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	343	344

SageRad

On hold until 26 November 2016, to run concurrently with a voluntary wikibreak by SageRad. Bishonen | talk 08:42, 26 October 2016 (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 SageRad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SageRad (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/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions : discretionary sanctions

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

SageRad is on a campaign against skepticism and for giving more credence to altmed, and this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, civil as it may be, has been consistently disruptive on fringey medical and CAM topics like fad diets. The key issues are BLUDGEONing discussion with long soapbox-y rants against "skepticism" and for "Truth " -- a consistent behavior of using talk pages as forums, talking about "meta-issues", etc, instead of focused discussion on crafting content based on sources per policy and guidelines. He also misrepresents sources in the course of his arguments. In all of that, he fails to yield to consensus, and accuses other editors of lacking "integrity". His presence on these topics is just a tremendous time sink.

The issue goes back at least to SageRad's editing at David Gorski (a skeptic) in May 2015 (three article edits and 21 talk edits) which led to a block to which SageRad responded with the expected complaint of censorship.

From Dec 2015 to March 2016 at Paleolithic diet - see pretty much the entirety of Talk:Paleolithic_diet/Archive_6 in which SageRad bludgeoned the talk page with 180,000 bytes of talk page comments expressing his perception that the article was hijacked by "Skeptics" and was "biased"; he protested the fad diet attribution. A huge drag on the time of other editors.
- first post in Dec 2015 where he first said there is a scientific basis for the diet (against all the RS) and
- this also from December where he wrote: "I think it's pretty obvious here that there is a strong pushing to interpret the review article in the very least favorable way possible in regard to the Paleolithic diet, and this is holographically emblematic of the editing practice used in the entire article from the lede throughout the body. There is a serious wind blowing in the direction of "debunking" the article's subject throughout, and every single line is being used to slam the Paleolithic diet against a wall and to beat it up here. That's not cool. That's essentially like a witch hunt and trial against the article's subject being done by the dominant group of editors here. It's not alright. The readings here seem to strive so hard to interpret the article in question as being guilty before proven innocent. It's a witch hunt. There will never be any good dialogue here and no fair or unbiased approach to the article taken, so long as this is the prevailing flavor of the editorship here. It smacks of the same attitude taken in much of the Skeptic™ literature, and i call out the bias here." More of them same "meta-discussion" and giving his personal perception/philosophy and skeptic-complaints here (more anti-Skepticism) and here (the "integrity" bit in the face of consensus against his proposals, and "McCarthyism") and here (noodling/soapboxing against "fad diet") and here (more personal opinion) and here (more anti-skeptic general soapboxing) all the way though to
- near-last post in Feb 2016 - after extensive discussion - saying pretty much the same thing.

More recently he took his anti-Skeptic campaign to Jimbo's talk page:
- Wikipedia we have a problem in August 2016, and
- Wikipedia we still have a problem a month later, reacting mostly to the month-long block he got due to his first one.

The titles of both of these posts are direct quotes of banned user Rome Viharo's website (which I can't link to, as it is blacklisted) and the posts echo much of Viharo's conspiracist hysteria about a skeptic takeover of WP (which Viharo apparently decided must be True after the community continually rejected his FRINGE-pushing nonsense about Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra, two topics of longterm disruption with regard to altmed here in WP)

In both of the threads above you will find SageRad accusing others of McCarthyism, soapboxing, complaining about others' lack of integrity and his own adherence to The Truth. (diff (a whole "holographic" analysis of the "Skeptics conspiracy takeover" thing); diff (McCarthyist); diff (fascist, totalitarian); diff (speaking truth to power); diff there is an ideological war being waged here within Wikipedia. This is against the policies and rules of Wikipedia, and i have repeatedly been demonized as a result, not because i was guilty of violating the policies. but because i am an enemy to an ideological faction's dominance and therefore like an immune system they seek to eject me for speaking about the lay of the land in this regard); etc)

SageRad's campaign is also aligned with other altmed advocates that complain about a "skeptic takeover" of WP, like the folks at Natural News (see here for example).

He has continued that campaign in WP space:

On October 15 he opened a discussion at the Fringe Noticeboard here with more soapboxing - you can read his first three noodling remarks there.
That discussion was moved to WT:FRINGE where he has written stuff like this, soapboxing about the (nonexistent in WP) difference between institutions that create sources and the "power" in society expressed via those institutions.
On October 20 he opened a section at FRINGEN here claiming that the Chemophobia article is FRINGE in that it treated this like a psychological condition; this was a misrepresentation in that the article specifically says "Despite containing the suffix -phobia, the majority of written work focusing on addressing chemophobia describes it as a non-clinical aversion or prejudice, and not as a phobia in the standard medical definition".

What spurs this filing, is that SageRad has continued this campaign -- really WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior -- against the perceived skeptic takeover, in article space this fall.

On Sept 10, opened a section at Talk:Michael Greger (plant-based diet advocate who unfortunately often exaggerates health claims) focusing on his "skeptic" issue: Talk:Michael_Greger#Problem_with_.22skeptic.22_as_a_title, generally OFFTOPIC soapboxing disrupting already difficult discussions with Greger fans objecting to any critical discussion of Greger. Made 39 comments mostly all on this "skeptic" stuff.
On Sept 11 he jumped into the Scientific skepticism article to pursue his campaign there, making 6 edits to Talk exemplified by this where he brings no sources but just noodles on the topic and continues his campaign: "And this is not solely about paranormal phenomena, but also about other aspects of interpretation of the world through science where the social movement may have a world view that is not in line completely with the actual science, and thereby uses the appearance of the role of skeptic to promote something that is not true scientific skepticism"
On Sept 16 entered discussion at Talk:John A. McDougall, an article about another diet advocate where we have consistent low level trouble from "fans" of the diet, making 9 edits to Talk, again arguing against the fad diet attribution and writing the following (dif: "The source cited appears to not support the claim. There seems to be a lot of WP:IDHT going on where people seem to not hear that the source doesn't say what is claimed that it says" which completely misrepresented the source as I showed him I here. He went on to actually invoke Godwin's Law here.
On Sept 25 he joined a discussion at Talk:Detoxification (alternative medicine) in a section entitled "Truth of Toxins" ( right down his alley) where he helpfully brought a new ref (PMID 25522674) but then misrepresented it here and again here arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets (the conclusion presented in the source is: "At present, there is no compelling evidence to support the use of detox diets for weight management or toxin elimination. Considering the financial costs to consumers, unsubstantiated claims and potential health risks of detox products, they should be discouraged by health professionals and subject to independent regulatory review and monitoring.") Even after that was pointed out to him here he persisted. He also brought more of his anti-Skeptic campaigning in diff (already cited dif): "Person Z calls himself a "skeptic" and some editors declare this topic is "fringe" because "it's obvious" and therefore normal sourcing considerations of Wikipedia are suspended and anything uttered by someone who self-identifies as a "Skeptic" and says the right combination of memes on their blog becomes a reliable source. Now i understand how Wikipedia works in practice, through observation of what actually happens."
Most recently at misophonia (a condition proposed in 2000 for people who have strong negative reactions to soft sounds, like eating noises)... which has been a struggle to keep neutral in the face of a lot of advocacy both by people who experience this as well as (bizarrely) by various groups who study and claim to treat people with symptoms.... He has again been abusing the talk page as a place to philosophize and push his anti-skeptic/FRINGE campaign, now about whether this condition exists or not and more generally what we do here in WP, instead of simply following sources which are extremely clear that the condition is proposed, has no classification, is not in the DSM or ICM, etc. He doesn't have access to the sources (as at the Detox article above, he was making strident claims citing only the abstract) yet he writes things like this, even after I present him with the relevant parts of the sources twice (here and later here, which he has refused to even engage. In all this he is pushing for content to be added that gives more certainty to the proposed condition than reliable sources allow and again fighting what he perceives as a skeptic agenda (dif: "Misophonia is a condition. ...The tone of the article, and the lead, should not be one of discrediting or disbelief." Argh. I dread that this is heading into another slog like the Paleo diet fiasco discussed above and I have no desire to go through that again.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

29 May 2015 block for violating BLP at David Gorski (see relevance above)
topic banned per GMO arbcom case in December 2015
blocked via AE for 5 days for violating TBAN in July 2016
blocked for one 1 month via DS for violating TBAN in August 2016

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

If you look at SageRad's contribs, this anti-skeptic pro-altmed editing is pretty much all they do here (with the exception of some Race & Intelligence work and some scattered editing on basic biology). In all these cases he is making difficult editing situations worse by adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are. Am suggesting a TBAN from anything related to health, as it is articles about health/alt med where he has mostly brought his SOAPBOXing and disruptive, time-wasting behavior. I would suggest alt med more narrowly but I don't want to get into endless border disputes. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

link updated per SageRad's request. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, I will do no more adjusting. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, while i think restricting SageRad from soapboxing would help, the deeper problem of not dealing with sources and even misrepresenting them, and relentlessly advocating for his preferred content, is not going to be addressed by that. The disruption from SageRad's first edits here have been in the field of health which is why I requested what I did. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tryptofish; while i see how you could suggest that this is at base an interpersonal dispute, SageRad's editing has focused on health from his first days here and there is one consistent arc of behavior that I described in my OP. Yes, that means he and I have clashed since he arrived, since my editing is also focused on health. So yes there is an element of interpersonal dispute, but in my view, it arises from my having to deal with SageRad's problematic behavior on health topics for all this time. I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way. The problems are actual, not perceived by me. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your reply. When I filed this I was concerned it might get framed as an interpersonal dispute. I cannot deny that we have been at loggerheads since he arrived; I don't want that to obscure the facts of SageRad's consistent pattern of POV editing and his behavior pursuing that POV, since he arrived here. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tryptofish I know you nodded at the problem with SageRad's behavior with your suggestion about some limit on his talk postings. However, I contest your description of this as "Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another." and the mention of RfCs as a possible solution. This is not a DR thing. SageRad has demonstrated a consistent set of problems with regard to POV on content about health and behavior trying to get that content into WP. It is not going to be resolved by treating it merely as a series of good faith content disputes that can be resolved with RfCs. That is why I posted here. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and now i am going to shut the heck up, unless I am asked something. :) i am arguing too hard. I am long term frustrated. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually one more thing. The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here and I am very comfortable putting that history on the table. Here is his talk page before he purged it at the start of this year; that is where key interactions between SageRad and me took place. I invite anybody who wants to cast this as equivalent to review that from the top down. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, i have no objection at all to the month pause in conjunction with SageRad taking a break Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning SageRad

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 SageRad

Wow. I think a few specific editors have it out for me and are making mountains out of molehills because they have it out for me.

I do my best to follow sources and make good edits. On Jimbo's page, i speak to patterns i see within Wikipedia. Big deal. I use forums for discussion as they're intended. Big deal.

Ironically, i've been having issues with Jytdog, the very editor who brought this here, for the whole time i've been on Wikipedia.

Most recently, we've been at loggerheads on the Misophonia article. I don't think i have any other atypical conditions, but i have suffered from misophonia all my life, and only recently learned that others have the very same specific condition. And so i was learning more from MEDRS sources, and made few edits there too. And now that article seems to have a pretty serious WP:OWNership problem with this editor.

Anyway, i just filed a request at the NPOV noticeboard for other editors to help out with that article, providing help with neutrality.

And then i saw the notice about this AE case, and i just have to say Wow i'm pretty incredulous. Didn't even read the long diatribe by Jytdog.

I'm honest, forthright, and speak what i see. In editing articles i've improved greatly since i began, and i think i understand the policies well. I edit according to policies. I speak honestly. I want good article -- nothing more. I want good articles that follow the best sources.

Other people have issues that i speak to problems in Wikipedia. Are you going to shoot me for speaking? If so then it's on your hands.

SageRad (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty busy, have a child, and working. Last thing i want is drama. This is ridiculous. To anyone who sees Jytdog's lengthy diatribe, i ask you to simply choose any one aspect, and look at it in depth. Don't be fooled by the size of the complaint. See if it really holds up under a microscope. I'm not perfect, but i edit with integrity and following the policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has problems, but it's not me. SageRad (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny note. So i saw Jytdog said "That discussion was moved to WT:FRINGE where he has written stuff like this" with a link here. Note that this contained typos and missing words and you should actually read this diff -- Jytdog, will you change that in your long long thing about me please? Wouldn't want to deceive a reader, would we? The difference in the text is huge in light of this case, and it's obvious i revised that immediately. SageRad (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had changed my statement to this and then was told that i was not supposed to change my statement. Well, ok, now i know that. I'm working on this in the margins of my time. I don't have hours to write here, and i don't want this drama nor to be topic banned, so what to do? Can i know how much time i may have? I don't have hours to put into this. Wikipedia is a labor of love, but if it's going to be like a court case then it's not the thing i would prioritize in my life right now. But on the other hand, litigious people can't be able to drive editors away by bringing such cases, but that may be just what happens too often. I love Wikipedia and want to see policies applied. Please read my other statement in the link above if you're interested. I sort of need help to know what the process is, in short terms. But on the other hand, i don't have time to dedicate to finding diffs and being a lawyer. I'm not paid to be a lawyer. 23:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the alternate version of Sage's statement, from the diff above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the process here?

I don't have time to follow long threads of comments right now.

What do others want to ask me or have me respond to?

Is there some sort of cross-examination? Can people ask me about what they are concerned about, allow me to respond?

I do not thing Jytdog's painting of me as a really bad figure and a person on a crusade are correct. I strive to follow the policies of Wikipedia and it actually really bothers me that they are not followed more to the letter more often.

I do get very frustrated sometimes by what i see as some people getting off scott-free while flouting the policies, or filibustering, while others are trying to have good dialog and to use good sourcing to write good articles.

I do not think Wikipedia is the place to "right great wrongs" or to do anything other than report what's in reliable sources, and to copyedit and organize the content well for the readers.

I do think it matters what is covered and how it's covered, and there are many ways this can be done about any topic. The best articles arise from the good-faith discussion among editors with differing perspectives. If they can be civil and follow the policies, and also to admit when they are wrong (as everyone is sometimes) then you get good article -- and also a camaraderie feeling.

I wish i could get along with Jytdog but it's been quite rough over the last year and a half. He's taught me some things. I appreciate some of the work he does. He's sometimes kind and helpful to people, and i know it takes patience. I appreciate some of the fact-checking he does. I appreciate his explaining sourcing or other policies to other editors.

However, i see him sometimes using his great talent to actually overstep what policies say, or to bend things in a certain way, or to intimidate other editors with alphabet soup (even when sometimes the essays or guidelines don't even really apply) and i have also felt him to be very obstinate sometimes, and not willing to have a truly good dialog sometimes (as in the misophonia article where we've most recently had some tension).

Anyway, i love Wikipedia and i want to be here when i can, but i don't want this drama. I want people to be cooperative and even to admit when i'm wrong. I have done so -- admitted i'm wrong -- even to Jytdog in the past couple of months, which i could verify with diffs if anyone wants. I don't have time for the drama, or lawyering, for finding the 15 relevant diffs among 4,000 or whatever... i love knowledge and to work on articles, but the time sink tax when there's this level of drama is too much. I have a child and a job and relationships to maintain. It's real life.

I am willing to answer any questions or respond to any observations that are in good faith and not from specific editors (a handful) who seem to hate my guts as far as i can tell. I'm sorry they don't like me. I wish everyone would like me, but i will always speak my honest thoughts. SageRad (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, contrary to what Jytdog said, i do have access to most journal articles through my past university lab affiliation.

Lastly, i admit i may have spoken too much about patterns within Wikipedia, or attributing motives to other editors, which should not use space on talk pages. Sometimes it's a response to the mirror image accusations made about me.

In many ways, i appreciate Jytdog's integrity. In some ways, he really does own up to some sorts of mistakes and make corrections. He really does want to make the encyclopedia the best it can be, i believe, but perhaps needs to consider some things more carefully from time to time and not be so reactive. Sorry if that's too much critique to speak of another editor. I mean it with good will. SageRad (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look.......... all the dozen or so enemies are out making horribly distorted and untrue nd biased and polemic statements against me.

This is onerous and there ought to be a boomerang instead of me being on the defense. Jytdog needs to be reigned in. Everything he says about me is actually showing HIM to be on a "right great wrongs" bender, with a mission to eradicate people who disagree with him on some axes.

I don't even have time for this shit.

SageRad (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THE HYPOCRISY IS ABSLUTELY ASTOUNDING.

Jytdog has mounted an ideological crusade, and the people who are in continuous agreement with this come out to cheer "Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!" and others actually allow this.

Get the hypocrisy, the irony:

The very thing that Jytdog is incorrectly railing about me, is what HE is doing. Running an editor out for ideological reasons. I've expressed myself in forums meant for the purpose. He doesn't like that. He stored up a list and made a Monday-morning drop of a case to eradicate me because HE doesn't like my beliefs about Wikipedia.

