any BLP content. Sandstein 19:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there are nearly 700,000 BLPs (~20% of the encyclopaedia) and almost every article is going to contain some sort of fact about a living person. If we're considering a total ban on biographical content about living people, we might as well block them until they bring their views on sourcing into line with the Wikipedia mainstream, because the alternative is endless wikilawyering and leaves them unable to edit most of the encyclopaedia anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of potential damage, this isn't a huge BLP issue. (Adam Sandler isn't going to get a job over someone else if an award is attributed to him that he didn't actually receive.) The problem is that Cwobeel doesn't seem to understand the issue here. (There's a difference between "I'll stop" and "I understand, and here's why".) And I'm not seeing that in the links posted or in his unblock request. What bothers me most about this is how utterly pointless it is. But I can't disagree with the block. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of editors that don't seem to see the BLP issues involved with the "List of Awards and Nominations ..." articles. I agree with Guettarda that they aren't huge, but they are there, they are real, and this class of article has become a cesspool of unsourced assertions. While I agree with HJ Mitchell that any Wikipedia-wide BLP restriction is, for all practical purposes, a Wikipedia-wide restriction, it would probably be reasonable to craft a restriction tailored at award and nomination lists.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kww: If you can think of wording that one couldn't drive a coach and horses through, please do propose it, but it seems there are concerns about the scope of the problem with Cwobeel's editing is broader than these awards articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a simple topic ban on lists related to awards and nominations for living people would be a good start. Additional restrictions may wind up necessary later, but that one would be a good start.—Kww(talk) 05:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be agreement that some action is required, although perhaps not as broad as a BLP topic ban. I'm going with Kww's proposal and am imposing a ban from editing any list of awards or nominations of living people, with the exception of edits that consist only of adding accurate and reliable sources, subject to the usual exceptions. If BLP problems continue in other topic areas, additional sanctions may be requested or imposed. Sandstein 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Eurocentral

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.

Appeal by Eurocentral

User who is submitting this appeal: Eurocentral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction to be lifted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eurocentral, Topic ban from Hungary and Romania

User Ed Johnson sanctioned me "due to your quibbling as to the country of origin of various historians who write about Romania" I consider the Ed Johnson action as an abuse. Usually, all the pages of Romanian and Hungarian history are strongly modified by some Hungarian nationalist editors (I noted Borsoka and Fakirbakir) who want to show the priority in history of Hungarians (action similar to irredentism). They started a war edit between Romanian and Hungarian editors. Their tactics are to erase all references of Romanian historians or all data who are against their principles. In order to avoid the 3RR and other wiki rules they acted alternatively. In this way they managed to blocked a lot of Romanian editors. I edited especially against the elimination of data of Romanian historians entering in conflict with Borsoka and Fakirbakir. I also edited in history of Hungary where I insisted to keep the exact data of Romanian historians.see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian_conquest_of_the_Carpathian_Basin, The use of leader's names instead of the nation name. It is obvious for Romanians that some Hungarian editors try to avoid the names of Romanians (Vlachs) to be mentioned. Also in this AN3 complaint (permalink) I showed there about the alternative activity of Hungarian editors who erased all data of a Romanian historian who wrote against their principles. My opinion is that all data of all historians have room in wiki pages. Censoring historians are similar to vandalism.

Ed Johnson wrongly considered these as an action against "various historians"

I want the ban to be lifted (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I will do what are necessary and ad some diffs to reverts discussed; normally diffs are in connection to reverts; why did you write "diff of notification to appeal". What does it means?

Eurocentral (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

User:Eurocentral has placed the reviewers at a disadvantage by not providing any links to what he is talking about. I won't hold it against him that he can't spell my name correctly, even though it's clearly visible on his talk page, in the various sanction notices.

Back in October 2014, Borsoka reported Eurocentral for edit warring at Origin of the Romanians. See this report. As a result of that report, I took no action but I notified Eurocentral of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE.