This has NOTHING to do with the policies of Wikipedia. I follow those to a T. I have learned the better and if you look at my recent edits, you'll see that i follow them. Therefore there ought to be NOTHING for which to ban me from any topic. Speaking thoughts and observations on Jimbo's page and talk pages is WHAT WE DO HERE! You don't like the things i've said? That's your problem.

I'm not "disrupting" -- that's a bullshit complaint. I am speaking. You don't like the inconvenience of someone disagreeing with you. You don't like the invonvenience of having to explain and justify your edits (like at the misophonia article, where i'm still pretty sure i'm right about the reading of the sources and the fact that YOU are doing WP:OR and WP:SYN there with nosology and even doing that incorrectly.) Sorry if you're frustrated that sometimes you cannot "win" the content you want when it's contrary to sourcing and policies.

This is a witch hunt type of thing. Better analogized to McCarthyism as it's a political purging.

If you let this happen, you have blood on your hands.

See what's happening here.

Speaking these things is not a crime! The shooting of people for speaking these things is a crime.

Most of y'all who've come out of the woodword (predictably) are in the same camp -- demonstrably through your actions, words, and edits -- doing the very thing you're accusing me of merely speaking about.

This place is damned.

This place is gone.

This place is captured by an ideological crew. I hold strong and true to everything i've said through my time here. It's more instructive who's come out to make statements against me, than the content of those statements. You can see who hates my presence here because they hate the things i say. That is instructive. Think for yourself, observers.

Kill me if you must but i will not pander or lie.

SageRad (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen -- i just saw your comment in which you pinged me. I would like to request a month to get a defense together then. I would be able to process and not feel in jeopardy of a hammer coming down at any moment. The process has felt uncontrollable so far, with the sheer volume of Jytdog's long statement in which i'm described as a demon at all turns. It's far above the 500 word traditional word limit and it's too demonizing to make a simple statement about. It's too deep of a problem and needs some serious addressing. Another thing i would ask is to be able to erase the current statement and make a coherent new one. I've been in a panic mode of sorts and other things in life have been too demanding, and as a result i've written off the cuff. I've also been in shocked traumatic response to the half dozen people who've been in bad conflict with me for a long time all coming out of the woodwork to make horrible statements about me. Wow talk about a jury of one's enemies. SageRad (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, if speaking in this way is clearly reason for a siteban in your eyes and the "court's" eyes then you might as well site-ban me and be done with it, for this place is then absolutely and proven to be an ideologically purged place where speaking of ideological purging is grounds for being purged. I can't beleive that people cannot see the absolute irony in this condition. It's so basic and foundational. A dynamic where one might see something problematic and speak of it, and then they get punished for speaking of it, is not a healthy place and actually fairly well proves that there is a problem. In other words, this place is enabling to an ideological purging by one specific group. And the very saying that i see this happening is grounds to ban me. Well then, this place IS ABSOLUTELY CAPTURED NOW BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT' and i will never be able to work well here in a collegiate way because collegiality hardly exists here and it's more like being a member of Stalin's Party -- tow the party line or be purged. So i guess you've given me your answer in your very reply.

THERE IS NO JUSTICE HERE. THERE IS ONLY POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP AND MACHIAVELLIAN MACHINATION.

Good luck with that.

Unfortunately the effect is disgusting upon this repository supposedly of the world's knowledge which pretends to be independent and open-source but is actually controlled in this blatant way, though not obvious to those who have not been through the wringer like i have. So, good job! You've got a mouthpiece that appears to be neutral but is actually captured! I think someone is pleased with this establishment status quo.

And the irony is my saying this will be ground for my destruction as a voice in the world of Wikipedia.

Well, give me liberty of give me death. Guess you're choosing to give me death.

SageRad (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown what you propose would not be acceptable to me and i'll simply be gone, as if site-banned. I'm sick of topic bans and i'm sick of those who speak being pillories and neutralized. It's obvious that's what's happening here, and nobody has the guts to speak up, or those who would have all already been site-banned or shake in fear at a few names below who've time and again enforced the dogma. So, it's not a game i will play anymore. I'm calling it out, and for doing so if you ban me then you ban me. I will not accept any such topic ban. I will consider it tantamount to a total site ban. There's no getting around this. It's all or nothing. SageRad (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, i will take a month wiki-break. That's great. I would love to. I was happy to be working on the misophonia article (as it relates personally and it's interesting) but then came to loggerheads with Jytdog on it, and sense he got frustrated about this, and then i posted on WP:NPOV/N about it and was happy with that process. But then on the same Monday morning before work, to get a 1,500 word screed dropped upon me felt horrible. Yes, i felt really overwhelmed and like i have no time, and felt so screwed over in an unfair way.

Here's the thing. I do see patterns here. I see editing patterns. Who doesn't? Is it wrong to speak of them?

If it's wrong then Jytdog's entire screed is wrong. If it's not wrong, then it's okay.

So why the double standard? Why's it alright for Jytdog at Talk:Misophonia to accuse others of advocacy editing, whereas to say that there are problematic patterns in his or others' editing is anathema?

Why is it wrong to point out the very obvious "Skeptic" memes and sources that are populating Wikipedia so ubiquitously? Why's it wrong to point out that there is indeed a project to send people to Wikipedia to edit with this directive, in fact, as documented by external sources?

Why is it defined as a complete and total capital offense to speak of things in one direction, and yet the mirror image is completely sanctioned, and even praised and worshipped?

Seems there is a power structure with a particular bent here.

I am not "bludgeoning" -- i've spoken the same amount as others here in some public forum locations -- like Jimbo's page, and like the talk page on the "fringe" guideline. Those were places where this discussion is sanctioned --- so why is it seen as "evidence" of my "wrongdoing" when Jytdog presents these things here?

And yeah -- the article on Dr Michael Greger -- i did indeed question the use of the word "skeptic" as a title for a person. So? That's good critique of the article. It's a real point that i can legally and rightfully bring up. Why is that presented as if it's a crime?

Jeez.... does anyone see the craziness of this AE case?

This is like The Trial. My crime? Thinking about things and speaking.

Yes, it is like Stalin's Party. There are unspeakable things. You must not say them or you get taken here, and pilloried. Yes, it is like McCarthyism.

Saying this is not wrong. You don't have to agree. But why is saying that a punishable offense?

I'll tell you why. It's a thoughtcrime.

You should think on that. Why is something a thoughtcrime here in Wikipedia? Perhaps because there is a power issue at play.

Anyway, i edit according to policies. You will see within the last few months, any edit i have made to an article is 9 times out of 10 a good edit with good sources. I'm not pushing anything into articles. I'm not pushing an agenda other than to make good articles following the sources.

Please, please, go to the misophonia article and the Talk:Misophonia talk page and see for yourselves. Please, see whether i am breaking any rules in a bad way, or simply trying to improve the article.

With that, i will take a one month wiki-break. I need my time for other things and have too much to do to take part in a trial of this kind, and have little expectation of justice prevailing anyway.

Sage

Statement by JzG

SageRad has taken it upon himself to be arbiter of "integrity" on Wikipedia. The recent discussions on Jimbotalk showed that Sage rejects conflicting opinion as invalid, and considers that intergrity is measured by consonance with his ideology. On his user page he links to a website promoting an "ethical skeptic" agenda, which promotes Brian Martin (conspiracy theorist and supervisor of Judith Wilyman's substandard and anti-vaccine PhD) and the website where Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin and others rant against pesky science for not accepting their beliefs. He has adopted the rhetoric of Rome Viharo, who was banned for sockpuppetry while promoting Sheldrake and woo-meister Deepak Chopra (where he also had a COI, IIRC). Sage has used the name of Viharo's website, Wikipedia, we have a problem, as the title of at least one o his threads: [1].

One could put this down to the aftermath of ARBGMO, but long before that he was inserting accusations of censorship against David Gorski based on Gorski's banning him from commenting for trolling. The skeptic community is generally skeptical about anti-GMO rhetoric, and this seems to have set Sage against organised skepticism pretty much from the outset.

All this would be fine if Sage were capable of understanding the difference between his opinion and objective fact. He consistently demonstrates that he is not.

Sage is intelligent and articulate, but he lacks the ability to accept that any conclusion differing from his own might be grounded in truth. The diffs above clearly show this. The biggest problem is that any topic ban would have to include all areas subject to skeptical activism, and I don't honestly think he edits anything much else. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: I am not sure this actually is a case of editors who can't stand each other. I can't speak for Jytdog, but I do not dislike Sage at all. That's part of the problem: I feel very conflicted. I like him but his constant m:MPOV is vexing. In my opinion, if he could accept the possibility of any valid conclusion other than his own, he would be a valued contributor. He has the time and intelligence to read sources, after all. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SageRad: You ask "What do others want to ask me or have me respond to?" Really? You can ask that still, after the recent discussions at Jimbotalk? I'd say that [2] and [3] contain a pretty complete answer to exactly that question. Your problem is as I state above: you seem unwilling or unable to accept that any conclusion other than yours could possibly be valid, and you clearly consider that anybody who states a conclusion other than yours is ill-informed, stupid, corrupt or some combination of the three. [4] followed by [5] set the tone, and I reckon the whole reason we are here is that if you took a straw poll of those who have spent time trying to work on articles alongside you, most of us would be of the opinion that left to your own devices you would make those edits again right now. It would be lovely to be proved wrong, but I have never seen any evidence of you even acknowledging that these are matters where reasonable people may differ, let alone being open to changing your mind. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Fine with that, Sage has a new baby I think - I can still remember the effects of infant-induced sleep deprivation even two decades later. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I don't have anything particularly global to add, although I agree with Bishonen's concern that there is a genuine time-sink going on.

Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another. See also: User talk:SageRad#Talk:Misophonia. It's not as simple as white-hats and black-hats.

Instead of editors getting sucked into tl;dr arguments where nobody persuades anyone else, have content RfCs been adequately explored as a way of moving past logjams? (Example RfC question: "Below are some sources that say that misphonia is a genuine disorder, and some sources that say that it is not. Taking the sources together, should this page present it as a genuine disorder?")

I've been trying to think of a possible DS restriction on SageRad that might be practical to design. Perhaps a word limit for talk page comments about AltMed pages? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I did not say it was interpersonal at its base. It isn't. But it is, partly ("some"). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy: I agree with you that Sage has a lot of potential as an editor, and I was referring more to Jytdog than to you, but despite the replies from Jytdog and from you, I still think that my statement is accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I IAR put back (collapsed) the version of Sage's statement that he had reverted, and I think that it is a better statement than his original one. @Sage: you are permitted to add to your original statement, so you can always add new stuff (well, there's a word limit that is not being followed at the moment) as long as you don't delete the old stuff; you can also strike through anything you wrote. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

I've been seeing problems with SageRad continue to brew on my watchlist after their GMO sanctions. Just in the context of their previous sanctions from GMOs, part of the reasoning why they were topic banned was the exact same behavior we're still seeing here. When people start to complain about how a topic is being antagonized by SageRad's continued soapboxing, they're often met with SageRad's "What, who me?" responses when told to knock it off just like we are seeing in their response to this AE. Basically, disruption in fringe and health topics followed by playing the victim when they're behavior on article pages is called out. Add in the obvious battleground behavior, and we're back to where we were with SageRad before the GMO ArbCom case. That's especially apparent with their "othering" (i.e., "bullies") of editors that try to curtail the disruption SageRad causes in topics where they engage in advocacy or soapboxing about their personal ideals. It's becoming apparent SageRad just won't listen even after their sanctions. Same behavior as GMOs, just different topics now.

At the end of the day, I don't have strong convictions about specific action against SageRad since I don't have to deal with them in my topic areas anymore (mainspace at least), but it's apparent they just moved their behavior issues outside their topic ban. I do feel for editors that still end up putting up with this behavior pretty regularly though. Here area a few ideas for sanctions to impose on SageRad that should at least stop the disruption and maybe turn them around:

1. One-way interaction ban when dealing with Jytdog. I don't have super strong support for this as it's really just a band-aid, but the continued battleground behavior is obvious while Jytdog has been acting at least relatively reasonable (though obviously frustrated) in the face of this string of continued behavior. I'm usually open to less complicated two-way bans, but I think we can agree SageRad's behavior is the core issue here to work on first.

2. Expanding topic bans as JzG mentioned. Probably the most concrete topic ban would be a broadly construed ban on any topic related to health (including environmental contamination for clarity). A topic ban on any WP:FRINGE topic could be a secondary consideration, but that's harder to define for avoiding wikilawyering. Word limits might have been a consideration back when SageRad was newer to Wikipedia, but the issue here seems to be they just can't let go in these topics.

3. Long-term block. SageRad has used tons of rope already still showing behavior (regardless of what they actually say) that they are not WP:HERE and are instead using Wikipedia more for soapboxing and hyperbole. Maybe that can change if they are handed a topic ban that gets them out of this activism mindset and into topics where they can act like a normal editor. I think we have to acknowledge though that if this all continues, the WP:ROPE is going leading to this last option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing The Wordsmith's and Dennis Brown's comments on on applicable DS for a topic ban, this ArbCom case explicitly imposes DS on "all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". In terms of DS, there would be no issue with a WP:FRINGE topic ban option, and the case could be made under that for a medical topic ban because that's where the fringe issues occur. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Skyring

After a tangential mention in discussion below, a tangential comment. SageRad has his own strong views, is well-informed, intelligent, and productive. There's a place for him here. But when he encounters opposition, rather than discuss the points of opposition in the context on improving the article(s), he takes it personal and tries to convert other editors to his views, which he considers to be the rational factual objective plain truth, and everybody else is a deluded fool or a tool of big business or something, and ultimately Wikipedia is fatally flawed because of this evil and that evil.

Well, it's not. It works, it's a valuable reference, it's an internet marvel. SageRad should get offa his soapbox, work with those who have contrary opinions, and for the love of ghod, stop filling pages with long rambling rants! SageRad, we love you, we want you, it's just your behaviour needs a bit of a tweak. Okay? --Pete (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

As an editor who has had a role in the current Chemophobia article I was surprised to see, on 20 October, postings by SageRad on both the article's Talk page and at WP:FT/N report a "POV issue" because "This article presents 'chemophobia' as if it's a psychological phenomenon ..."

[6]
[7]

On re-reading the article I saw (as did a number of other editors) that this is simply not the case: the article says precisely the opposite. This has been pointed out but since then no retraction, explanation or further comment has been made. On top of SageRad's editing history this looks far from being constructive activity. What is going on?

Because of SageRad's problematic stance towards skepticism I don't think a TBAN on health content is quite right - a TBAN needs to cover (probably in addition) any topic covered by the WP:FRINGE guidance - broadly construed - though I fear this will not succeed because SageRad seems to have a novel view of what is, and is not, fringe that is out-of-sync with the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

@Wordsmith, discretionary sanctions are authorised for a number of areas SageRad has been problematic in. So realistically you could apply any sanction you wanted (provided you felt it had merit). The real issue is that SageRad is not topic-bound in his disruption. He has an anti-skeptic agenda which manifests in disruptive editing wherever skepticism is evident. He is not pro-fringe as it was, just anti-evidence-based science. His editing MO is to show up at an article, declare bias, argue with people until he finally gets they dont agree with him, then rants about how everything is unfair.

The problem is fringe and skepticism cover a huge range of topics. From pseudoscience, lifestyle, history, medical etc. Normally a targetted topic ban would suffice, but to limit SageRad's disruption would require a 0/1 revert restriction AND some sort of enforced character limit on discussions. And even *then* that would really only just keep disruption to a minimum, it wouldnt prevent anything as SageRad has a worldview that is incompatible with how Wikipedia populates article content. Alexbrn has laid out the most recent example. Jzg and a couple of others say SageRad is clearly intelligent etc, but I disagree. SageRad has repeatedly failed to grasp basic wikipedia concepts & policies, and as Alexbrn's example shows above, clearly has an issue in reading comprehension. There is a CIR issue here. This may be because he skim-reads and fails to grasp what is actually said - Jytdog has listed a number of examples where SageRad cherry-picks/looks at brief abstracts/summaries instead of reading and understanding what material actually says.

But this disruption is not limited to Wikipedia, this is just his latest venue for pushing his POV/Agenda. He came here (and was subsequently sanctioned) after getting into conflict with Gorski. He previously linked to his rants/comments offsite - and even a basic internet search shows his attack-dog mentality when criticised (just in case anyone thinks to accuse me of outing, SageRad has previously linked to his offsite comments himself, then deleted them when it was pointed out they showed his bias). If you are unable to actually implement a workable sanction, this will need to go to ANI or Arbcom for a site ban discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annnnd we reached the hysterical McCarthy accusations again (this is an ongoing theme, if you take a look at SageRad's talkpage history, specificially their interactions with MjolnirPants). Essentially this illustrates the problem - where multiple people disagree with SageRad, its everyone else that is the problem. Keep in mind, this is multiple editors in multiple topics over an extended period of time (since SageRad came to wikipedia). This is simply a case of 'this person is not suited for wikipedia'. Failure to agree with others is generally fine. People are not required to agree all the time. Failure to agree plus disruption plus personal attacks, plus agenda pushing plus inability to accept consensus is not ok. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'cool down blocks' imply there is something to cool down from. Or that SageRad is acting out currently. This is not the case. SageRad's current behaviour is completely normal for him. Both during his entire tenure at Wikipedia, and his off-site activities. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plea by DrChrissy

I am not here to comment on the merits or otherwise of this case, rather, I am here to make observations on Sage's behaviour and a plea for a moritorium. Sage's most recent behaviour on this noticeboard and at other places is very uncharacteristic for him. He is making unfocussed edits and flailing around in the multiple threads regarding his behaviour. He has even resorted to swearing which I don't think I have ever seen him do before. His baby is a new baby, I think only 6 weeks old or so, and I think is his first. To make this brief, I believe Sage may be experiencing some sort of melt-down. A moritorium would show compassion and allow Sage to either calm down and/or make decisions in a more rational way which Arbcom would be more able to deal with. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

Unfortunately, I see two problems here. The first has to do with the subject editor, User:SageRad, who has been editing aggressively since May 2015 with a strong point of view on medical and agricultural topics. The second has to do with the history between the subject editor and the filing editor, User:Jytdog. Jytdog has long been editing aggressively in accordance with Wikipedia policy to try to ensure that medical and scientific articles follow Wikipedia medical reliable source guidelines. Jytdog is almost always right with regard to policy, and has made enemies in Wikipedia, and SageRad is one of them, and SageRad has been aggressively attacking Jytdog since he began editing Wikipedia in May 2015. (SageRad made a few scattered edits before then.) Jytdog is absolutely correct in writing:

Actually, one more thing.  The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here.

Jytdog is completely correct in writing:

I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way.

I first became familiar with SageRad when he showed up at the dispute resolution noticeboard hounding Jytdog and claiming mistakenly to be a DRN volunteer. SageRad has been going after Jytdog at least since June 2015.

It is impossible to reason with SageRad to advise him that his behavior is disruptive. SageRad has, since May 2015, seen all efforts to advise him to modify his behavior as "McCarthyism" and "bullying". SageRad was topic-banned by the ArbCom from the topic area of genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals. (In case anyone argues that there was a kangaroo court proceeding, he wasn’t just banned by one kangaroo under discretionary sanctions. He was banned by the community-elected panel of kangaroos, except that we are not kangaroos because we are great apes.) He has recently been blocked twice, first for five days, then for one month. It isn’t clear why SageRad is so determined to change Wikipedia when he has apparently decided that Wikipedia is such an ugly corrupt place, but that is SageRad.

If any editor other than Jytdog had been the one filing this request, I would suggest that SageRad be Site-Banned. As it is, Jytdog is the wrong editor to be filing this request, because Jytdog is right, but it looks too much like (almost justified) revenge. I suggest that SageRad be blocked for another month, and that Jytdog be asked to let other editors deal with SageRad after he is unblocked this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

I was trying to avoid commenting here because I've butted heads enough with Sage that it just feels like piling on. That said, what the admins here are seeing as a meltdown is actually pretty par for the course. Outbursts claiming McCarthyism (such as here [8] against Guy or here [9] against... everyone I guess) are fairly normal with Sage, though the Stalinism claim is a new one to me. This has been an ongoing issue when it comes to such hyperbolic claims against other users or WP in general. Capeo (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further note to admins, it seems unlikely SageRad will accept a voluntary editing restriction after saying they wouldn't accept an enforced one. I highly doubt it will work and will just serve to incite more drama. Perhaps I'm wrong, and SageRad will be fine with it, but I don't think you're going to get the response you're hoping for. Capeo (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because SageRad keeps insisting that folks look at the Misophonia talk page I did. As well as the article, its history, its sources and the current research. The article was a mess earlier in the year with extraordinary levels of advocate editing. To the degree that editors were adding things to the article, openly in edit summaries no less, to favor particular researchers. The majority of editors on the talk page over the last couple years I looked at also say they have Misophonia. It was brought back to some semblance of balance by Jytdog and others back in February. It quickly spiraled back to being a mess in the interceding months. Looking at the current research "a proposed condition" is exactly the proper way to characterize Misophonia according to the preponderance of RS. There is no diagnostic criteria for it. It's not listed in any diagnostic text. It's near invariably associated with other conditions such as OCD (primarily), anxiety disorders, Autism spectrum or Tourette's Syndrome. SageRad's selective use of a sentence from the Cavanna abstract is not engaging with the actual sources or even the abstract in question, or even Cavanna's actual paper. Even in the abstract itself, it's admitted "At the present stage, competing paradigms see misophonia as a physiological state potentially inducible in any subject, an idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders), or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder."

Cavanna and the one study he cites that agrees with him (that aren't his own) is the only person I can find that presently suggests it might be a primary condition. Even then he admits, in regard to the current definition of Misophonia, "This definition challenges the subsequently proposed views that misophonia is a discrete/idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders)8 or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder, at least in a proportion of cases.4 If confirmed by future systematic studies in large populations, the presence of high rates of comorbidity would go against the argument that misophonia should be labeled as a primary diagnosis. In fact, it would suggest that it is a symptom manifestation of other underlying or comorbid diagnoses and should more appropriately be labeled as a symptom, rather than as a stand-alone diagnosis. Either way, the addition of misophonia to nosographic classification systems of psychiatric disorders, such as the DSM, would require careful consideration." 8 is the study I mentioned. 4 is a short paper by Cavanna. Long story short: Jytdog's wording is correct and it appears SageRad is ignoring the caveats the source in question, which he provided, which isn't even close to the totality of sources in question. Capeo (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

I'm not going to post my usual, fifteen paragraph explanation of every nuance of my own thoughts about this. I'm just going to say two things.

I actually do 'like' SageRad in that I get the impression I could have a few beers with him, work alongside him, or have a friendly relationship with him as my next door neighbor. I would likely befriend him if I knew him IRL.
I absolutely, wholeheartedly, 100% without reservation support a permanent site ban. His views are immutable, and they are utterly incompatible with Wikipedia. He constantly expresses angst and frustration at his participation here. This is one of those rare cases where a permanent site ban would (eventually) make everyone happier, including Sage. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Roxy the dog)

I'm going to tender for the WP:ROPE supply contract with wikipedia. Must be racing up in value. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SageRad

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

I hope I'll have time to return to this request — it requires a daunting amount of reading for someone not already familiar with the relevant discussions — but I have a couple of initial points:

A. I don't see a problem with SageRad's posts on Jimbo's page. They're the kind of thing that page is for. But it's another matter to keep "adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are", as Jytdog puts it, to various article talkpages. I agree that is disruptive and time-wasting. To get the flavour, I've read through the Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 6, that Jytdog referred to and I see exactly what he means by timesink. (I admit I didn't read quite all of the archive, but a good chunk, maybe half, and it was one of my worst hours on Wikipedia.) SageRad's bandying of phrases like "witch hunt" and his assumptions of bad faith of editors like Johnuniq and User:Skyring are just depressing.[10] ("Thanks sir, who I have encountered before in a rather bullying fashion"... "another editor who has used bullying tactics against me in the past... the gang shows up.") The best thing might be a topic ban from going on about meta-issues on article talkpages, as well as the persistent accusations of people "ganging up" on and "bullying" him as soon as they disagree with him. But formulating such a ban properly and usefully is no doubt impossible. I see JzG too has a problem with what a ban might cover.

B. SageRad's comment "Didn't even read the long diatribe by Jytdog" in his response here is really unpromising. SageRad, I have read the "diatribe" carefully and found it full of interesting stuff and food for thought. Well, I would guess you have read it too by now, but for you to start by blowing off your opponent like that looks just like an unfortunate illustration of what JzG said above about a lack of ability to accept that any conclusion differing from your own might be grounded in truth. I hear what you say about real life busyness, but there's always the option of requesting more time to reply.

Oh, and C, just a PS to Jytdog: updating the link just now was fine, but for goodness sake don't otherwise fiddle with your initial statement any more. Fluidity in that makes it much harder for others to evaluate and respond. If you must make new points, please do so below your main signed and dated filing, with a new sig and datestamp. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: @SageRad: I see you ask above how much time you may have, and saying you don't have time to dedicate to finding diffs and being a lawyer. I suggest you put a request above, at the end of your statement, something on the lines of "I'm busy in real life, can I please have a week (or whatever specific time span would fit your circumstances) to supply a responsive and factual statement?" I'm sure the admins would agree to put this on hold for the time you need. However, if what you mean is that you will never have time to make a reasonable defense, or supply any evidential diffs, then we might as well deal with this as speedily as possible. Please let us know. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Continued note: I see @SageRad: says he wants a month. (Please stop adding stuff for a minute, as that's making it rather hard to respond.) Of course that seems a lot. When I wrote my original note, I hadn't seen your latest edits [11][12][13] ("This place is damned.. This place is gone..This place is captured by an ideological crew..." etc), which strongly supports Jytdog's complaint. If you stand by that, we may IMO as well siteban you and be done with it. But if what you need is some cooling-off time and then a new statement, it's fine by me. A month of not editing (since you're busy IRL. and will also be busy writing up a statement here) would work for me. What do other people think of a one-month moratorium, please? We could archive this request temporarily and bring it back on 25 November. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I'm still reading through the copious amounts of content presented as evidence. I think there is probably a need for some sort of action here, though I'm not quite sure what the best course is yet. As a point of order, however, I would like to note that this board and its administrators do not have the power to issue a topic ban from "health content"; that would be something to be brought up at one of the conventional noticeboards. The most severe topic ban available to us would be "pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine" or some narrower subset of that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading SageRad's latest postings, I think the assessment that he is in some sort of meltdown is essentially correct. Given that he is also dealing with a newborn child, I think compassion ought to reign here. Provided Sage agrees to take some voluntary time off editing, I would have no problem with putting the request on hold for a month or so. If he returns to editing, it can be resumed with cooler heads all around. Getting some sleep and adjusting to his new family situation might help the behavior problem on its own. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are empowered to implement any conventional sanction even though it is here at AE, treating it as a non-Arb issue without moving it to another board. OID raises some interesting points, and I have to admit only going through part of the evidence, yet this looks like one form of WP:Tendentious editing, albeit not a textbook example. He seems to be taking a singular position on a general theme (skepticism) and bludgeoning multiple pages and refusing to listen to consensus, to the point that it is disruptive to other editors that are simply trying to build an encyclopedia. It does seem to be a pattern of behavior that extends beyond a single venue, which has gone well beyond spirited debate and to the point that it is hindering the building of the encyclopedia. Again, WP:TE. I would like to read more and will later today, but this is how it is shaping up in my eyes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm was about to propose something else, something not as palatable as Bishonen's idea, but would entertain Bish's idea. What I don't want to happen is for SageRad to say he is leaving Wikipedia forever, then come back in a month or two and we have the same problem. I would only accept if we continue this in one month, even if it is in absentia. What I would have proposed is a 6 month block and 12 month ban on pseudoscience/medicine (to include skepticism, which is a stretch), to run concurrently. That would allow a long enough period of time as to prevent disruption for 6 months at least, and perhaps past that knowing the next block is indef. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I've learned anything in my decade plus experience here, SageRad, it is that people often say things in the heat of the moment they regret. A sanction doesn't require consent by the sanctioned. My first concern is all the other editors that are affected by your behavior. People leave Wikipedia because they get frustrated by people doing things like what you are doing, because they can't edit in a normal fashion and the frustration is too much. That is the purpose of a sanction, not to benefit you, but to benefit them, and by extension, Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"If you let this happen, you have blood on your hands." Oh dear. If that was a statement made under what we can call extenuating circumstances, it's probably best if this editor stays away from Wikipedia for a while. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: What I suggested above was that we put this on hold for a month with SageRad voluntarily abstaining from editing during that period, which is apparently The Wordsmith's opinion also. Having watched SR continue to "flail around" (per DrChrissy) makes me a bit dubious about the voluntary part; is he in a state where he can and will comply with a voluntary restriction? A one-month block for recent and ongoing disruption might technically be better. But I don't like to consider it, because people generally take blocks as humiliating. (Not me, I'm proud of mine, but it took me a few years to attain such block zen.) Humiliation is very bad and goes counter to the compassion principle. Therefore, I suggest a one-month moratorium with SageRad taking a wikibreak that has nothing to do with blocks and block logs. (Please briefly indicate if you agree to do that, @SageRad:.) If he edits anywhere in a disruptive way during the moratorium, he will then be blocked, and I advise against editing at all. And we collapse this until 25 November, but it can be re-opened earlier by SR himself, if he feels ready for it. He will be free to remove all his own posts here and start afresh, if desired. And I agree emphatically with Dennis that we must avoid a situation where we close without action, SR leaves, and then returns in a month or two, unsanctioned. We need to protect Wikipedia and other users from the bludgeoning that has been going on. The case should be discussed again in a month at the latest, even if in absentia. Is this acceptable to other admins? Bishonen | talk 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

For the record, that's more or less what I was suggesting. I'm not a fan of WP:COOLDOWN blocks when not absolutely necessary, and I'm not convinced this case warrants it. His conduct needs to be dealt with, but letting cooler heads prevail is a much better path for everyone involved. I endorse this proposal. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Can't hurt to try as long as we don't forget it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, all. Sigh... let's focus on the edit summary and first sentence of SageRad's statement here, that he is actually, now, taking a wikibreak, and put this on hold for a month. I hope he means it, because if there should be further ABF harangues in the coming month, I believe he should be blocked. Closing. Bishonen | talk 08:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Afterwriting

Warned for edit warring on the lead of Chiropractic. If this continues, an AE block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Afterwriting

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Afterwriting (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:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions; Specifically: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all ~~articles~~ pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

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

30 October 2016 Reverts CFCF, removing "pseudoscience" from opening sentence.
8 November 2016, 16:28 Removes "pseudoscience" from opening sentence again.
8 November 2016, 16:43 Edit wars to once again remove "pseudoscience" from opening sentence.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

3 October 2015 Blocked for edit-warring
24 June 2010 Blocked for edit-warring

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, also see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Chiropractic article is covered by discretionary sanctions in the field of pseudoscience. The alert can be found at the top of the talk page Talk:Chiropractic, linking to WP:ARBPS.

The Chiropractic article is currently under a concerted attack to remove the appellation "pseudoscience" from the opening sentence, which reads "Chiropractic is a form of pseudoscience and alternative medicine... ". Afterwriting is now edit-warring to force the removal of the term. There is no doubt that the underlying theory that chiropractic bases itself on, "vertebral subluxations" is considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientific opinion: [14], [15], [16], [17] and our Arbitration Committee has previously endorsed discretionary sanctions against editors on the chiropractic article - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience #2009.

Afterwriting has a history of attempting to force his preferred version by editwarring (see previous blocks and his present talk page), and is now doing this again in an attempt to whitewash Chiropractic contrary to mainstream scientific and medical opinion.

I request that Afterwriting be topic-banned from chiropractic and related pages to prevent further disruption and edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of this request

Discussion concerning Afterwriting

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 Afterwriting

I am very pleased that common sense has prevailed in this matter. This report had no substantial merit to it to begin with and, frankly, I had no need to defend myself against such erroneous accusations. It was an exercise in not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. As can can readily be checked, at no point in any of this "edit war" did I ever argue that mention of "pseudoscience" should not appear in the introduction or elsewhere in the article. In fact I agree that it should appear in an appropriate place and in an appropriate way. All I did was revert the addition of the term as the first description in the article, even though it already appeared elsewhere in the lead. The term was added to the opening sentence without seeking any consensus to do so and was then reverted which was entirely justifiable in terms of a number of editing policies. The editor responsible for constantly and aggressively adding this term as the first description in this and other alternative medicine articles is the one who bears principal responsible for creating any edit wars with myself and other editors. Afterwriting (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LeadSongDog

There appears to be a troubling pattern here, edit warring with CFCF on multiple altmed articles and engaging in personal attacks: [18][19][20][21][22] (Full disclosure: I often edit altmed pages and support WP's "bias" towards basing statements on the best-quality evidence available.)LeadSongDog come howl! 19:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WhatamIdoing

It looks like CFCF WP:BOLDly added the word pseudoscience to the first/definition sentence of Chiropractic (so that it read "Chiropractic is a form of pseudoscience and alternative medicine...") about three weeks ago. That particular instance of the word pseudoscience has been removed or moved to a different paragraph in the lead by multiple editors several times in the intervening weeks (and also re-added repeatedly by CFCF and other proponents).

There is now an active discussion on the talk page about whether or not pseudoscience should be the sixth word in the article, although it may be generating more heat than light. At the moment, the terms pseudoscience and pseudomedicine appear three times in the lead and three more times in the body of the article, but (since CFCF self-reverted earlier today) it is not currently in the first sentence itself.