You can see the tone of the interactions between Borsoka and Eurocentral at the RfC on the talk page. There are many charges of POV exchanged there. At the time, I believed that Eurocentral didn't want the opinions of Hungarian historians to be trusted, simply because they were Hungarian. Now that I review the material, I'm not so sure. But he still seems to believe that Hungarian Wikipedia editors are trying to enforce a certain POV.

Here is a statement he made about User:Borsoka on that page: "Borsoka wants to erase all references in Romanian but to keep all references in Hungarian. All pages of Hungarian history have references in Hungarian language. Another example of his subjective and nationalistic attitude. Eurocentral (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)" On my talk page he complained about gang tactics and irredentist editing by Hungarian editors.[reply]

It is possible that Eurocentral might have something useful to contribute but his limited English makes it hard for him to express himself clearly, and the net impression is of an ethnic warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Borsoka

Just a side remark: I have never wanted to "show the priority in history of Hungarians" (actually I do not understand what this expression means), and I have not "started a war edit between Romanian and Hungarian editors". On the other hand, Eurocentral has for long been dreaming of an edit war between Hungarian editors on one side and the united forces of Romanian, Slovak and Ukrainian editors on the other [77]. No other editors have so far joined him. Eurocentral also expressed his biased views of Bulgarian editors during a debate about his (not unusual) abuse of scholars' name in order to substantiate his own OR [78]. Even a banned (and, by the way, Romanian) editor, who had (ab)used Eurocentral as his puppet, stated that Eurocentral "does not own the necessary skills for being a contributor here"; an other editor wrote of the "One Man Army of Eurocentral". Borsoka (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Eurocentral

Result of the appeal by Eurocentral

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

This was a pretty malformed request, I've formatted it to something resembling normal. Eurocentral, you must notify the banning admin of this request, and add a diff of the notification to your appeal, or it may not be processed. Sandstein 16:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocentral, you must leave the banning admin a message that tells them you appeal the ban here. Then you must copy the diff (see WP:DIFF) of that message to your section so that we can see that you left the message. Please comment in your own section only, I've moved your comment up. Sandstein 17:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to let the bureaucracy get in the way, given that Eurocentral is not a hugely experienced editor, so pinging EdJohnston should suffice. Nonetheless, I'm inclined to dismiss the appeal as it does not address the reasons for it and instead personally attacks two editors by accusing them of being Hungarian nationalist editors [...] who want to show the priority in history of Hungarians, accuses the sanctioning admin of "abuse", and is indicative of a battleground mentality. I also note that Eurocentral has violated the topic ban at least once, resulting a short block. This all suggests that the topic ban is not only justified but absolutely necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with declining the appeal for the same reasons. The statement by Eurocentral indicates the sort of confrontative approach to encyclopedia writing that this topic area does not need. Sandstein 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no substantive editing outside the topic area since the sanction was imposed. Show that you can edit constructively elsewhere, on less contentious topics. Show that you can edit without getting into nationalistic confrontations. Make it clear that you won't get into confrontations like this, establish a track record. Do that and your request to have your ban lifted might be taken more seriously. At present, it doesn't seem like you understand the problem people had with your editing. Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett

Blocked for 48 h for violating a topic ban. Sandstein 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Eric Corbett

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Eric Corbett topic banned indefinitely from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics.
Eric Corbett prohibited ... from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

16:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC) In a discussion at WP:WER about retaining and recruiting new editors, less than an hour after I asked if women had been invited to the conversation, and in direct response to that question, Eric Corbett showed up to criticize one of the proposals and compared the project to WP:GGTF
22:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC) After I tried to help Eric Corbett by suggesting his criticism wasn't about gender, he replied that "we create a fantasy world of institutionalised sexism...."
23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC) He belittled me in an edit summary (favours from you LB I really don't need).
00:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC) After notifying him of this enforcement request, he replied that he hopes that I get banned.[reply]

Eric Corbett had not been active on the project's talk page since 14 November 2014, when he asked Rationalobserver if she was making a legal threat.[79]

I tried twice[80][81] to simply have the comments removed at the talk page in question, but both requests for admin help were closed within a few minutes.