In terms of this AE request, I would not fault Afterwriting for removing a heavily disupted word multiple times than I would fault CFCF for re-adding it multiple times – or any of the other editors who have edited that part of the article recently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Afterwriting

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

It's reasonable to see a general Wikipedia consensus that Chiropractic should be classified under pseudoscience. But attempts to stuff 'pseudoscience' into the opening sentence of the lead might appear to be provocative and likely to result in future edit wars. Even without User:CFCF's addition of pseudoscience to the opening sentence, we still have pseudoscience mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. We should expect some level of ongoing editing of the lead, but people who want to fine-tune the placement of 'pseudoscience' in the opening paragraph would normally be expected to defer to talk-page consensus. So to sanction Afterwriting for his edits and say nothing about people on the other side could appear unbalanced. (They didn't wait for a talk page consensus either). Unless there is a suggestion to apply page-level sanctions (e.g. putting a general 1RR on Chiropractic) I'd favor closing this request with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree with EdJohnston. I do think that Afterwriting is guilty of edit warring, at least in spirit, and should not have reverted RexxS--for now, let's wait and see what the talk page discussion delivers, and let this be a stern reminder to Afterwriting that they need to tread much, much more carefully. Their second revert on 8 November was, as far as I'm concerned, blockable. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. User:Afterwriting is warned for edit warring on the lead of Chiropractic. If this continues, an AE block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by DaltonCastle

Appeal declined, though the AE block has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user: DaltonCastle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Blocked 48 hours for 1RR violation on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

Administrator imposing the sanction: Ks0stm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: I am notified. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DaltonCastle

"This was a little harsh. I received no warning. My edits were not contentious. I am curious why the accuser never contacted me at all. This seems soundly unfair. As a token of goodwill I will stay off the page if you lift this block." Copied from the user's talk page per request. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

Statement by Ks0stm

Original change, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3. User had been alerted before. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

DaltonCastle re-inserted the POV tag over the objections of three other editors, twice after being warned here. That makes a total of three reverts on an article restricted to one revert. The block was appropriate and necessary. - Mr X 02:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MelanieN

I was just on my way to ask for attention to this violation by Dalton Castle, when I saw that he had already been blocked. Dalton Castle repeatedly adding a NPOV tag to the Donald Trump presidential campaign article, despite consensus against it on the talk page. He added it three times in the past 24 hours. [23] [24] [25] He did not start a talk page discussion or identify the specific NPOV violations he was alleging. When someone else started a discussion at the talk page he was dogmatic: "And we keep the tag up until we conclude it comes down." He not only violated the rules, but he still doesn't acknowledge that he did. --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by DaltonCastle

Seems pretty clear cut to me, the editor had been advised of the Discretionary Sanctions imposed by the arbitration committee, the block 48 hours it doesn't seem excessive to me. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 08:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by DaltonCastle

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

I would decline the appeal. If the 1RR was actually violated, then it's reasonable to proceed with an enforcement block unless there is some unusual issue that makes it unnecessary. Having read the thread at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Why is there an NPOV tag but no talk page discussion? it looks like DaltonCastle had plenty of time to review the situation and reconsider his edits of the NPOV tag. His theory that discussion is required only for removing the NPOV tag but not for adding one seems novel and I doubt it can be found anywhere in our policy. ("..it takes a talk page discussion to reach the consensus to remove the tag - it does not take a consensus to add the tag." There is nothing in the WP:EW policy to support this. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 48-hour AE block has now expired. Unless there is objection, I would close this appeal with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bloodofox

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 bloodofox

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: bloodofox (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:ARBAPDS :

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

11/10 Insults, personal attacks. Accusing other editors of "shilling" (i.e. accusing other editors that they're editing Wikipedia for money)
11/10 Insults, personal attacks
11/10 Personal attacks, discussing editors not content

11/9 Attacking and accusing other editors, although, I guess, in general terms, WP:SOAPBOXing.
11/9 Restoring another users' actual trolling on the Hillary Clinton page [26], although to be fair he was also restoring his own comment. BTW, can someone take a look at that other user?
10/24 Insults and personal attacks
10/24 along with [27] and [28] - basically accuses me, and other editors, of working for money to edit Wikipedia on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Now, he does it in a "sarcastic" tone which I guess would allow them some "deniability" when called on it, but the accusation is pretty clear. When I asked him if that was indeed the accusation he was making, bloodofox's response was basically "well, you'd never admit to it anyway"

9/22 Attacks on other editors rather than discussing content
8/25 Refusal to discuss or work towards consensus because other editors are "extensions of the Clinton campaign"
8/29 Makes the accusations that other editors are working for the Clinton campaign explicit. Attacks others. Complete and total failure to assume good faith. I'm sorry but discussing with someone who is so obsessed with attacking others is simply impossible.
8/29 Insults, ridiculous accusations that other editors work "for the Clinton campaign". Language about "ground zero" clearly indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.

8/16 Insulting other editors and calling them trolls.
8/15 Insulting other editors and calling them trolls. Threats to edit war on the article to get their way. WP:BATTLEGROUND
8/15 Aspersions and personal attacks
8/15 Calling other editors comments in discussion "trolling" without evidence
8/15 More insults and accusations of trolling
8/14 More personal attacks and baseless accusations of bias
8/14 Accusations that other editors on Wikipedia are working for "the Clinton campaign"
8/14 Aspersions and more personal attacks, focus on discussing (and attacking) fellow editors rather than discussing content
8/13 Baseless accusations against other editors
7/8 Old, but shows a long running pattern of using personal attacks and making WP:ASPERSIONS that has been going on for awhile

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [29] (note the edit summary)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Honestly I should've filed this long time ago, back in August when this started. But I try to be tolerant of incivility and personal attacks up until the point when these make discussion impossible. Give users another chance etc. But that's the point we've reached here. I have no idea of the quality/nature of bloodofox's contributions in other topic areas, but I honestly have not seen them make a single productive contribution to a discussion in American Politics. bloodofox IMMEDIATELY assumes that anyone who disagrees with them is a "paid shill", that they are working for the Clinton campaign (or were, I guess, looks like no more fat pay checks for me. Sad.) that they are troll, that they work for "Correct a Record" (which is silly, seeing as how that is/was just a website) etc. When bloodofox arrives in a discussion it basically short circuits it and makes any consensus forming process impossible. I had hoped they'd chill out after the election was over, but it appears from their recent comments that if anything it's getting worse. Those diffs from post-election November constitute something like five different insults in less than 24 hours.

And yes, I know some of these diffs are old and in and of themselves maybe they're stale - but going from August, to September, to October to today they show a very clear pattern of verbal abuse directed at other editors, a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and a simple WP:NOTHERE presence in this topic area.

An indef topic ban from AmPol should be placed, and this would allow bloodofox to continue to contribute productively in other areas (assuming their editing in those is fine, like I said, I have no idea). Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When bloodofox says he "called out" editors for their supposed POV what he really means is that he insulted and attacked them and threw ridiculous accusations at them in order to derail talk page discussions. Yeah, that's 'calling somebody out'. Right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In particular comments like these "Still shilling?" and "Have some dignitiy" (my dignity is fine, thank you very much) are particularly obnoxious and insulting. These two comments alone should warrant a block in addition to whatever topic ban is imposed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bloodofox: I was pretty explicit that there's no way for anyone to detect that anyone was working for a campaign in any capacity on Wikipedia - I think that pretty much illustrates the problem. "I can't prove it so I'm just going to accuse and attack".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bloodofox, wikilawyer however you like, but when you say to another editor "still shilling?" you are saying "you did shill". And when you say "you did shill" you are saying you were paid to edit Wikipedia. A person who "shills" is a "shill". So you are calling them a "shill". And this is an extremely obnoxious and serious personal attack. Especially since as you yourself admit, there's absolutely no proof of it (although, quite strangely, you appear to believe that because there is no proof of it, that makes it okay for you to make this attack on others, rather than, as would common sense suggest, the opposite).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain to me why MyMoloboaccount is bringing up my supposed "Americaness" or whatever and what is this "charade" that he is referring to or how is this in any way relevant except as what appears to be an attempt to throw around more insults (though it's a peculiar choice of an insult in all honesty)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, can one of the WP:AE admins please ask Moloboaccount to stop speculating outloud about my nationality/ethnicity since it's completely beside the point and is frankly none of his goddamn business? Should I start picking random editors out here and making stuff about where they're supposedly from and where they supposedly live and what their "true" nationality is? Is that kind of behavior acceptable? And please note that I have asked him several times to stop doing this as it's obviously meant to be either insulting (at least in his mind) or a form of intimidation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:User:Tiptoethrutheminefield has just [30] accused me of "being a shill", do I need to file a separate report or can that be folded into this one? (Also note how it's the same three or four users showing up to every single request in this topic area = Athenan, Tiptoethroughthemindfield, EtienneD, James Lambden - in particular the first three have a long history together). I'd appreciate it if some admins active on this page, like Bishonen, Dennis Brown, Drmies, Lankiveil, Guy, EdJohnston (listing those who have commented here in the recent past) would get around to looking at this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [31]

Discussion concerning USERNAME

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 bloodofox

Ah, now that the campaign is over and it clearly didn't go his way, Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) has apparently decided that it's time to take out his anger on other users who called him out during the election for his blatantly ideological and POV edits. The mysterious "other editors" he's referring to above are in fact a single other extremely ideological editor, an editor he frequently worked with during this period: scjessey (talk · contribs).

Whether it was trying to sanitize anything relating to the DNC (one such example, [32]) or simply perfume a Clinton-related article (notice that the Clinton Foundation remains essentially a puff piece), I was one of many editors who called these two out during the process. In truth, Marek spent the last few months edit-warring with those he disagreed with while using Wikipedia as a political platform (I have a self-imposed policy of 1 revert per 24 hour rule on all articles barring blatant vandalism).

Now, there's so much misinformation attached to his misleading diff annotations above that I can only say that it looks like that, with the election over, Marek has found a little more time on his hands and is using it to go after those he blames. He even resorts to claiming that I've restored vandalism rather than simply my comments and then takes the time to describe Correct the Record as "just a website", lol. Despite the annotations above, however, nobody accused Marek or his pal of working for anyone. And to correct the record I've never been a Trump supporter, BTW.

One thing that is true is that bias has been a major problem on our articles throughout this election cycle. I've called it out as I've seen it and all of my comments above are about concerns regarding bias on the article they're attached to, usually discussing referencing. Meanwhile, Marek has at times resorted to ping spamming me (as some of the diffs above reveal) and relentlessly edit-warred with any editor that came along, at times breaking 1RR on a variety of political articles (ex. [33], [34], [35]).

This is purely ideological revenge editing on the part of the Marek and, frankly, isn't worth the time I'm taking to write this out. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—also a quick lol at the block request for telling a user to "have some dignity". :bloodofox: (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@clpo13 (talk · contribs), please provide a diff where I've called anyone a shill. Calling someone a straight up shill versus calling someone out for shilling for a candidate isn't the same thing. You don't have to be an operative to be a biased, non-neutral and highly ideological editor peddling a party line. In fact, as the diffs above demonstrate, I was pretty explicit that there's no way for anyone to detect that anyone was working for a campaign in any capacity on Wikipedia (which is presumably why we have no policy against it to this day). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@clpo13 (talk · contribs), I quite explicitly accused—and accuse—these editors of ideological editing and blatant promotion of their candidates on the site under the guise of neutral editing. Thats pretty straightforward. As I said in the diffs above, however, there's no way of confirming, denying, or even blocking anyone for any affiliation with a campaign at this time. I'm not exactly known for beating around the bush on Wikipedia. To be frank, if anyone deserves any sort of sanction here, it's Marek himself and for exactly the reasons I mention in the diffs above. Were they operating as if they were the Wikipedia extension of the Clinton campaign? Absolutely. Were they doing anything but, well, volunteering? No clue. As a result, I haven't accused anyone of working with a campaign. Any suggestion to the contrary is bullshit obfuscation. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs), I'm not going back and forth with you. Your edit history shows that you're a blatantly ideological edit warrior with zero concern for article neutrality, injecting pro-Clinton and pro-DNC bias into every article you've touched this election season. Along the way you've even somehow mustered the desire to attempt to edit war and whitewash articles in favor of such lovable figures as Debbie Wasserman Schultz (of course, that didn't fly). Sure, all that nastiness was ultimately for nothing but there are better ways to take out your personal frustrations than on wasting the time of others on Wikipedia.

And, gee, all this talk about concern regarding bias on these articles and the presence of the Clinton campaign. Outside of Correct the Record, there's also this interesting e-mail implying pretty strongly that the DNC has either been editing the Debbie Wasserman Schultz article (or looking to do so) since at least May of 2016. I mean, who woulda thunk it, right? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk · contribs), while I stand by all of my edits (including diffs above, regardless of Marek's dishonest—and frankly goofy—commentary) and I believe they hardly qualify as "rope", what incident are you referring to? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@drmies (talk · contribs), with all due respect, I really don't think you're a neutral editor in this matter. As you yourself note, you and I have a long history here. The edit you're referencing is in response to a relentless editor-warrior, this guy (don't worry, he links to it from his user page). However, IMO this is a pretty straight forward, revenge-motivated vexatious complaint on the part of Marek. If anyone should be blocked from these topics, it's Marek. And I'm sure that's coming sooner or later. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@drmies (talk · contribs), the statement was "which [was] operating as an extension of the Clinton campaign through stretches of the election" ([36]). Please correct. Did you somehow miss, for example, the Wikileaks drops on Donna Brazile giving Clinton campaign questions in advance during the primaries while working for CNN? [37], etc. One of the things that was so notable about this election was the role of the press, such as this incident. CNN did in fact work closely with the Clinton campaign throughout the election, at times operating as an extension of the campaign, as Wikileaks revealed. That's an objective reality. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@drmies (talk · contribs), what I'm seeing here is that a.) you seem to have not been following these incidents (Brazile is only one example involving Clinton and CNN, click the link I provided for another—and I can provide plenty more, generally from Wikileaks drops showing coordination between CNN reps and the Clinton campaign, and from fully reliable sources (a nice summary)) and b.) your aggressive responses tell me that you're here to settle an old score—presumably one I've since long forgotten about. You know, I didn't figure you for that. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@everyone—folks, I'm dealing (via Wikimedia) with a troubling threat of violence against my person on the site. Do what you will, but I'm not able to respond or defend myself at this time. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real quick, I should probably point out Drmies's bizarre October 27 statement "Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now, haha". While this post may have started as Marek's revenge fantasy, it looks like it's shaping up as a convenient way for Drmies to finally get a taste. Note also the comments in the diff made by another user looking for blood up above. Funny how these things work on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lankiveil (talk · contribs), while I'm admittedly curious about what you've figured to be my "POV" (I've never stated it—these diffs are about a total lack of neutrality in Marek's edits), I haven't edited any related articles since a day or so since the election ended.

Now, I personally limit my reverts to one revert per article per 24 hours, and I've also intended to avoid all things Clinton on Wikipedia in the future even before Marek's vexatious request here. And I'll be doing that regardless of the outcome here. While I would have been silent about it otherwise, I guess here I have to state that I've voluntary removed myself form the topic space. Editing Clinton and DNC-related articles simply eats up far too much of my limited Wiki-time that is best spent on other articles for topics that are far removed from the last election.

As for Marek, looking away at his ridiculous edit history on these topics isn't going to make the situation any better but, given the way the election win, chances are he might just be less active in those spaces in general. Either way, this whole thing is moot and seems to only be serving to indulge revenge fantasies at this point (i.e. like Drmies's "Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now, haha"). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston (talk · contribs), yeah, there's "support" for a ban for topics I've already stated I'm not interested in editing. There's "support" from you, an admin who has openly stated that he's been looking to get me banned for years ("Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now, haha"—whose comments should be struck), and another admin. Meanwhile, there's plenty of opposition above, largely associated with Marek's extremely non-neutral edit warring above, and my comments about how pointless and vexatious the whole thing is. All you're doing at this point is further enabling Marek. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

I almost warned bloodofox this morning when I saw his harsh personal attack at talk:Hillary Clinton. I had no idea that there was such an ongoing pattern of disruption as evidenced in the diffs provided above. The Arbcom case findings of fact were clear that such behavior is prohibited.- Mr X 16:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: What the actual heck are you talking about? This page is for requesting enforcement of Arbcom remedies, not for stream of consciousness story telling.- Mr X 17:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SashiRolls

In the Good Soldier Švejk, there is a character by the name of Marek, Volunteer Marek. According to Wikipedia, "The character of one-year volunteer Marek is to some degree a self-portrait by the author, who was himself a one-year volunteer in the 91st. For example, Marek — like Hašek — was fired from the editorship of a natural history magazine after writing articles about imaginary animals. Is appointed the battalion historian by Ságner and occupies himself with devising memorable and heroic deaths in advance for his colleagues." I can't believe Volunteer Marek is back here on AE clamoring for more heads. smh. will add more if absolutely necessary. SashiRolls (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, forgot this is a diff culture:, here are some more diffs of 1RR violations from trusty Volunteer Marek: 18:12 24 Oct 16:18 24 Oct (Though I stayed away from Clinton most of the silly season (as you know @MrX:), I was very surprised to read the Foundation page when I got to it, which I never would have, except that well, y'all didn't like what I was working on earlier...) I'm sorry I am not a diff culture native, in my world the names you chose are important, as is how you talk about including or excluding things from a page. This is poorly reflected in diff culture. :) SashiRolls (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also, would like to add that words like "(cyber) shilling", "hack", "whitewash", "pinkwash", etc. have not yet been deleted from the language. In fact, shilling, in particular seems to be fighting nobly for its existence despite no longer being a legal tender coin. ^^ (ngrams: shilling, hack) SashiRolls (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I'm amazed that Drmies can say, "Look, I've been trying to get Bloodofox blocked for yeeeears now" and then neglect to recuse himself. Wikipedia seems to have some serious concerns: people are banned indefinitely and for long periods for daring to use the word "shill" when dealing with disruptive behavior, but another user gets away with a 48-hour block after having called me a "sociopath", for protecting BLP pages from copyright infringement and the modification of the meaning of wiki-text summaries of dead links to blog posts they admit they've never read (relevant here since Volunteer Marek's participated -- tag-team style -- in trying to maintain this attack on Tulsi Gabbard, before I explained *all* of my reasons for reverting the edit). (Cf. [[38]]). This selective enforcement should be very troubling, especially from an ArbCom member and from an admin who calls herself "Cardinal Mazarin" and says her "secret goal is to collect the entire little Arbcom in Bishzilla's pocket!" [39]. Troubling. SashiRolls (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding that (partial) table, James. (I'll add more data in March.) ~~Strangely since cpo13 collapsed your table, I don't see any way of uncollapsing it.~~ edit: works now, must have been a glitch There's also an interesting interpretation brought below by neutrality that simply revising the words "point out" can get you into trouble as concerns certain Wikipedian truths. You might have seen it. (cf. "to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement." -- from the MOS).

Statement by clpo13

Calling anyone a shill, under any circumstances, should be met with sanctions. American politics is a bitter enough topic without unfounded accusations of paid or otherwise influenced editing. Claims of biased editing can be made without such a loaded word. clpo13_(talk) 18:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloodofox: Oh well, that changes everything. So long as you don't label someone, you can safely accuse them of all sorts of things. "I didn't call them a vandal. I just said they were vandalizing articles.", etc. No matter how you word it, it's a unnecessary comment that only inflames the situation. Throwing accusations around doesn't help anything. clpo13_(talk) 18:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

Plenty of the alleged proofs of bloodfox offensive remarkes actually lead to innocent statements like Hopefully you'll meet the next Wiki-gang on the block sometime soon and neutrality rather than political preference will win out. I remember VM making far more offensive comments without getting sanctions. Seems this is a case of a political spat resulting from HC's failure to win the election and VM being upset about this. Anyway can we finally drop the charade and call Volunteer Marek an American without him getting into a fit about supposed outing? The comments and edits in past couple of months make it clear that he is one. Thats all from me, I guess, people should cheer up, make Wikipedia great again and PRAISE KEK!.

Volunteer_Marek-there is nothing insulting in being American or editing from USA. Many editors in the past have been confused by your nickname and thought you are from Poland, that is is all. As to supposed, I think your edits and comments about voting in recent US elections make it clear anyway(and since we are friends of Facebook I know that indeed it is true :P). It's no big deal but clears up confusion, and for some reason in the past you treated it as very big outing.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Athenean

Anyone familiar with this topic area knows full well that VM comes here with unclean hands. Volunteer Marek complaining about another user being incivil is quite the irony. VM has been pushing a strong POV in this area from day 1, with typical incivility. Just one of many examples [40] [41]. It's not hard to find such examples. Many of his talkpage contribs are laced with accusations of bad faith and condescension, designed to get under his opponents' skin as much as possible without quite crossing the line into outright name calling. In addition to incivility, he edit-wars frequently, afterwards claiming to "forget" that an article is under 1RR [42]. And just recently he agreed to a voluntary 1RR restriction to narrowly avert a topic ban [43]. Given Marek's unclean hands, the request has no merit and should be struck. Athenean (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

Regarding the "shilling" accusation, there is no question that Volunteer Marek has been a shill in the past. His activities in the past have at certain times fitted the definition of shill - appearing to act independently but in fact acting as part of an organized group and behaving according to a predetermined plan so as to realize a particular goal. That was proven in a previous notable case. This does not make bloodofox's accusation / implication of shilling justified, but it questions the real level of offense felt by VM. I don't find VM's assertion that he felt it "obnoxious and insulting" to be particularly credible. The insults and personal attacks seem mild stuff when taken one at a time and this case looks a lot like Volunteer Marek allowing another editor to produce enough rope to hang themselves. Taken as a whole there probably is enough rope here - and little in the cited posts of bloodofox cogently address content issues. But I suspect only one side is being shown and I wonder about what content issues and disagreements produced these exchanges. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden

I thought a catalog of recent election-related requests might be helpful/illuminating from a data analytics standpoint. Table includes: filer, accused, whether the edits were (reasonably) pro-Clinton/anti-Trump or anti-Clinton/pro-Trump, and the result.

Filer	Accused	ProClinton/ AntiTrump	AntiClinton/ ProTrump	Sanctioned	Comment
Volunteer Marek	Doc9871		✓	●	Doc9871 (talk · contribs) topic banned 1 month from all pages related to Donald Trump by Bishonen (talk · contribs), and is further warned that any disruption in the topic areas covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 will lead to an extension and/or broadening of the ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Link
EtienneDolet	Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes	✓			No action taken, see admin discussion below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Link
Geogene	JGabbard		✓	●	JGabbard (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, for six months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Link
The Four Deuces	Volunteer Marek	✓			No action taken. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Link
CFredkin	Volunteer Marek	✓		○	CFredkin is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, for three months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Link
Volunteer Marek	Marteau		✓		Not closed Link
Anythingyouwant	Volunteer Marek	✓			Request withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Link
BU Rob13	Anythingyouwant		✓		The originally reported edits were good faith reverts as potential BLP problems and so were exempt from revert restrictions. Therefore, no violation of 1RR occurred from these edits. Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one. All editors are reminded that a clear consensus is required to revert an edit which notes it corrects a BLP problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Link
The Wordsmith	EEng	✓			There's no consensus that any sanctions should apply against EEng. While there is also not a consensus on whether the initial deletion was appropriate, the matter was later resolved through discussion, so it's rather moot at this point. No further action has been suggested or seems to be needed. There may be an indication that a wider community discussion is needed on what's acceptable in terms of "joke" and satire pages, but that's well beyond the scope of AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Link
Volunteer Marek	Anythingyouwant		✓	●	Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier. Vanamonde (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Link
EvergreenFir	Wecarlisle		✓	○	Premature for AE. Handled as a conventional administrative issue, short block issued by Bishonen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Link
MrX	Ihardlythinkso		✓	●	Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier. (Unsigned, Lankiveil) Link
DrFleischman	My very best wishes	✓			Not closed Link

Note: I couldn't figure out how to collapse the table – if anyone knows how I'd appreciate it. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DoubleCross

I agree with bloodofox and SashiRolls regarding this statement by Drmies - he has absolutely no business being involved in this request. DoubleCross (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning bloodofox

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

I have blocked Tiptoe for the "shill" comment, for 72 hours. It exhibits a complete lack of good faith, and suggests a kind of "you were asking for it" justification. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About the case: yeah, "shilling" is a blockable insult (as a complete violation of AGF), but I was all ready to say something like "Bloodofox is a bit heavy-handed, heat of the moment, etc" until I ran into this one (I went from the bottom up), which tells me that the editor is way too not neutral to be editing in this area. I support a topic ban from this election and all articles directly associated with it. I don't propose a more broad topic ban, of all politics since 1932 or whatever. Note: I've had some dealings with the editor, some better than others, and I've criticized them for edit warring and problems with sourcing reliably. I do not consider myself involved in respect to bloodofox, and all our dealings have been in articles that were many miles and many years removed from this area. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Bloodofox, if you claim that CNN is an "extension of the Clinton campaign" then you have already disqualified yourself from objective editing in this topic area. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That you wish to argue this moot point here speaks volumes: your claims are about one individual, who was in fact fired by CNN for her behavior. Extending that into a blanket statement means you lack the judgment to be neutral and separate fact from internet story. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You can accuse me of aggression (or ignorance) all you will; it makes no difference to me. I think the diffs speak for themselves here. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- EdJohnston, if you look at their edit history you see they're focused on the "Clinton side", so to speak--esp. Clinton herself, the Clinton Foundation, the Podesta emails, and Huma Abedin. One might expect them to move into the Trump area now that the election is over, perhaps, but if they become disruptive there we can, I suppose, always expand the scope; with many of these recent cases I prefer conservative topic bans. So for now I think I'm satisfied with my rough formulation of a topic ban but I am perfectly happy to have you or others tweak it or propose something broader; I am sure that a few more admins will weigh in. But we do need to have a topic ban of sorts, and a year is plenty long. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a topic ban of User:Bloodofox under WP:ARBAP2 as proposed by User:Drmies but the scope of the ban would need to be well-defined. Do you think 'this election and all articles directly associated with it' is specific enough? What about the Trump transition – is that included? How about Trump cabinet members? If the scope can't be nailed down, what about a time-limited ban (such as one year) from all of WP:ARBAP2? EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to consider anything from before November; if it wasn't worth reporting then it's not worth reporting now. I could potentially AGF this as a botched attempt to revert a perceived problematic edit. This still leaves a bunch of problematic battleground stuff, exactly the sort of thing that we don't want. The discussion over the precise meaning of "shilling" is a red herring; regardless of the intent it's still a personal attack. I'm seeing someone who is too dedicated to pushing a particular POV to be a useful editor in this topic area, and I don't see that anything short of removing User:Bloodofox from the topic area is going to stop the problem, although I'd welcome suggestions for solutions less drastic than that. Finally, with regards to Marek's alleged sins; I invite anyone to raise a request here if they feel they've gone further than Bloodofox. We can't action concerns that aren't raised. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Bloodofox: I appreciate that you've managed to stay off the topic area in the past week or so, my main problem is that from your responses here you don't seem to understand why the battleground mentality you've exhibited is a bad thing, retreating into semantic arguments that completely miss the point. Help me out here; how do we stop this from happening again? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

There is support for a ban but the wording of the ban is not settled. How about "Bloodofox is banned for one year from the topic of the Clintons, and from people and organizations related to the Clintons on all pages of Wikipedia" That would be broad enough to include the Clinton Foundation and Huma Abedin. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I support a ban with that phrasing, EdJohnston. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Request concerning DevilWearsBrioni (continued 1)

Concerning a request which is now in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive202#Request concerning DevilWearsBrioni. It continues a long discussion which has been at:
@SilentResident, Robert McClenon, Athenean, Alexikoua, Resnjari, Robert McClenon, and TransporterMan: please keep discussion as concise as possible and come to a decision as what is to happen with User:DevilWearsBrioni, and any other related matters. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard:, i have no idea. The discussion on Brioni got transferred to the archive, yet there was no outcome. Because of that mediation discussion is in hiatus too. Have no idea in this instance what will happen. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with what the vast majority of the editors said, including Athenean, Robert McClenon, Iazyges, and Alexikoua, that action has to be taken against DevilWearsBrioni, either in the form of limited sanctions or warnings.

Although, personally I couldn't recommend sending him mere warnings this time, given how he has ignored all previous warnings in the past. For this reason, I believe that he be banned from editing the Expulsion of Cham Albanians ever again. An article-specific sanction on Expulsion of Cham Albanians could the best response to his constant disruptions. -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, i think the best option would be a very limited ban, perhaps to all things cham related? That may be too harsh however, I could see how a one article ban would likely work better. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, a very limited ban on very specific articles rather than a generic topic-ban of a wide range of articles is what I believe to be fair for DevilWearsBrioni, given how most of his editorial misconducts and disruptions are concentrated to specific articles, not to all. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled. It appeared that the case had gone into mediation, and that there had been no disruptive editing of the article itself after the start of mediation. It appears that mediation is stalled, but mediation is privileged, and failure to cooperate with mediation is not sanctionable. I don't see any disruptive edits by DWB after the start of mediation. Were there disruptive edits before the start of mediation, but after DWB was alerted? This looks to me, unfortunately, like an effort at dumping on an editor who is outnumbered. Has the mediation failed, anyway, or should it be resumed? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, if you do believe that DevilWearsBrioni has remedied himself and "dropped the stick" of his personal perceptions of OR/NOR and that he won't once again stubbornly resume his disruptions, then, so be it. A strongly-worded warning should be given to him, but, if he ever resumes his disruptions on Albanian-related articles again, then a ban is on way for him. I am sorry if I can't exactly share your faith and optimism about him showing a better editorial conduct in the future, because he is really stubborn beyond limits. From what I can see, he has given us not even a slightest sign that he is letting it go. That he has refrained from any new disruptions during the October month, does not mean he has stopped with his disruptions forever. As you can see, it is not unusual for him to stop his disruptions for a long period and then suddenly resume them, at a later time, as he has done in September, after a long August break. Given this, what can reassure us that he wont resume them once Anthony Appleyard's mediation is over, like how he has already done after Iazyges's mediation was over? This is a rather rhetorical question, because history tends to repeat itself and I just want to be cautious. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, i think it was less than a week between me closing the dispute and recommending RFC/ mediation, and him continuing disruption. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I'm equally puzzled. Not only does this request not follow the required AE template, Anthony has for some strange reason included a link to a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with me, while also pinging involved editors and urging them to "come to a decision as what is to happen with User:DevilWearsBrion". I'm once again baffled by the actions of Anthony. This looks to me, unfortunately, like an effort at dumping on an editor who is outnumbered. That’s an oddly accurate assessment from someone who partook in the pile on against me at AN/I and then later here at AE. What changed since then?

@Iazyges: This was your closing statement, which contained several inaccuracies, at DRN. You then went on to remove the OR tag from the article since you apparently had decided that it wasn't OR. If you still believe you were justified in removing the OR tag because of your supposed authority as a DRN volunteer, then please say so. I'm still not clear on your position concerning this. Do you still believe that you have the authority to issue decisions? Or were you mistaken in believing so?

@SilentResident: You will soon be given another opportunity to provide diffs as evidence for the things you've repeatedly accused me of, e.g. multiple 3RR breaches. You've failed to do so every time I've requested it. This may give credence to what I've said about you creating a false narrative about me, don't you think? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Robert McClenon:'s assessment of the situation regarding Brioni. On my part i am ready to resume mediation. That matter regarding the Chams should have went there long ago, then when it did later. Now its there and should be dealt with there with the final outcome being binding for all editors. Much has been said of Brioni's behavior in here. However what has been ignored is that he has on many an article been a editor who has held a high esteem for wp:reliable and wp:secondary scholarship and used it in the article himself while also clearing up multiple problems of synthesis and other issues. A case in point is the Fustanella page [44] (see talk: [45]). Brioni has shown a commitment to upholding Wikipedia standards. The outcome here should be a final warning and with the resumption of the mediation process. With the conclusion of that (whenever that happens), if further issues continue then the book can be thrown in its entirety if rules are broken, as with all editors. Best.Resnjari (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may have not understood the Mediation rules, Resnjari, and why the DevilWearsBrioni case can not be resolved through mediations. If you read the Mediation faq, you will find that the Mediation Policy clearly states:

"The basic aim of mediation is to help Wikipedia editors to contribute willingly together by helping to resolve their good-faith disagreements over article content'. As above, the mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors; these should be directed to a project administrator (e.g. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) for evaluation. Mediation equally is not suited to parties who are disagreeing "for the sake of disagreeing" or who have no intention of compromising or discussing the thinking behind their positions. It is not an aim of mediation to produce mutual amity between the disputants, but increased tolerance and respect is an important goal."