@Go Phightins!: As usual, when it comes to complaining about Eric Corbett, I had a knot in my stomach when I came here because I know how many people defend him. I only came here after I tried twice to correct his misstep, using the "path of least drama" as NE Ent puts it, at WER. Baiting has been mentioned here and there. Where did I bait Eric Corbett?

Also, when did I bring up GGTF? Not until after Eric Corbett had... in the very first sentence of his very first post at WER in over two months. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Buster7: "Piqued" has two meanings, one of which is to feel irritated or resentful. I was neither of those things. I asked if women had been invited to the discussion because it seemed like a perfectly reasonable question. The men involved in the discussion had come up with a pretty good list of things to consider for retention and recruitment. You even invited others to "add to the soup." For this reason it seemed to be a pretty good time to ask, too, as there was also a suggestion to submit the list to the Signpost.

However, the answers ran from defensive (I don't see a way to fault those involved) to not AGF (a good way to derail something like this is to add the hot-button gender element to it). And then Eric Corbett jumped in with, "This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in." Lightbreather (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hafspajen: My question to the WER discussants had NOTHING to do with outing. There are many women who edit openly as women on Wikipedia, many respected women editors. And some of those women are members of WER. My questions was simply to suggest that the group invite some women to participate. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum: It was Eric Corbett who brought up GGTF first... in the very first sentence of his very first post at WER in over two months. Lightbreather (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EVERYONE To explain the series of events from my eyes. I asked a question. The group might have simply answered, "Good idea. Let's do that," but it didn't. By the time Eric Corbett joined in, there were some already singing the "Wikipedia is genderless" chorus. My first response to Eric was to ignore the first sentence of his comment (comparing WER to GGTF) and to agree with him (I did and I do) that one of the list items should be clarified. Then I proceeded to give my opinion on how to improve one of the other list items. There was a little opposition to the suggestion, and Buster7 brought up Eric's "rabbit hole" statement about the GGTF. Seeing that we might be heading into another dispute about gender, I said 1) Let's not use terms like "rabbit hole," and 2) That I didn't think Eric was talking about gender. (Yes, despite opinions to the contrary, I was trying to keep the discussion from devolving into the other hot-button issue: civility.) And, for those who don't click through, this is what I said:

My purpose in asking the question that I asked earlier today was to remind the project members involved in this discussion that they ought to consider inviting some women project members to join in. That's all. There is a gender gap on Wikipedia, and we do want to narrow it, and one way to do that is to get more women involved in these kinds of discussions. I don't mean for that to be a critical comment - just a factual one.

To which Eric replied that "we create a fantasy world of institutionalised sexism or whatever and then we populate it with imaginary villains and heroes." WTH? And then Buster7 wanted to discuss whether or not "rabbit hole" is a negative figure of speech, and whether by using "let's" I was presuming to speak for the group.

Seeing the signs of a derailing of the discussion (should we invite some women project members to join this discussion), I asked for an uninvolved admin to remove Eric's comments[82] per the GGTF ArbCom Remedies.

Please note that I only asked for his comments to be removed, and that I did not come here first.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.

Discussion concerning Eric Corbett

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 Eric Corbett

The next thing will be a request for clarification I imagine, hopefully leading to another replay of the civility debates and ending up with me at last being banned. But for what? Merely mentioning the GGTF? Eric Corbett 03:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully expected that the hard-line enforcers such as Sandstein would do their utmost to stretch the meaning of "(iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics" beyond the limits of credibility, which is why I've been refusing to help with articles on female subjects. But if the editor retention project now comes under the remit of the GGTF then so be it, I'm guilty as charged. Eric Corbett 15:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

An administrator already told Lightbreather they considered Eric's participation allowed: please see [83] and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Question_for_administrator. NE Ent 00:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation the Eric "showed up" in response to Lightbreather's participation is not supported by evidence. The article info tool [84] indicates Eric is the sixth most frequent participant, with the following data:

Username  ↓ 	Links  ↓ 	# 1  ↓ 	Minor edits  ↓ 	%  ↓ 	First edit  ↓ 	Latest edit  ↓ 	atbe 2  ↓ 	Added (Bytes)  ↓
Eric Corbett 	ec · topedits 	121 	30 	24.8% 	2013-05-22, 21:55 	2015-01-24, 23:48 	5.1 	36,359

NE Ent 00:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein A block is inappropriate here. Conflicts should be resolved using the Path of Least Drama. As an administrator (Go Phightins) a) gave Eric a great light to continue and b) has admitted they erred, a block would be excessive. The simplest way to resolve is to simply remove Eric's post from the page (I'd have done it already but the committee chose to use the term "administrator" rather than "editor".) NE Ent 11:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chillum

I have read through the diffs and I have seen what is at worst mild abrasiveness. I don't think this behavior rises to the level of sanction. Eric has been rather impressively holding back over the last several weeks and has even demonstrated the ability to not allow provocation to get the better of him. He has done this while continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia. I don't think much is to be gained for using enforcements against such mild behavior. Chillum 00:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I wrote the above the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" section was not filled out. I assumed this was about the civility restrictions. I now realize it is about a topic ban. While I stand by what I said above I recognize I have not addressed the issue at hand. Chillum 01:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

There is nothing here other than the ordinary give-and-take of editing. Suggest a wrist-tap to the plaintiff for filing a frivolous complaint. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

ShortBrigade says Suggest a wrist-tap to the plaintiff for filing a frivolous complaint. I'd suggest a well-aimed boomerang. People are not seeing the elephant in this room, which encompasses several other WMF-operated spaces (diffs on request). Alas, as I understand it, enforcement only works in one direction, unlike ANI. The volume is being turned up to eleven and "frivolous" doesn't even get near to covering it. - Sitush (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Go Phightins!

Insofar as I misread the topic ban as topics related to the gender gap, not merely GGTF, I erred in my initial assessment that there was absolutely no violation of the topic ban. Nevertheless, I chose not to block initially because Eric's participation was certainly not detrimental to the discussion, was only tangentially related to the GGTF, and even so, only because Lightbreather brought it up. Moreover, Lightbreather's decision to bring up the sanctions after arguably baiting or at least facilitating an atmosphere conducive to discussion of how the gender gap pertains to editor retention, a discussion in which I think Eric should have the right to participate. In short, when Eric began participating in the discussion, it was not about the gender gap, and only because of Lightbreather did it shift to that topic, at which point Eric's response catalyzed her reporting of him ostensibly violating a topic ban thereof. I do not support blocking Eric at this time, but as I told Lightbreather, I plan to continue to monitor the discussion on WT:WER. Go Phightins! 03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWarfare: @Sandstein: – Upon reflection and re-reading of the topic ban and Eric's comments, I think you are right that Eric's edits do violate the strict construction of the topic ban, notwithstanding that they were not inflammatory and were appropriate in the context of the discussion, which was never supposed to be about the gender gap, and only shifted to that topic because Lightbreather made it shift that way. I would not feel inclined to block considering the circumstances, but another administrator would certainly be justified in doing so per the topic ban's stipulation that Eric refrain from discussing the gender gap topic. The argument to block on the basis of belittling another editor, however, I think is significantly weaker, especially considering there was definitely some two-way baiting going on here. Go Phightins! 13:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buster7

Editor Lightbreather came into the discussion piqued because no women were present. I just want to point out that no editor was invited to the conversation. No editor or group of editors was excluded. As is normal, it was many varied conversations that just bubbled up from the masses. It just so happened that none of those masses were women. It could have been handled in so many different ways that would have been forwarding and positive toward the issue that is important to Lightbreather. As a long time member and a co-ordinator at WER I feel some responsibility to maintain the proper decorum at the project. At no time did I feel that Eric had over-stepped the bounds of propriety. He never even got close.Buster Seven Talk 09:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Delibzr

Most of the people don't know that the complaint concerns topic ban. Delibzr (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

As I interpret the exact wording of the arbitration, Eric is clearly in breach of the sanctions. What happens next I will leave for others to decide. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hafspajen

I believe that the whole discussion was about the tread: How many women have been involved in these discussions? started by the same editor who also started this one. Is based on outing. Outing is not allowed. Or you have to declare you are a woman or you chose to say - I don't want to say = he edits or she edits. This kind of discussions are forcing people to disclose their identity. I believe it is every editor's fundamental right to chose what they want to disclose or not, but in this way it's soon impossible. Or is this a project for finding out people's gender? The answer is: You don't know the answer. You will never know: How many women have been involved in these discussions? - not until every single editor disclosed their gender. Hafspajen (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I suppose I'm hardly uninvolved since I have supported both editors in their various disagreements with others (Lightbreather, you may recall, had gotten somewhat unfairly in hot water in the whole gun debate thing and I mostly supported her arguments there), but this is indeed frivolous. Worse, it causes a chilling effect which I think is never OK--and I'm putting that mildly since I don't wish to use the H-word.

Statement by John Carter

I see absolutely no merit whatsoever to this complaint. I specifically stated that this discussion be taken to AE, but that as an individual I and I believe the other editors who have been given the authority to remove disruptive comments on the page apparently saw nothing that merited such action. The only possible grounds for declaring a violation are Eric mention of the GGTF, and, honestly, that seems to me to be an extremely weak basis on which to impose sanctions. I also note that Jimbo's talk page has historically been declared out-of-bounds by AE given his status. While I do not necessarily think that the ER group has the same status or authority as Jimbo, I do think that there might well be merit to having at least one other page where comments which might be otherwise less than appropriate be placed, and that the talk page of a group whose stated goal is to keep editors would be an appropriate page to serve that purpose. As I have indicated there already, several people have already been effectively declared as having the authority to remove comments that are counterproductive, including a few active admins. If the comments ever get regularly excessive there, then it may be necessary for AE or ArbCom to be invoked, but I have no reason to think it will ever get to that point, and that it is appropriate to allow some editors to express their concerns somewhere other than Jimbo's talk page somewhere on wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Eric Corbett