The Mediators intervening and helping in resolving content disputes could have been perfect if our case here was just a mere content dispute and nothing else. The Mediators can not intervene or help in regards to editorial misconducts by certain editors here who have been ramming content into the article and failed to show any willingness for compromises, and kept assuming bad faith of any editor they disagreed with. The editors refusing to think beyond their stubborn positions and reach a consensus with the rest of the community is what caused the current deadlock. Seeking a compromise which complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, did not prevent them from acting as if they are owners to the article and edit wars to ensue and Edit Warnings / ARBMAC Warnings to be given on their Talks. Since the Mediators are not here to tackle with the core of the present issues, and since a certain user here was able to ignore the outcomes of previous Mediations, then what can guarantee that the new Mediation's outcome won't be ignored again? Please. If you really wanted to participate in a mediation, then why haven't you done so in either Iazyge's or Anthony Appleyard's mediations? You had your chance you participate in two mediations thus far, but you have consciously chosen to be absent from both, unlike me, who participated in both mediations and who endured DevilWearsBrioni's endless rattles. Now, if you may, Anthony Appleyard was very clear: please keep discussion as concise as possible and come to a decision as what is to happen with User:DevilWearsBrioni, and any other related matters.. Please stick to this. -- SILENTRESIDENT 11:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for highlighting the vexatious nature of this complaint: "The mediation process is unsuitable for complaints about the behaviour of other editors." Here are some of the things you were allowed to say about me with impunity during mediation:

~~"not befitting a reliable and honest editor of Wikipedia"~~

"The editor DevilWearsBrioni must understand that editorial bias and arrogant behavior can not be tolerated"

"DevilWearsBrioni is not a suitable and accountable editor for editing and improving ARBMAC-protected articles"

"He is only using OR and SYNTH as a trojan horse to impose certain POV"

"A very long dragging of feet for nothing besides listening to DevilWearsBrioni's POV everyday"

~~"he has resorted thousands of times into disruptive edits and tactics to achieve this goal."~~

Contrary to what mediation policy claims, attacking the character of editors and lobbying for sanctions against them during mediation is totally fine apparently(?). I don't expect this to matter since mediation is privileged, but it's worth bringing up for context. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DevilWearsBrioni, as you may be aware, my comments on your behavior were the result of your failure to abide by the mediation's procedures which require that every participant sticks within the discussion's framework set by the mediator. You have been repeatedly called by both Robert and Anthony to stick to the point during mediation, but you have failed and refused, and this exactly is the exact reason I explained to Anthony and Robert why the idea for Mediation turned out to be UNSUITABLE for DISRUPTIVE EDITORS such as you, and hence my above sentences about you. Robert's mistake was to try resolve disputes caused by bad faith and disruptive editorial conduct through mediation, even when the rules are very clear for such cases: that a Mediation can not tackle effectively any cases of disruption. And if my memory does not fail me, I have ALREADY warned Robert that any new Mediations are bound to fail, in this talk page here: [46], where I told him: "I have a feeling that from the moment certain editors who evidently have not respected the previous Mediations, a new Mediation won't make any difference. History tends to repeat and all what we may accomplish at the end is just dragging our feet around without actually tackling the editors responsible for their disruptive behavior." Everyone can see how I predicted the failure of any new mediations, for the fact that their procedures are not suitable for resolving such cases of disruption, and, as everyone can see now, Anthony's Mediation was no exception to this rule: his mediation was bound to fail from the start due to the unusual case of disruption we had to deal with. But Robert, despite my warnings and cautions, has ignored me and he boldly proceed to request mediation nevertheless. But I do not blame Robert at all. In fact, I congratulate him and I praise him for his tireless and sincere efforts to resolve this notorious OR/SYNTH case through peaceful means. I completely admire Robert for his peaceful efforts to resolve such cases, but thing is, you are extremely stubborn editor, and such stubbornness is the exact reason Robert's efforts failed, Anthony's mediation failed, Iazyge's mediation failed, disruption kept ongoing for 10 months, and more. Like I said: mediations are unsuitable places for disruptive editors. Am I clear or do I have to repeat myself? -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As i said before, i am still in agreement with Robert McClenon's assessment of the situation. The issue that has arisen here is that Brioni is disruptive when editing. All the examples cited here by other editors go back to earlier in the year. Yet this case was brought after the issue regarding the Chams article went to mediation. If there was such a problematic issue, should not the issue regarding behavior been brought long ago to this forum instead of after mediation occurred ? The reason why things have gone here or there is because this matter should have gone to mediation much earlier. No editor involved in that discussion in the talk page is clean. Its why mediation is needed in the end. At mediation whatever the outcome is, its final and must be accepted by all. This article is complex and that process should resume instead of time being wasted here. A warning as a final outcome would do with proper notification. On my part i am ready to resume the mediation process.Resnjari (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even more mediation with DevilWearsBrioni? Sorry but this ain't happening. I don't have all the time for him. DevilWearsBrioni already had more chances to remedy himself and he has drawn more attention than most disruptive editors normally could, but this farce has to come to an end now. It is time to stop dragging our feet around this OR/SYNTH case forever and finally have something be done with that user. Either ban him, either warn him, but in all case, put this to an end so we all can move on. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a editor participates in mediation is a separate matter for them to consider. On my part, I will be involved there. Like i said before i am in agreement with Robert's assessment of the issue regarding Brioni.Resnjari (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thought and Suggestion

First, it appears to be that the formal mediation has failed. Either the editors who disagree with DWB should withdraw from the mediation on grounds that it has failed, or User:Anthony Appleyard can (if the Mediation Committee permits) formally declare the mediation to have failed. Second, the next step is to resume discussion on the article talk page, and DWB has been formally alerted to discretionary sanctions. I don't see this Arbitration Enforcement request as serving any useful purpose. Close it somehow. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I better declare that this mediation has failed. It remains to decide what to do with DWB. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree, and I have already decided to withdraw from Anthony Appleyard's mediation. Note: it is not Anthony's fault, nor Robert's fault. Just it couldn't work. If any new mediations are to be called in the future, they better be requested on grounds of resolving content disputes between non-disruptive editors as per Mediation's rules, and not on grounds of resolving disputes caused by certain disruptive editors, like I explained in a message to Anthony and Iazyges on my talk page. Again, I appreciate everyone for your tireless efforts to resolve the DevilWearsBrioni's notorious OR/SYNTH case. You have my thanks. -- SILENTRESIDENT 18:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon and Anthony Appleyard:, how has mediation failed ? Four editors are listed for mediation. Brioni and Silent partook in the discussion regarding certain issues while others did not at that point in time. On my part i thought those two editors were capable and also was under the assumption that such a discussion on that forum would be over time without time constraints. I had to attend to a few things in my personal life back then. In no way did it mean that a discussion of all issues concerning the article was brought up for discussion, especially by me. What is the alternative? More long winded commentary in the talk or possible edit warring over time by other editors. Those outcomes are even more dispiriting and disruptive. This article is one of the few remaining articles of consequence for at least the Albanian Wikipedia project needing to be addressed and consensus at times has been skewed due to numbers and not consideration of the scholarship. Closing mediation will just mean that this article becomes a hotspot for the usual Balkan dispute that makes some editors more quick to launch enforcement requests than to be constructive in making the article better (just going by personal experience on this one).Resnjari (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Resnjari - Whether the mediation has failed is, in the end, the judgment of the mediator, User:Anthony Appleyard, but User:SilentResident appears to think (as do I, but I am not a participant), that User:DevilWearsBrioni was filibustering. If you and the mediator think that mediation will work, more power to you. I had hoped that mediation would work, but there are other things that I hope for also. In any event, this is not the place to discuss whether to mediate, and this does not appear to be a properly filed request for Arbitration Enforcement. What do you, User:Resnjari, propose? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari: for years, and before DevilWearsBrioni appears, you didn't had any problem using the talk pages for reaching a consensus with other editors, including myself, for improvements and additions on various Balkan articles, including the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians. And this, without the help of the mediators. Unlike DevilWearsBrioni, you have managed just fine to use the talk page for discussing the changes for reaching consensus with others, even in the most difficult of all Balkan articles. Try using the Talk Pages and if you ever run into any problems or disagreements with other editors, Wikipedia offers an array of options for resolving them. As long as you and the others respect the rules, everything should be fine. And as for the current mediation, it is over for me, I am afraid. And I have withdrawn my participation as I do not think I can stick around the same case forever. Sorry. If you want to discuss anything, use the talk page, as User:Robert McClenon has suggested. As for me, I am going to take a much much needed break from the pixelated and bureaucratic world known as Wikipedia. I wish you all the best. -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me i would say to continue mediation. A final warning should be given here to all that only the scholarship should be the focus. No other shenanigans. Who ever stuffs up there (no more chances) loses the privilege and gets excluded from participating with the addition of further enforcement action (topic bans etc). Otherwise this will go on forever and in future there might be other editors creating other headaches on that article. User:Robert McClenon, you have seen how these Balkan related topics can go with disputes and become nightmarish. Mediation at least has a binding and final outcome. This article is one of those that requires a more prudent approach due too the complexity of the subject matter. A reconsideration by User:Anthony Appleyard of keeping open mediation would be most appreciated. At least two other editors involved should also have a chance to participate.Resnjari (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilentResident I have used talkpages extensively and some editors have said i use them too much. This article though has reached many impasses. On the mediation page looking at it, the is a sense that one issue was being rushed and another introduced. It should be done one at a time with Anthony at the end saying this is decided or that is decided before another issue is raised. All at once is not a good thing and I thought little things would be resolved when the process started between both of you. Anyway mediation allows for a prolonged discussion without the added stress factor of haste. Maybe we can put it off for a week or two and everyone comes back with fresh eyes and a clear head (and from the date of resumption all need to participate). If mediation is closed the article has issues relating to the intro and other matters that will just fester and cause more problems that will stir passions among Greek and Albanian Wikipedians instead of a constrictive outcome. I have edited many contentious articles and have seen many have frustration guide their editing instead of guidelines and scholarship. Lets finish this off with a binding outcome in mediation.Resnjari (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Resnjari - Would someone please provide me with a link to the statement that mediation has a binding and final outcome? I was not aware of that. A Request for Comments has a binding outcome, although nothing in Wikipedia is final because consensus can change. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon, as far as I know, no content can be "final". Everything in Wikipedia, be them rules, or articles, or whatever, can change, be improved or overwritten. Likewise, the content in the pages gets updated with new information and sources. Everything is susceptible to changes, even editorial consensuses cannot stay the same for ever and can be challenged at any time, as long as they are in accordance with Wikipedia's principles and rules. After all, the flow of information and sources in the world is constant, by both new and old scholars, and it is inevitable for Wikipedia to be updated to reflect the new information. I assume Resnjari meant the decisions being binding to the participants of the mediation? if yes, this is a totally different thing. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in addition to what Robert said about consensus can change, certain rules are above consensus, such as WP:NPOV which states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon the final sentence of the mediation policy WP:M says: "The purpose of mediation is to secure a result that benefits the encyclopedia—not to ensure fairness for any one contributor. Mediators work with disputants but for the encyclopedia." In my comments i had that in mind and interpreted it as inferring something binding or at least towards being something final in the scope of discussing a certain matter at that point in time. I am aware that things are liable to change depending on the circumstances of new scholarship etc etc. I hope that clears things on my part. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am off to bed on my side of the world as i have stayed up too late. Ping me for further developments. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Resnjari, SilentResident, and Robert McClenon: OK, keep mediation open, if it will be any use, with DevilWearsBrioni continuing to filibuster. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard:~~Oh my... a mediation where the filibuster is the sole participant in it? I am up for it (as observer, not as participant), I could love see a filibuster's production of kilobytes... :-)~~

Anthony, may I ask, will you inform me about the procedures of the mediation's closure, or do I have just to withdraw from it? In this case, do I have follow any specific steps (such as deleting my name from the Mediation's list of participants or whatever)? My apologies for my inexperience, this is my first time in a mediation and I am unsure about how the procedures really work. -- SILENTRESIDENT 00:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: User:TransporterMan seems to be in charge of mediations. Best tell him, if you as well as me see no more use in trying to negotiate with DWB. I as an admin could block him any time, but I better follow the usual procedure. And, please everybody, try to keep discussion concise. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the statement of the mediator that the mediation has no ongoing hope of resolution, I have closed the mediation case. The privilege of mediation still applies, however, and anything heretofore said or done in the course of mediation may not be used as evidence in this or any other conduct proceeding. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

Thought and Suggestion (part 2)

Towns Hill

Blocked one week for topic ban violation. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Towns Hill

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Towns Hill (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:ARBIPA

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

07:03, 18 October 2016 Edit on Kashmir related to Dogra dynasty, which would fall under Pakistani-Indian conflict.
09:40, 10 November 2016 Edit on Pakistan saying "Since 1989, thousands of Kashmiri Muslim refugees have sought refuge in Pakistan, complaining that many of the refugee women had been raped by Indian soldiers and that they were forced out of their homes by the soldiers." Unambiguously related to conflict between India and Pakistan.
22:11, 12 November 2016 Edit on Pakistan about the First Kashmir War, the partition of India, the rape of Kashmiri women by Indian soldiers, and genocide. Unambiguously related to conflict between India and Pakistan.
21:56, 12 November 2016 Edit on Pakistan which copied material from Partition of India. Similar to 22:11, 12 November 2016 edit. Unambiguously related to conflict between India and Pakistan.
02:35, 14 November 2016 edit made after user replied to this AE. Edit falls under tban.
02:38, 14 November 2016 Same as above

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

02:49, 24 March 2016 Discretionary sanctions (1RR) placed on user by Slakr for 1 month
00:20, 1 April 2016 Blocked by Drmies for 60 hours for edit warring on Bangladesh Liberation War.
15:12, 15 May 2016 Topic banned from "Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh." by EdJohnston. Can be appealed after 6 months.
01:02, 1 October 2016 Blocked by Lankiveil for 72 hours for topic ban violation as a result of previous AE filing

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 15:12, 15 May 2016 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Other edits "toe the line" but these were the most egregious. In the previous AE filing, the validity of the Bangladesh topic ban was questioned as it's not explicitly mentioned in WP:ARBIPA so I have excluded diffs related to violation of that aspect of the topic ban.

@Mar4d: you'll have to ask EdJohnston why he did the topic ban. It appears to be because the user was disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

19:37, 13 November 2016

Discussion concerning Towns Hill

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 Towns Hill

The original ban was imposed invalidly to begin with. It was hastily issued and based upon one editor's incendiary comment to an admin's talk page. I was never reported at AE and was not even given a chance to defend myself. I was banned on a comment of an editor who went on admin shopping and knew which admin would be more than willing to entertain his request because that specific admin has been mentioning distributing topic-bans on forums in the past. Towns_Hill 21:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Towns Hill

Statement by Mar4d

No comment on the ruling, but as far as this whole sanction on Towns Hill is concerned, it really appears counterproductive and pointless to me, in my opinion. I think the purpose of sanctions is not punitive, but preventative. This filing appears to give an impression of the former. Some of the diffs cited above for example appear to be actually productive edits, and appear to improve article content (particularly those on the ethnic Kashmiris page). This doesn't harm Wikipedia so long as Towns Hill makes sure his additions are reliably sourced and verifiable. Towns Hill has kept to his restriction for a few months, and I think he has the potential to be a productive editor. Instead of wasting time on these nitty-gritty enforcements, I for one think we should re-visit the sanctions in the first place, and try to re-integrate TH into editing. Why were they enforced, and what can/should be improved? I would be happy to guide TH or provide assistance if necessary. Mar4d (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

First of all, to clarify my position on EdJohnston's topic ban. I had misread the topic ban wording in the first instance and thought that it was a ban on all India and Pakistan pages. So I thought it was too severe. When I did finally notice that it was limited to India-Pakistan conflicts, I thought the ban was appropriate.

When Towns Hill came on the scene, pretty much all the India-Pakistan conflict pages went up in flames. If the ban is lifted, I am afraid we might go back to the same situation. I did try to engage with Towns Hill quite seriously prior to the ban, e.g., here, but I am afraid it fell on deaf ears. Has his behaviour improved since the ban? I think not.

Here, for instance, is an edit where Towns Hill got into a dispute (on Kashmiri diaspora). Whereas I tried to open a talk page discussion to try and find a resolution, Towns Hill put his foot down and reinstated his edit. In this instance, I agree with Towns Hill on the merits of the issue, but not with his way of dealing with it. Kashmiri diaspora is a little corner, where this behaviour didn't give rise to any great problems. If he does this kind of thing again at Bangladesh liberation war, we will again have flame wars.

So my recommendation is to cut him some slack in dealing with Kashmir, which is his special interest, but continue the wider topic ban until he learns to finds his way around WP:NPOV and resolving disputes amicably. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edits 1, 5, and 6 mentioned above are not covered by the topic ban in my opinion. The Dogra dynasty is neither India nor Pakistan. And, what happened in the 19th century is unrelated to India-Pakistan conflict as well. Conflicts between Kashmiris and India, or those between Kashmiris and Pakistan are also not covered by the ban. I would like to recommend that these areas be left open for Towns Hill to edit so that he can demonstrate his good will in due course. All matters regarding Partition of India are of course part of India-Pakistan conflict. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Towns Hill

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

Noticing that User:Mar4d and User:Kautilya3 see value in User:Towns Hill's edits, I asked User:EvergreenFir on their talk page about the idea of lifting the ban. It is disappointing that Towns Hill seems unable to follow the terms of the existing ban, but if the ban is lifted this problem will no longer occur. Any comments? If anyone wants to review their edits, notice that all their warnings and blocks (since account creation in January) are still visible at User talk:Towns Hill. Towns Hill does not seem to have much insight into which of their edits might be controversial, and they have gotten into edit wars, but they sometimes do good work. They seem not to understand either 3RR or 1RR, so if these problems recur, they will probably get blocked again.
To get a quick overview of the problems with Towns Hill you might look at User talk:Towns Hill#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction 2 and the discussion that follows it. Towns Hill does have academic knowledge, but switches into battleground mode easily when they feel people are opposing them unfairly. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of lifting restrictions because people refuse to abide by them, however productive some of their edits may be judged by others. The correct route to appeal a sanction is not an enforcement request by someone concerned about violation of the sanction. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the theory that we shouldn't reward people for ignoring their bans, this case ought to close with a regular block for some period, and if Towns Hill wants the ban lifted or modified he should file an Arbitration Enforcement Appeal. Which we would not address in the current thread. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Per User:Kautilya3's observations, only diffs 2, 3 and 4 are definitely covered by the current wording of Towns Hill's topic ban, 'Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh.' The Kashmiri troubles in the 19th century that predated the creation of Pakistan can be assumed not to be included, but alleged rapes by Indian soldiers on the contested territory of Kashmir are definitely included, and anything related to the Partition of India is included. So I'm closing with a one-week block for ban violation. The block might be lifted if we become confident that Towns Hill understands and will follow his topic ban in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EEng

There's no consensus that any sanctions should apply against EEng. While there is also not a consensus on whether the initial deletion was appropriate, the matter was later resolved through discussion, so it's rather moot at this point. No further action has been suggested or seems to be needed. There may be an indication that a wider community discussion is needed on what's acceptable in terms of "joke" and satire pages, but that's well beyond the scope of AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:22, 18 November 2016 (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 EEng

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: EEng (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/American politics 2 :

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

User:EEng contained massive BLP violations (see below).

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)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months [47].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Userpage contained massive, massive BLP violations, including calling public figures "pussies", extensive allegations of Donald Trump being a Nazi, snippets of speeches with things Trump rails against wikilinked to Jews, accusations of racism, antisemitism, and a whole lot that I could devote many paragraphs to. Frankly, it is the worst BLP violation in userspace I've seen in a long time. I'm baffled that it was allowed to stand for this long, with a number of veteran editors even applauding the effort on his talkpage and contributing to it. Aside from the obvious BLP, we also have WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP#POLEMIC that this crosses the line on. I've summarily deleted the page as per policy and in keeping with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs, but as I'm recused from AP2 enforcement I'm not going to take further unilateral action, and instead will bring it here for uninvolved admin input. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: That "one section" spans roughly half of a very, very large page. It also goes back quite far into the history. The libel was bad enough, in my estimation, that a simple section blanking or RevDel was not sufficient to excise it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[48]

Discussion concerning EEng

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 EEng

To show that Wordsmith has misinterpreted this material is impossible at the moment, since he's jumped the gun and deleted the page. But in brief (as explained on the page itself) my user page is meant to be a source of amusement for editors taking a break from the humdrum workaday cares of editing, and many comments on my talk page attest to its success along those lines. Obviously I would never seriously compare anyone to Hitler (except maybe Hitler, I guess) because that would be a BLP violation.
That the situation isn't nearly as clearcut at Wordsmith seem to think is well-illustrated by the fact that at least one editor was able to characterize me as "a Donald Trump supporter" [49].
Wordsmith's unilateral deletion of the page in advance of discussion is obviously inappropriate, give that (a) as he explicitly points out, a large number of admins are aware of its content and do not share his concerns, and (b) most of the material on the page has nothing to do with his complaint anyway, yet has been thrown out with the bathwater.

Those three points aside, since the election's now over and the amusement potential has drained from the situation, I'm happy to let the chips fall where they may, according to the community's judgment. E Eng 22:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender:: Thanks for the careful analysis. As mentioned before, I'll be happy to conform the page to the community's wishes. Unfortunately Iridescent's kind gesture in restoring a/o June 14 doesn't quite work, since other material was added/changed in the interim unrelated to the discussion here. For example (no kidding) because of a renaming of files over at Commons, the June 14 version's reference to File:Hooker, which used to invoke the moving devotional image File:Hooker's_Company_reach_the_Connecticut.jpg (and actually did so, on June 14), now points to the image seen at File:Hooker.jpg, causing the latter to be the one now displayed by the June 14 version, and thereby lending unintentional if not entirely unwelcome amusement. E Eng 23:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breaching AE protocol by commenting outside my section, but for ease of reading... Unfortunately, if one accepts that the Trump section is libelous, than the intervening revisions can't be restored because they'll include the offending content. Provided you're happy to have me post it even though it breaks attribution, I can just manually paste the content of the page as of this morning, minus that section, over the existing page. ‑ Iridescent 23:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to nudge in here on a hop and a dash, and excuse my throwing-in of the towel, but the image of the young lady with the title "Hooker" may, in retrospect, be as much of a BLP violation as anything dreamed up in heaven or earth or on EEng's page, and probably should be renamed, like, right now, before she's solicited on the street by well meaning Wikipedians. Randy Kryn 00:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange concern coming from someone named Randy. E Eng 01:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad:, One comment re your sensible criterion, but when an attempt at humor causes widespread dissension and unhappiness among one's colleagues and becomes a distraction...: I completely agree, but in this case, of the literally thousands of editors who have apparently visited my user page in the last six months there has been, to my recollection, exactly one objection registered [50] -- which I resolved by making a change addressing the concern expressed. (Can't diff that edit since it's in the deleted part of the history.) Had there been more than that, I would certainly have rethought my approach.

I too am pleased this is being discussed so constructively (by most, at any rate). E Eng 01:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakatoakatie: That you you are able interpret a certain photo + caption (or anything else, for that matter) as an actual "suggestion that Hillary Clinton was a dancer at Jack Ruby's burlesque club" (in 1963, when she was 15 years old) – much less that such a photo can possibly make "political statements about post-1932 American politics" – is emblematic of the serious clue-lack being displayed by a very (thankfully) few here. And there's no disputing that Trump really does look like Mussolini, and quotes him too. E Eng 04:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Re perhaps, we aren't just spouting off about nothing, given that you haven't seen the page in its entirety... well, perhaps, but then there's no way to know for those not members of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, is there? E Eng 11:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5) And, sorry I upset you by unknowingly breaking protocol [51] – I'm new to AE. And I realize it must be frustrating that you're reduced to procedural quibbles rather than substantive responses.

@BU Rob13: Re your request [52], here are the three sources you asked for: Trump's wife vs. sex doll; Eric Trump vs. "pussy"; Trump's fat fetish (For the record I did not, as you claim, imply that Christie has a fetish for "overweight" women, rather that those attracted to heavy persons might have ample reason to find him alluring, which seems beyond cavil.) What you refuse to acknowledge is that this material qualifies under Newyorkbrad's very sensible test i.e. (1) statements are made about a prominent living person that would be defamatory if taken literally, but (2) the intent is satirical and no reasonable reader would take them literally (and that goes for the sources I just linked too).

As for your assertion that I "was spoken to and refused to remove the content", that's untrue. Some weeks ago concern was raised about one particular section and (~~though this isn't apparent in the discussion you link, and~~ as noted in the very discussion you link [53], though for obvious reasons I can't now supply a diff) I made an edit addressing that concern, which the OP apparently found satisfactory. Face it: thousands saw the page and found no problem, and even if, on consideration, it's best that the material be banished the idea that fanciful material only in userspace could lead to a topic ban is absurd.

E Eng 09:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Re [54], as already explained (above) the sources I linked underscore the satirical nature of the content, in keeping with Newyorkbrad's criterion. Now at this point I'll allow you to vent away without feeling the need to respond, since the outcome of this misbegotten thread seems clear enough, despite your hopes and dreams. E Eng 09:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: Re [55], you don't seem to have read very carefully the discussion you linked. Contrary to what you imply, what that discussion shows is that the one and only time someone raised an objection, after a brief discussion I made a change [56] addressing that objection, and that was the end of it. So your reference to "the sisyphean effort of raising objection would be a futile waste of time" is nonsense.

The question here is less whether the material should stand -- perhaps it shouldn't, given that a significant minority find it problematic -- but the heavyhanded and time-wasting way this matter was handled. E Eng 11:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: Re [57] (I doubt frustrations could be avoided no matter the path), I don't know what makes you think that. Had someone merely asked, I probably would have deleted most or all of the section. I was planning to anyway – just hadn't got around to it. This has been an enormous waste of time and drama because some nervous nellie thinks the sky is falling. E Eng 23:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floquenbeam

Meh. Won't argue with the deletion, but no sanction needed, I don't imagine EEng is going to reinstate it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: Per Iri below, I won't argue with deletion of the portion that Wordsmith finds objectionable, and I don't imagine EEng is going to reinstate the portion that Wordsmith finds objectionable. The rest of it can surely be left alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Iridescent

Looking at the page, you only appear to have a problem with one section, since everything from "Some Entertaining Diversions" onwards is just the straightforward stuff one finds on many userpages—not my cup of tea (IMO the principle of "the more images a user has on their userpage, the less likely their opinions will be worth reading" is generally a fairly firm rule), but entirely non-controversial. Why the need for a scorched-earth deletion rather than just removing the section you found objectionable? ‑ Iridescent 22:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the history up to 14 June, which took all of three mouse clicks, and doesn't appear to include anything contentious. While I appreciate WP:ARBAPDS technically covers "all pages relating to American politics", in practice we've always allowed very broad leeway for people to make political comments pro-or-anti current politicians on their user and talk pages provided they're not grossly offensive to the extent they have a chilling effect on other editors; while I agree this crossed the WP:POLEMIC line I'd certainly not want to see any sanction here. ‑ Iridescent 23:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Martinevans123

I've also frequently compared Trump to Hitler. I've even called him "Orange Hitler" a few times. It's a common problem. But you're saying that entire page was devoted to a BLP violation of that one individual? Does policy demand that the entire page is disappeared, without any request at all being made to the owner to delete the offending parts? A lot of time and effort went into constructing the jokes on that page and some of them were even clever and funny. It brought amusement to many people. I think you're risking a lot of editors seeing your enforcement as taking "a sledgehammer to crack a nut". Folks may even think you're a Trump sympathiser. I guess that's a risk you think is worth taking. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can the word "plethora" include Democrat politicians? Or is such a suggestion "breaching AE protocol"? Yes, you are right, User:BU Rob13, Trump is no pussy. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

IMHO the page hadn't contained any BLP violations and being totally honest this whole enforcement thing didn't need to happen either ... TW could've simply left a message and saved all our times being wasted, Userpage should be reinstated and TW should move on. –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HBH

Comparing anyone or anything to Hitler is beyond the pale. Good work, Herr Wordsmith --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that poor Donald couldn't serve his country in the armed forces because of heel spurs? ... but, you know, something just doesn't seem to quite click with that story. Allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by BU Rob13

I'd like to see any editor assert, in good faith, that calling one of Trump's sons "a chip off the old pussy" is not a BLP violation. I also eagerly await any good-faith attempts to justify comparing Trump's wife to a sex doll. Or perhaps the assertion that Chris Christie has a fetish for overweight women. Gamaliel resigned as an arbitrator and administrator in no small part because of referring to Trump's hands as being small. This goes so far beyond that. This is the worst BLP violation I have ever seen, by far, and it targets many of individuals. It is nothing short of an attack page. As for those saying this should have been resolved through discussion, I would agree with you, if not for the extremely long and detailed discussion on EEng's talk page, which he summarily ignored, deleting no content whatsoever. At the very least, a topic ban from modern American politics is necessary. I would restrict it to the Trump family if not for the plethora of other politicians targeted on this user page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: If you truly believe this is an instance of WP:CRYBLP, would you please affirmatively state that you see no BLP issues with comparing Trump's wife to a sex doll, calling Trump's son a "chip off the old pussy", and stating that Chris Christie has a fetish for overweight women? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Please cite the reliable sources that reported the three things I listed above or explain how they do not fall afoul of BLP despite being obviously inflammatory statements about living people. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: These were not, in any way, the only statements. There were headings upon headings dedicated to this stuff, and I haven't even picked out the worst ones, as the worst ones should be left buried. This made up well over half of the page. EEng was spoken to and refused to remove the content, as I linked above. I have to wonder why you're leaping to the defense of alleged serious BLP violations that you haven't actually seen. Isn't that a recipe for disaster? I can tell you that about half a dozen experienced administrators looked this over in IRC before this was deleted, and there was universal horror at just how bad the content was. This was described by administrators who have worked in this topic area for over half a decade as the worst BLP violation they've seen, bar none, in years. Does that not give you some pause to think that, perhaps, we aren't just spouting off about nothing, given that you haven't seen the page in its entirety? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: It's a bit silly to advance a second substantive argument when the first remains unanswered. When someone can tell me seriously that they see no BLP violations in the three examples I highlighted, I'll consider advancing other substantive arguments, which probably will consist of the even worse examples that I'm making an effort not to repeat anywhere. (Or perhaps I'll advance something new when someone can explain to me why non-admins, who have never seen the content in question and are unable to now, feel qualified to confidently exclaim that no violation exists). And as a procedural matter, you're always welcome to leave good jokes in my section. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've presented three opinion pieces written in the first person as evidence that this isn't a BLP violation? Stunning. I would be fine with a topic ban from modern American politics in the userspace, if you prefer that narrower scope. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

I don't see any talk-page discussion with EEng about any concerns regarding his userpage: [58]. As of this writing, I do not see any WP:CONSENSUS here that the userpage should have been deleted. I do not see any WP:MFD filed on the page. The Wordsmith deleted it as WP:G10, G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose (underscoring mine), which it clearly wasn't. Above he states "I've summarily deleted the page as per policy and in keeping with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs", but it is a userpage, not a BLP, not an article, which the Arb ruling specifically refers to. Nor was there any discussion whatsoever on the matter before this summary deletion of this 113,000-byte humor page, which was mostly gentle humor about Wikipedia. EEng's userpage has been a source of blessed humor and relief from the frequent problems of Wikipedia for many many years. His page has 164 watchers [59], among them numerous admins. I agree with EEng above that:

Wordsmith's unilateral deletion of the page in advance of discussion is obviously inappropriate, give that (a) as he explicitly points out, a large number of admins are aware of its content and do not share his concerns, and (b) most of the material on the page has nothing to do with his complaint anyway, yet has been thrown out with the bathwater.

This entire deletion action was out-of-process, and the rationales applied for summarily deleting without any discussion whatsoever did not even apply. Moreover, there is no way for the community at large to adequately discuss the matter since the material in question has vanished. Consequently, I request a restoration of the entire page. If it then needs to be collapsed or blanked while discussion proceeds, fair enough, but we can't let this unauthorized deletion stand since it was clearly not done properly at all. Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I'd like to also point out that this does not belong at AE, because the deletion was not an Arbitration Enforcement, and the Arb ruling cited after the fact does not apply, as it refers only to articles. There is no ArbCom ruling that would justify this unilateral, undiscussed, un-tagged, un-notified deletion of a longterm 113,000-byte humorous userpage, mostly about Wikipedia, that happened to also contain some perceived problematic material. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

Not sure if non-admins are supposed to comment, but the deletion seems silly. It's a humor page & most of these things have been reported in the press anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "a chip off the old pussy" -- hasn't Trump himself caused such terminology to be ever present during the election season? Can't see the context for other statements as the page has been deleted. If the OP's concern was these three statements this could have been discussed with the page creator, vs unilaterally blanking the page or starting an AE case? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iazyges

Frankly I don't know EEng very well, but his userpage sort of falls into the "All kinds of humor", his userpage is possibly unique in that it pisses you off, makes you laugh, and shocked, sometimes all at once. No crimes I can see here, but perhaps a bit of a recommendation on his terminology for the Trump family. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've perfectly summarized the vibe I'm going for. E Eng 00:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KrakatoaKatie

I'm stunned to see the level of willful blindness displayed here by some people I respect. I am no fan of Donald Trump. I detest everything he stands for. But this is no 'gentle humor about Wikipedia'. This is pure attack, nothing less. We have, for example:

The 'Museum of Donald Trump's Pussies', in which his wife, son, running mate, staff, and political rivals are included along with a photo of a cat as 'pussy he's actually getting'
The 'Museum of Separated at Birth', in which we see photos of Trump with Mussolini, Hitler, and two different species of primates
The 'Museum of In Case You Don't Believe In Reincarnation', in which we have more photos of HItler and Trump

And there's more. The farther down the page you go, the more terrible it becomes. There's even a suggestion that Hillary Clinton was a dancer at Jack Ruby's burlesque club thrown in for good measure. That photo, to me, brings this squarely under ARBAP2 because EEng is using this page to make political statements about post-1932 American politics.

I fail to see how this is humor about Wikipedia, or gentle, or anything less than egregious and willful attacks on living persons. You can say whatever you want about anyone in the privacy of your own home and among your friends. Wikipedia is not private and WP:BLPTALK applies here.

Like Trump or don't like him, I don't care. But we cannot allow this kind of thing to stand. If we do, we're no better than we were before Badlydrawnjeff was decided in 2007. In case you weren't around then, we were really bad. Katie^talk 01:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mitch Ames

The User:EEng page (eg at this version) violated WP:SMI in that some of the images appear over the top of the tools (navigation, search, interaction, tools) on the left side of the page, making those tools hard to use from that page. This is the case for both:

Logged-in user, MonoBook skin, Pale Moon (web browser)
Not logged in, so with the default skin, Firefox browser

This is probably less important the other content issues mentioned above (eg BLP), but it is annoying, and contrary to the guidelines. Even if all the rest of the material was restored, I suggest that the <div style="position: fixed; ... > elements be removed. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thought by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

It was fun, but you knew it couldn't last.

In light of the global rise of authoritarianism it would be nice if there could be a safe space for freedom of expression. That's not the mission of en:wp but maybe it could be a WMF spinoff project. Just a thought. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new from Gerda

It was fun, and not a Wikipedia article. If parts seemed offending they should have been commented out and discussed. Softlavender and Newyorkbrad explained well, I won't repeat. - When will my user page be deleted without discussion? It proclaims that I am a member of project Freedom of speech, and of the cabal of the outcasts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72

While I am not an Administrator, I did view the material in question prior to its deletion, and am satisfied that that deletion was the correct course of action. The page clearly met WP:CSD#G10, and the suggestion that the content was a "humourous" or "satirical" diversion, invoking the and meets no other purpose clause is a nonsense which should satisfy no reasonable person.
As with the "Signpost" material which formed the basis of the Arbitration case earlier this year, Wikipedia is simply not in the business of hosting polemical political satire. If editors wish to produce and have published such material, they should make use of one of the multitude of webhosting sites available.
To the suggestion that the material was acceptable because only one complaint was registered, this is also nonsense; it does not account for the editors who, like myself, viewed the material, considered it inappropriate, but also viewed the Talk page discussion[60], and correctly concluded that the sisyphean effort of raising objection would be a futile waste of time. The Wikilawyering justifications produced in this discussion further reinforce this.
Delete, trout, move on. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: It may well be a reasonable expression of opinion, it is not even close to being within the realms of what Wikipedia should publish. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Respectfully, to draw comparison to Charlie Hebdo is disgraceful. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: It's clearly not a "freedom of speech" issue - no-one, to my knowledge, objects to the existence of the material, or wishes to constrain EEng from producing it - they object strongly to the use of Wikipedia to publish it. As for censorship, we explicitly censor ourselves to exclude multiple types of information, including, again explicitly, this type of information. Wikipedia is neither Private Eye nor Viz (not as funny as it used to be); neither are we publishers (other than for the purpose of documenting these topics) of erotica, pornography, propaganda or polemic, or anything else that might be found published in multiple places elsewhere. John Brown might be happy to publish cartoons of unfeasibly large testicles; Larry Flynt might publish many a satirical comic along with his more satyrical matter - we do not. If editors want to publish political polemic, they should do so elsewhere. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MRD2014

All those revisions got deleted, but have not been restored. I think the deletion was enough. The revisions of the page that were deleted were definitely violations of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:BLP, but the revisions that contained them have been removed, and I think we can just move on. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Patient Zero

KrakatoaKatie's analysis is spot on. I don't find the page particularly funny, and yes, it was a blatant BLP violation. Quite frankly I'm disturbed by the fact that administrators were praising the page. Patient Zero^talk 13:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I agree with the deletion and most of KrakatoaKatie's assessment. The user page and talk page are also violations of policy and should be looked into. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning EEng

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

I'm having a really, really hard time seeing BLP violations here. It's userspace, not the encyclopedia, and anyone reading that page and not understanding that its content is not meant seriously...well, I wouldn't know what to do for them anyway. Yes, BLP applies to userspace, but just like libel, BLP violations are only dangerous if presented in a way that someone might actually believe them to be true. I think deletion of the entire page was excessive, and if there was some part that was particularly concerning, that could've been better addressed by talking it over with EEng and, if necessary, asking the community for input. I don't much go for farting around in userspace myself, but if others want to, it's generally harmless. Indeed, things like that might help editor retention; everyone's got to blow off a bit of steam every so often. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: You may not be on this page too often (and if so, good on you), but please keep in mind it doesn't allow for threaded discussion in other editors' sections, because that just caused way too many problems before that was put into place. Please make any replies in your own section, and move any made elsewhere there as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like WP:CRYBLP to me. Trump is a divisive figure and nothing in the deleted revisions shows anything beyond reasonable expression of opinion. If Wordsmith thinks it violates WP:NOTFORUM (a not indefensibel view) then WP:MFD is second door on the left. This is not, I think, an AE matter in respect of American Politics or anything else. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One of the questions prominently raised by the Gamaliel arbitration case earlier this year, but not resolved by that case (perhaps because it is a policy matter), is whether a BLP violation exists where, outside mainspace, (1) statements are made about a prominent living person that would be defamatory if taken literally, but (2) the intent is satirical and no reasonable reader would take them literally. Perhaps a further consideration might be if (3) the statements are unusually graphic, or indelicate, or some would say crass. There are good-faith arguments on both sides of this question, and perhaps the (über-serious) discussion of April Fools jokes that took place earlier this year could have discussed the broader question. (My own passing comment at the time was, "non-mainspace humor has its place in Wikipedia, as part of the friendly comeraderie and shared experience of editing that sustains the community—but when an attempt at humor causes widespread dissension and unhappiness among one's colleagues and becomes a distraction, the humorist should reconsider whether it is serving its purpose, whether it is or recently was April 1 or any other day. This is not a call for self-censorship per se, but for common sense.") Regarding today's developments, I am actually pleased to see a situation in which administrators and editors are acting out of principle and with good faith on all sides. A compromise seems to be working out, under which the userpage is being restored without the most disputatious of the material, and I'd be happy to see this matter resolved, without further action against anyone, on that basis. (Cross-posting this to AN also.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: You are right that my quotation of my comment from six months ago is from a different context and was not meant to describe today's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how simply deleting this entire massive user page without discussion could possibly have been the right move or could possibly have just ended without all this drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I try to stay away, as a rule, from EEng's talk and user page--they are too big for my caches to handle. Yes, BLP violation; sure, massive; yes, in pretty good spirits; OK, violation of NOTWEBHOST, all that. I absolutely agree with the deletion, and wish EEng the best. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis EEng. I like EEng's user page as it appeals to my sense of humour and contains nothing you wouldn't see in Private Eye or Viz which you can buy from most newsagents round here. If you are really concerned about harm to living persons, go and file a formal complaint to Twitter about some of the stuff Trump writes on his feed. I'll expand on this later after breakfast, but I see no breaches of the spirit of BLP whatsoever. Grow up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll expand a bit on what I'm talking about. One of the key discussions that led to the increase in importance in BLP around ten years ago was this, and a principal problem is that by 2006, people were creating articles about people who really weren't all that famous. The reason BLP is important is because Wikipedia is likely to be the most viewed website and source of information about not-particularly-famous people, so it's important to get things right.

However, like all things, it is possible to over-apply BLP in the wrong direction; if you go too far you end up with the cult of Kim Il Sung who can never do anything wrong, period. I'm prepared to believe that Donald Trump is the most famous person on this entire planet right now, so of everyone in the world that the intent that led to BLP could apply, he's the least affected. People have been out rioting and demonstrating against him and calling him names all over the internet. Wikipedia puts reliably sourced criticism of Trump in his article, and doesn't violate BLP in doing so.

Given that content, a user page that mocks facts that we already have on Wikipedia, not least in the standalone articles Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and puts them in a humorous light cannot be a realistic violation of BLP. If you really are concerned about what EEng said, you should be more concerned about the three articles I just linked to and checking those for BLP.

There's a further aspect to consider. We understand BLP and the CSD criteria, being the seasoned wiki-veterans that we are, but the outside world does not, and it only takes one person to put two and two together and get five, misinterpret a political motive to The Wordsmith deleting the content. After all, Trump is no stranger to wanting to sue and censor people that rub him up the wrong way. I can picture the Daily Mail running a headline of "Wikipedia cyber-bullies censor Trump opponent" (why let facts get in the way of a good story), maybe under the misguided assumption that Wikipedia and Wikileaks are somehow related, if it would be a good story that sells lots of papers. Or perhaps OurMine, who don't seem to be fans of Trump (and who can blame them) will decide that The Wordsmith is the next admin account that's worth having a crack at, being an obvious^{[citation needed]} Trump loyalist. Is this really a risk we want Wikipedia to take? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: I didn't make a comparison to Charlie Hebdo, I made a comparison to freedom of speech and lack of censorship. I also made a comparison to Private Eye and Viz, and if you read any issue of those two journals, you will discover that what occurs on Wikipedia is mild in comparison. Or, indeed, watch any old episode of Spitting Image - most reasonable people would not seriously believe Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was a gin-drinking gambling alcoholic with a Brummie accent. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: "Grow up" was not directed at you (I don't think I've seen any comment from you that is a problem whatsoever) and I apologise if you thought it was. Rather, it was exasperation that we had to come here and to WP:AN instead of just having a quiet word on EEng's talk or email, which could have resolved the whole situation more amicably. That's all. Incidentally, the problem reported here has been (at least partially) resolved at Commons. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the deletion, as at the very least the page was a massive violation of NOTWEBHOST. I found it slightly amusing in the way fart and dick jokes are slightly amusing, but ultimately I think what we put on our user pages ought to be of the same caliber as what you'd expect to find pinned to a colleague's office wall. I'm having trouble imagining a case for sanctions, though, so I'd rather close this and move on as long as EEng doesn't announce intentions to restore the page. --Laser brain (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some elements of the deleted page were clear BLP violations; deletion was valid. If only as a courtesy blanking pending an MfD. Simply ascribing "humorous treatment" to what may be an actual occurrence is irrelevant. Anyone remember the Plaxico situation? That the BLPs were in user space does not mitigate the problem either. Grow up, Ritchie? Taking swipes at one's colleagues' maturity for their good faith efforts at maintaining Wikipedia policy does your position a disservice. My opinion may not hold up to the test of consensus, but I'm damned if it's immature. Tiderolls 14:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333:Thanks for that consideration. I agree that other options might have served the situation better but I doubt frustrations could be avoided no matter the path. Tiderolls 18:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the page was an appropriate G10 candidate and nominating it for MfD would have been a better course of action. However having this on a userpage was not a good idea and I think it would have been deleted if sent to MfD. I don't see any need for sanctions at this time and I suggest that the current situation is a satisfactory resolution. Hut 8.5 15:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all done here, aren't we? There's clearly no consensus to sanction EEng, which I quite agree with, and he's already agreed not to restore the contentious sections. I think everyone's got better things to do. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonywiki

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 Anonywiki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Neutrality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Anonywiki (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:ARBGMO and WP:ARBAP2

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

13:29, September 24, 2016: Anonywiki removes with the edit summary: "Rubbish. There is no 'scientific consensus' that GMOs are 'safe' period and neither could there be, the only consensus is that they are not inherently, necessarily harmful.)"
10:56, November 13, 2016: Anonywiki removes statement about scientific consensus on GMOs with the following edit summary: "RUBBISH"
11:47, November 13, 2016 less than one hour after being reverted by Snooganssnoogans, Anonywiki reverts with the edit summary: "I assure you that GMOs are not 'regarded as safe by scientific consensus"
13:02, November 13, 2016: after being reverted, Anonywiki changes "pointed out that they contradict the scientific consensus" to "alleging they contradict the scientific consensus...," despite the fact that several of the cited sources—including this article written by an academic who studies the rise of conspiracy theorizing—notes that the article subject "engendered GMO conspiracy theories...despite the overwhelming scientific consensus..."
20:11, November 16, 2016 after being reverted, Anonywiki again reverts with the edit summary: "Please check your reading comprehension. There is no 'unwarranted doubt' to alleging, 'pointing out' is false"
20:37, November 16, 2016: removes entire section, including 10 cited references, with the edit summary: "I'm sorry to say this, but these links are really all nonsense. They are all opinion pieces, they aren't proper news citations for the claim at all.)"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

(Two blocks and multiple warnings from before 2010 are not mentioned, for brevity's sake and because they are too distant in time to be relevant)
September 27, 2010: Anonywiki blocked for personal attacks or harassment by Seraphimblade (72 hours)
October 1, 2010: Anonywiki blocked for disruptive editing and WP:POINT by John & Chaser (1 week, lifted one day later)
17:20, December 12, 2011: Anonywiki is warned by McDoobAU93 for making personal attack
16:31, 13 December 2011: Anonywiki is warned by Sergecross73 for making personal attacks
22:43, May 24, 2014: Anonywiki is warned by Daffydavid for 3RR violations & disruptive editing.

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

11:04, November 13, 2016: warned via edit summary by Snooganssnoogans to "see talk page. this is under discretionary sanctions, do not revert."
12:44, November 13, 2016: given alert on user talk page about discretionary sanctions for both post-1932 American politics and GMOs
18:49, November 16, 2016: warned via edit summary by me of intent to pursue Arbitration Enforcement would be next stop if disruptive editing continued

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Anonywiki makes large-scale or controversial edits that change stable article content without meaningfully engaging on the talk page, even after his edits are reverted by multiple other editors.
Anonywiki routinely disparages other editors and their work in edit summaries (e.g., "check your reading comprehension"; "Rubbish"; "RUBBISH"; "all nonsense").
Anonywiki leans on his or her own authority, rather than on citations to experts/scholars/scientists, journalists, etc. ("I assure you that GMOs are not 'regarded as safe by scientific consensus'")
Anonywiki fails to cite to policies or guidelines in making wholesale removals of material, nor in adding/changing contentious material.
Anonywiki makes incorrect or misleading statements of fact — such as saying that references cited are "all opinion pieces" when in fact the sources cited include a detailed Washington Post news piece from a policy reporter and an analysis from a political science professor at the University of Miami who is the co-author of American Conspiracy Theories (Oxford University Press, 2014) — both of which directly and clearly support the proposition in the article.
Anonywiki's statement below that "there is NO SOURCE that states commentators 'pointed out she went against the scientific consensus'" is simply wrong (and typical of the tendentious editing and "I can't hear you" behavior of this user). See the following refs (all cited in the article, and removed by Anonywiki):
- Max Ehrenfreund, What Jill Stein, the Green presidential candidate, wants to do to America, Washington Post (August 2, 2016): "Her platform calls for a moratorium on GMOs in foods 'until they are proven safe.' A recent report published by the European Union reviewed dozens of studies of genetically modified organisms and concluded they were no more dangerous than conventionally bred strains. The American Association for the Advancement of Science agrees...")
- Joseph Uscinski, The 5 Most Dangerous Conspiracy Theories of 2016, Politico Magazine (August 22, 2016) ("Stein [has] ... engendered GMO conspiracy theories, which claim that big agriculture and biotech companies are hiding the negative environmental and health consequences of farming and consuming genetically modified foods. This is despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that genetically modified food is safe to eat").

--Neutrality^talk 02:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

21:02, November 16, 2016

Discussion concerning Anonywiki

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 Anonywiki

The claim is that commentators "pointed out she went against the scientific consensus". There is NO SOURCE that states commentators "pointed out she went against the scientific consensus".

It's just reading comprehension. Instead of coming up with a bunch of cliched "arguments" I suggest that's what the user should be more concerned about.

The "scientific consensus" claim is on very shaky ground, there are tons of scientists that state there is no scientific consensus. This was a compromise statement. User has no understanding of the issue. Hobbyists and dilettantes should refrain from making edits on such points that have specific scientific meanings and contexts that are clearly lost on them. Anonywiki (talk)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anonywiki

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

AE appeal by User:Towns Hill

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: Towns Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Towns_Hill 23:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Arbitration enforcement sanction 2

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

Notification of that administrator: As the banning administrator, I am aware of this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Towns Hill

The original ban was imposed invalidly to begin with. It was hastily issued and based upon one editor's incendiary comment to an admin's talk page. I was never reported at AE and was not even given a chance to defend myself. I was banned on a comment of an editor who went on admin shopping and knew which admin would be more than willing to entertain his request because that specific admin has been mentioning distributing topic-bans on forums in the past.

Towns_Hill 23:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Towns Hill

Result of the appeal by Towns Hill

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

Towns Hill, any uninvolved admin can issue topic bans, blocks, or other sanctions per the Arb com ruling on India and Pakistan. There is no 'take it to AE' requirement. Unless you can show that the admin is an involved one, your appeal doesn't really have standing. --regentspark (comment) 13:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark is absolutely right. AE is an area where potentially sanctionable behavior can be reported by non-admins, admins who are involved and so can't take action on their own, or uninvolved admins who want more opinions before taking any action. There is no requirement that an AE report be filed prior to sanctions being imposed; any uninvolved admin who sees a violation can impose a sanction for it right then and there. It also does not matter how they came to learn of that violation or if the admin previously issued warnings that sanctions might result. The only potentially valid appeals are that the sanction was invalid to start with, such as that there was no actual violation it was based on or the admin who imposed it was inappropriately involved, or that it is no longer needed to prevent damage and disruption. Since you've recently violated the sanction, I sure wouldn't be quick to believe it's no longer necessary. Do you have any evidence of the first scenario, that it was never valid to begin with? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:06, 19 November 2016 (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