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

Frivolous complaint in my opinion. In view of the history between the users, I would say that the talk from LB about 'trying to do Eric a favor' was pretty provocative, as were also her requests for admin to remove Eric's comments (repeating the request when she didn't like the first uninvolved admin response). Eric's comments seem mild enough, and not in breach of his GGTF topic ban. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Is your stated intention to apply a one-week block[85] a supervote, Sandstein? But in fact where I mentioned the topic ban, I've realized I missed where Eric Corbett mentioned GGTF without being prodded into it: here. Sorry about that. He shouldn't have, but a bare mention = a week's block? A warning is sufficient IMO. Lightbreather's other complaints are straight from the bottom of the barrel. EC's supposedly "belittling" edit summary here was in response to this. I could easily have said as much myself. EC's edit summary response might make LB self-reflect a little about her own belittling condescension ("I tried to do him a favor by saying that he wasn't talking about gender" — consider the history betwen them!), rather than complain. And EC's pettish response to LB filing an AE report is "[a violation of] his restriction from 'insulting (...) other editors'" (per Sandstein)? Please. This whole complaint is overblown, and I think you're overreacting too, Sandstein. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
This does look a bit silly. Eric could perhaps not bring up the GGTF, but the mere mention of it is not a violation of his topic ban. Lightbreather could perhaps look past the person who made the comment and reply to its substance or ignore it, but I don't believe she is subject to an applicable arbitration remedy so there would be no grounds for a boomerang, even if I didn't feel that it would be excessive. In some respects, I'm glad this has been brought for outside input before it deteriorated any further, but I wish it had been taken to a forum that wasn't about imposing sanctions. Full disclosure: I met Eric IRL once and I've interacted with him off-wiki, but the same is true of possibly thousands of editors, including several that I've sanctioned. I believe I am objective on this matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too am inclined to think that this complaint is making a mountain over something that could not even be charitably described as a molehill. However, can someone explain to me why Eric's edits do not fall under the scope of the topic ban (parts 2-3, if not specifically part 1)? Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the complaint has merit and is not frivolous. By writing that "This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in", Eric Corbett violated his topic ban from "participating in any process broadly construed to do with [the GGTF]"; see also WP:TBAN, which clearly extends topic bans to discussions. By writing that "Hopefully it will result in you being banned", which is an insult, Eric Corbett violated his restriction from "insulting (...) other editors". Considering Eric Corbett's long block log, I intend to apply a one-week block unless my colleagues show me something I've overlooked. Sandstein 11:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a frivolous complaint, in my opinion. Thin, but not frivolous. The real question is what's the appropriate remedy? Normally this wouldn't merit more than a warning. Normally Eric Corbett's block log would merit a block. But here's the problem - short blocks don't seem to bother Eric - and why should they? Longer blocks would be disproportionate, and not in the interest of the project. I'm at a loss here. Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A technical violation but not one I suspect was done in bad faith. It appears an existing discussion was going on and it was swayed into the forbidden topic area by the poster of this report. I suggest a stern warning that the topic ban is to be interpreted strictly in the future and to beware of such pitfalls. Chillum 16:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most admins above recognize this request as actionable, but many think that the topic ban was violated only in a minor way, such that a warning suffices. I disagree. Whether the "prohibited from belittling" restriction was violated is indeed disputable, but the violation of the GGTF topic ban - by mentioning the GGTF in a discussion - is in my view not open to question. That being the case, if the topic ban is to have any meaning, it must be enforced as it is written. A warning is not necessary because the topic ban itself served as a warning, and a warning is not possible as a sanction because the enforcement provision envisions only blocks and not warnings as sanctions. A one-week block would be appropriate in view of Eric Corbett's long block log and also because the enforcement remedy provides for first-time blocks to last up to a month, which makes one week short in comparison. Also, a shorter block is likely not to be enough of a deterrent. Moreover, if action is not taken here, I consider it likely that Eric Corbett will continue to test the borders of his topic ban. However, in consideration of the concerns voiced above, I am now imposing only a 48 h block for this first reported violation of the topic ban, but subsequent blocks may be considerably longer. In reply to Bishonen, this is a supervote insofar as AE actions do not require and are not based on consensus, but Eric Corbett is free to appeal the block. I am closing this thread as resolved, but any admin is free to reopen it if they consider that other actions need to be discussed. Sandstein 18:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter

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 John Carter

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ignocrates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Ebionites 3 interaction ban :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

18:16, 8 December 2014 John Carter directly commenting on a post I made to Fearofreprisal's talk page re outing. Please note that the statement makes no sense on its own; the part about things left on the doorstep is clearly a response to my previous post.
23:34, 24 January 2015 John Carter making disparaging comments about me to Eric Corbett and putting words into ArbCom's mouth about how I am regarded by the Committee.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

John Carter AE block for previous I-ban violation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

John Carter opposed my recent amendment request to relax the terms of the I-ban restriction: Ebionites 3 I-ban amendment request Therefore, John Carter should also be obligated to abide by the original terms of the ban restriction.

Simply put, John Carter can't insist on a strict adherence to the terms of the I-ban and then go around trash-talking about me like this. There is nothing frivolous about defending my reputation as an editor against aspersions by an ex-admin who has already been sanctioned for doing it. Ignocrates (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

17:47, 25 January 2015

Discussion concerning John Carter

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 John Carter

This request frankly to my eyes shows how completely and utterly out of control Ignocrates' obsession with me is. It should also be noted that the first link provided was in response to what was to my eyes an apparent attempt by Ignocrates himself to impugn me, indirectly, and clarifying that his implicit accusation had no basis. The second was in regard to my own earlier retirement and to the causes of it, in which his conduct played a role. In short, the first was in response to a violation on his part, and the second was about me more than anyone else. First, as I believe I have already to the eyes of the ArbCom itself in his recent request for amendment, he has apparently been doing little if anything for the past several months than stalking me. And I also indicated in that discussion, which can be found to have been withdrawn as receiving no support whatsoever here, he has himself done for the past several months little but making similar comments in his ongoing stalking of me in the last few months. The WP:DIVA hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and incompetent irrationality this editor has displayed in his own recent actions, combined with his rather obvious recent history of stalking to the apparent exclusion of pretty much everything else, to my eyes cause serious questions as to whether this individual might now qualify under WP:NOTHERE, considering he apparently has few if any articles which relate to his sole topic of interest, his modern, non-notable, view of "Jewish Christianity" with which to occupy himself and has thus reverting to almost exclusive stalking, and I think that there are more than reasonable grounds for his being sanctioned for his persistent and transparently obvious STALKing and other hypocritical misconduct, in violation of his own interaction ban from the same case. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ignocrates' obvious misrepresentation of facts most recently added above, I did not at any time advocate a strict observance of the i-ban, I pointed out how the i-ban has not been adhered to, which is a separate matter. He seems to once again be displaying his inability to perceive reality. I indicated he had been stalking me, and that others including sitting arbitrators had told him to stop STALKing me, and in his arrogance he ignored them. He is apparently still engaging in his stalking, and now seems to have convinced himself that I am to blame for his inability to adhere to his own interaction ban or STALKing. I state once again that I believe Ignocrates' inability to view his own conduct and the criticism of it by others, including the arbs, in a reasonable light raise serious questions regarding his own grasp of and ability to abide by policies and guidelines, and believe that boomerang sanctions against him for his ongoing misconduct should be considered. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of Ignocrates' stalking is obvious in the comments I made at the page of ARCA to which I linked to, although the link is to the withdrawl of the request, here, specifically including a statement by a then sitting arbitrator, Worm, regarding Ignocrates' obvious stalking, and I regret the statement Sandstein quoted below was directed at Fear, not at Ignocrates, based on the conduct which got Fear topic banned in the Historicity of Jesus arbitration. Therefore, I can see no basis for saying that it is a violation of the ban, because it was not directed at Ignocrates. I regret the rush to unsupported and irrational judgment exhibited by someone who is supposed to review the material before passing judgment. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

WP:BANEX: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." This AE filing is a frivolous request. NE Ent 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fearofreprisal

Here, John Carter says of Ignocrates "The WP:DIVA hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and incompetent irrationality this editor has displayed in his own recent actions..."

This appears to be the same kind of personal attack against Ignocrates for which John Carter was sanctioned in Ebionites 3 [86]

Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning John Carter

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

The request has merit. It appears clear to me that at least the following part of John Carter's first reported edit violates the interaction ban:

"And, honestly, to you directly, if you stopped engaging in the degree of self-dramahtizing and somewhat self-aggrandizing behavior you seem to rather regularly engage in here (...)"

In addition, John Carter's statements in response to this request also violates the interaction ban in that it contains accusations of misconduct and such statement as "(...) the hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and incompetent irrationality this editor has displayed (...)". The second diff provided as evidence also seems clearly aimed at Ignocrates. While WP:BANEX does make an exception for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, the previously mentioned statements are not covered by this exception because they are not about the topic of John Carter's interaction ban, but about John Carter's disagreements with Ignocrates, the prevention of whose continuation was the reason for the interaction ban in the first place. Because the previous interaction ban violation by John Carter resulted in a two-week block, this one should result in a longer one, say, a month.

As to John Carter's complaints about stalking by Ignocrates, no evidence in the form of diffs is presented for that, so I see no grounds on which we could take action in this regard. Checking the edits of an interaction-banned editor to verify that no prohibited interaction occurs is, in my view, not "stalking". Sandstein 18:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards