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	345

Topgun

Topic banned from making any edit related to wars between India and Pakistan, expiring 12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 20 December 2014 (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 Topgun

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:34, 11 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TopGun (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#Discretionary sanctions :

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

20:52, 2 November 2014 Violation of WP:PRIMARY, since the newspaper has only represented the view of Pakistani military commander.
21:01, 2 November 2014 Use of an image as a source that is hosted on an unreliable self-published source.
13:43, 9 November 2014 Same use of a WP:PRIMARY and a dubious source like above two diffs on a different page.
14:28, 1 December 2014‎ Apart from the violation above, this time he has misrepresented the source, when he also changed "Pakistani source" to "Neutral source", even after knowing that it doesn't,[1] per [2]
06:39, 11 December 2014 Reverted to preferred version, without following consensus on the talk and RSN. This edit also violated WP:NOTADVOCATE since much of its part, starting from "He ordered his staff officer ...." to "...Chawinda till the guns fell silent", is a view of a military men.(WP:PRIMARY)
09:09, 11 December 2014‎ Misrepresentation of source, linked URL is nowhere stating any results about the battle between two nations, and the highlighted text is talking about a cavalry regiment named, "25th Cavalry".[3]

Edit warring

07:35, 3 December 2014
09:05, 3 December 2014 (Misuse of Twinkle rollback).
12:18, 3 December 2014

3 reverts in 5 hours, but no comments were made on the article' talk.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked 9 times,[4] mostly for disruptive editing and edit warring.
WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#TopGun, reads: "Further edit warring or other types of inappropriate behavior will lead to sanctions."

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

[5] [6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Apparent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and usual habit of changing battle results without gaining consensus. I don't see how there was any need to revert any of my changes if he had only read the note that I left on article' talk every time. Accuses of "following" him if you have reverted his edit,[7] and also accuses of "canvassing", if you have asked another editor(who edits similar pages),[8], or a relevant noticeboard.[9]

Not to mention that how many times he has tried to misrepresent other editors. As usual, he keeps claiming that I haven't "even verified the source that atleast two editors have",[10] Although he cannot name them, or provide the diffs where they have confirmed this dubious image [11]. It has no mention outside this wikipedia page. As per WP:CONSENSUS, he had no consensus for any of these edits, yet he continues to edit war over them, despite everyone else(except Nawabmalhi),[12],[13], [14], [15] told him not to use a self published and unverified picture. However he still hasn't presented any mention of this report outside wikipedia article. That means even if many other editors would tell him the same, he will still continue to use a dubious image as reference and tell others to follow WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is certainly impossible for dubious references. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: According to my experience, whenever I would find that my edit has been reverted or I have reverted others edit, I would hope for a discussion in place of going for another revert. Maybe that's why I haven't reverted the recent edits of TopGun. With this case, things were very different. Since this case, I also think that I understand "consensus" better than I used to. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: I agree that I have made these mistakes, I could have done better. Until today I was unaware that I should have made neutral notification to other user, as well as more neutral AE case. I apologize for that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today I received a message on my talk from concerning Topgun's accusations of edit warring. I told the editor to address specific concerns on here; if they are addressable. I have recently checked, the article is 2014 Peshawar school attack, I couldn't find any evidence of edit warring by Rsrikanth05, who had been warned by TopGun, not to edit war. I should also mention that the article is not related to India or Bangladesh, it is only related to Pakistan under WP:ARBIPA. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [16]

Discussion concerning TopGun

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 TopGun

Sigh, this is a content dispute and many editors have said that the source is okay, I'm not even the editor who originally added the sources, Nawabmalhi did when he saw a sock vandalizing content against the sources and I asked him about verification before adding them where he responded positively. OZ on the other hand hasn't even verified the source that atleast two editors have and turns to use a scanned copy of the newspaper provided by Nawabmalhi that I showed him as a courtesy, against me. Full details of the source are present and OZ hasn't even verified the source himself before filing this ridiculous report. Please consider WP:BOOMERANG for this hasty report to try get a content dispute bent to his favour. Please also note I filed this SPI where a concluded sock was vandalizing the article against sources. Now OZ comes along and starts restoring the sock version. After not getting consensus at RSN, and after a user points out that even the source he's giving states the opposite of what he's' saying, he brings the dispute here instead of DRN to have me out of the way so that he can edit and push his POV as much as he likes. Please also note that I have warned OZ for blatant canvassing of another Indian user (who had never edited the article before) who also told him to be neutral at his talkpage and he has been repeatedly going only to WP:INDIA to call in Indian editors that he thinks would support his POV instead of also notifying WP:PAK or choosing a formal noticeboard. OZ first called him to revert [17] where he had a dispute and then went to revert me the article where the editor he canvassed had a dispute with me [18].. how is that not canvassing? He has also fueled other disputes that had recently been stablized at Kargil war, Operation Dwarka, List of Pakistani wars etc, all of which I avoided reporting to an admin and articles that he never edited before, yet he seeks sanctions to work his way through when he does not get enough editor support. Kindly also note that the links OZ is presenting about old sanctions / blocks were with an abusive sockpuppet Darkness Shines and have been reverted. I find it quite telling that OZ is bringing those up knowingly. He also does not recognize that "no consensus" defaults to status quo and tries to revert again to his favoured version. I've already had enough of such editors lately, now he's appearing up at articles that I edit and he's never edited. I also find it utterly deceiving on OZ's behalf that he calls this a misuse of twinkle rollback in his statement while it was just that I forgot to give an edit summary and made my correction in the very next edit and in the next few seconds by making a null edit [19]. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would some one also revoke talkpage and email access of Darkness Shines (an indeffed sock puppet who had hounded me for two years) who is sending OZ emails [20] and I do not find the possibility of canvassing OZ to make edits on his behalf unlikely. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cailil, I added the source you quoted calling my edit disruptive just today to support the victory part and I quoted it in the edit summary. The infobox title was already sourced by Canberra times and The Australian, would you consider retracting that remark? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly see the diff [21].. he pinged him and told him to check his email. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source talks clearly of Indian defeat (25th cav in source was the unit at Pakistani side as per the source) and an editor from RSN said "The second, on pp.35-6, says that the Pakistani's defeated the Indians at Chawinda (& v.v. at Asal Uttar)" on the talkpage, I decided to add it to the article as well. My intent was anything but to spam. And like all other claims of OZ, this too isn't solely based on my opinion.. that doesn't make it disruptive.. just content related. Sorry but I do not think DS's actions ever come out in the wash. I got blocked and Ibanned due to his baiting as seen in the linked discussion; they never did get washed out and I find it quite disruptive that he still continues from within his block. The fact that he removed a large chunk of content while pinging shows that he wanted to hide the ping so that it would look he only blanked and is clearly watching this discussion [22]. IMO, that's proof enough why he would email OZ and as if forwarding an email to you preserves any proof of originality. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the contention, OZ is moving the goal posts by making the scanned copy of the image (which is not even required for the article) to be the center of the reference while it is not as per WP:SOURCEACCESS and keeps on changing my argument and refutes something that is not my argument rather a courtesy add on. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, My comment was solely to show blatant canvassing and esp to show the divisiveness.. since when does making a comment to show divisiveness by another editor (with diff and not just blank argument) makes me guilty of the same. I don't mind editing with editors from any country and I've done so since years. With all my actions backed up by actions of other editors I think bans and actions on this report would be exactly what OZ wants and is not the way to resolve a content dispute (and that too just for a singular instance of perceived issues?). I don't find it fair to be blamed of source misrepresentation when in each case I first consulted other editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to wrongly imply anything, I'd not have mentioned myself that Strike Eagle "also told him to be neutral at his talkpage". I've been fully transparent. I find it will hardly be constructive to simply ban me from the major topic area that I edit.. you might as well go for a site ban then given the lack of WP:AGF here on the fact that for each reference I discussed I consulted another editor (I've quoted their statements or discussion links here). The reverts on 3rd December were 3 edits in total and other editors reverted to status quo as well reinforcing the consensus to keep that version... I wont say stayed within a legitimate number of edits as I do understand it was still an editwar but I had no intention of reverting further or continuing an editwar and they are stale so any bans or blocks would be punitive. If that decision on sources was solely my action, I would not have defended my stance this way. For DS, I don't see any public arbcom appeal. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys would have been familiar with the topic area, I've had enough editors having this WP:BATTLE mentality hounding and following and it doesn't make me divisive to raise the possibility of that reoccurring. My arbcom warning and blocks are rescinded so I see a pretty harsh attitude here for discussing bans and warnings on a malformed report effectively for the first time. OZ had not edited these three articles and started appearing one by one to revert me [23] [24] [25].. I still didn't report him... how much more good faith can one assume than requesting only on his talkpage to stop. While I appreciate OZ recognizing his mistake, his response to me was quite different [26]. I suggest that the admins leave the content dispute to the editors as there are multiple content venues to decide what a source says and is not a behavioural matter when two three editors quote it and take it differently. If I am wrong, I'm happy to accept it as a content matter but I will not accept the blame of misrepresenting which lacks WP:AGF and was not my intent. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the sock puppet to whose version OZ was restoring was also tagteaming with DS [27] [28] back in 2013 and recently socking at this article and was finally caught. I can't speak for OZ's knowledge of that but I do think the sockmaster Nuclearram (with yet a current pending SPI) may have been in contact with DS. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to you guys for killing the messenger, that I raised the way canvassing was being done and for only using sources in consultation with other editors :s --lTopGunl (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston, Two editors who were hounding me on Operation Chengiz Khan were both socks... so way to go for bringing that up (as I already did).. that warning was reverted by an AN discussion linked above for that reason (so no, there's no final warning or any warning on me before this). I don't see how a ban from afghanistan is related here, and how a ban from Pakistan only topics is going to help in this... although you've taken it upon yourselves to ban me for a content dispute, why is a topic ban on all topics being proposed here that hardly relate to the military topics? Also since I am a major contributor to the topic area, a blanket ban from all three topics (esp. Pak) instead of from the specific article or something would be pretty disruptive. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to explain any of your actions or will you be forcing me to go for an AN appeal as soon as you place this ridiculous ban? This also seems to be borderline canvassing [29] to get OZ to oppose me in even a non controversial matter where an editor was reverting editors randomly and warned by me with diffs of his three reverts... OZ is pointing him to give input against me here in return. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I didn't invoke the DS related discussions except for two things, 1) the fact that OZ knowingly brought up warning / blocks that were reverted and I had to link those discussions when those warnings and edits against not just one sockpuppet were being discussed (WP:NOTTHEM isn't for sock puppets of blocked editors or block evaders, it's when two valid editors are interacting and I think community has already given their input on that matter and there's no need to re evaluate it unilaterally and subject me to answer for things that community has already stood up for). I wasn't claiming impunity on anything post DS, 2) I had to mention DS emailing OZ... both of them were met with reasonable uninvolved input. I don't think I've mislead anyone in anyway but I do think it is only fair that I respond to allegations that are being placed on me without fully understanding both sides of the story. Also, if you see the RFC at the Battle of Chawinda, there's just as much support for my edit as is for OZ. It's going to be a really bad precedent to ban editors on basis of disagreement. It is clear cut WP:WIN logic to ban editors even if they are wrong in content. Editors are often wrong in content disputes, this has nothing to do with behaviour. You can however ban me because I strongly object here on comments that I disagree with... apparently that's what's leading to most of the fuss here. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC has been started at the talkpage of Battle of Chawinda where I have demonstrated and am further getting support for the consensus on a version that I edited or a similar one that says "Indian defeat" esp. on the one where I added a new reference to back up the claim of victory and an admin below called it misrepresentation.. so I guess your point of misrepresentation is unfounded. This is a content matter by any definition and admins have no authority over it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the admins won't be too naive to see the pattern around this topic area and my reasons for the way I phrased my statement and further comments instead of taking them to be what they infact aim to convey. Vanamonde93 was blatantly canvassed by a disruptive editor [30] who had no consensus but was hell bent on pushing POV as well as serial canvassing [31] [32]. I did convince Vanamonde93 of that but the fact that he responded to canvassing and that he actually did emphasize in some way of going for the proposed edits for which he was asked to comment (he did not really support my stance). He did later agree to a compromise which is fine and I did not expect him to be making such a statement here due to that, but saying that he entered a dispute on my side (a WP:BATTLE statement in its own context) is totally incorrect. Maybe some one is emailing random editors at WP:IND with pointers to an obscure AE discussion as this? Sorry can't assume good faith when it comes to patterns after having dealt through a myraid of them and all turning out the same way, but still will not comment on the editors who are commenting here either. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

Given the link provided by TopGun, I suggest DarknessShine's talk page access and email be removed. See also prior AN discussion. NE Ent 11:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the logged warning was in accordance with DS Appeals protocol; there was an eight day discussion at AN where the overwhelming consensus was the removal was warranted. NE Ent 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rsrikanth05

I interacted with TopGun only in the last 12 hours and I am absolutely appalled by their behaviour. TG accused me of edit warring, and left a warning on my talk page which Yunshui responded to and clarified that I was in no way, edit warring. Among other claims, TG stated that the warning was to prevent me from any further disruptive edits, and that I had edit warred by undoing his edit, which I had not. Major-General Asim Bajwa was linked, which TG linked as Major-General Asim Bajwa. I merely unlinked the latter as it was a red [irony is that both are now unlinked]. The other two EW examples cited was removal of a parent category who subcat was already present and removal of a link to Russian Federation which had earlier been removed by Koavf. Apparently, me doing it is a problem, others is not. Apart from this, I was also notified of the discretionary sanction, which although was good, I feel was unwarranted. Subsequently, I responded on the RfC [Battle of Chawinda], where TG automatically seems to assume that they know more than the other. Yes, I know the NLA trove is a digital archive, I have worked on digitisation of papers before. However, what is more appalling is when OccultZone posted about a discussion on the India noticeboard and TG immediately put forth a proposal to try and prohibit posting on such noticeboards in such a situation. Thankfully, such a restrictive proposal was met with no support. My only point here is that TG seems to believe in the 'If it doesn't work my way, then it is wrong' methods. The Holier Than Thou attitude is unwarranted on enwp and I have decided I will not edit any article TG has edited. Not surprisingly, the user who asks me to 'discuss' before I edit themselves is being accused of the same thing above. Apart from a Topic ban of atleast six months, I think an interaction ban would be required. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AmritasyaPutra

I have little (tending towards zero) interaction with TG, but the article talk page does feel like WP:BLUD example. It discourages other editors from participating. I think keeping reference to DS minimum is good. He may not be able to reply here and the circumstances for this report mostly deal with TG behavior for which DS should not be held responsible. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93

I have only interacted with TopGun once, on Azad Kashmir. Initially, I entered the dispute on TG's side; a new editor was pushing an Indian government POV with a certain lack of discussion (I will provide diffs if asked; I don't currently want to clutter the page). However, that new editor eventually did join a discussion, here, which other editors eventually joined. Despite the original POV push, there was a genuine content issue there; a lack of compliance with a redirect guideline. There were many ways to solve this issue; however (and this is really my point) TopGun essentially restricted their contributions to contradicting other's suggestion, without once providing an alternative. This is not explicitly in violation of any policy; yet a glance through their contributions to that discussion shows an incredible battleground mindset, even when dealing with editors that entered the discussion on their side. DS had absolutely nothing to do with this particular fracas; he had been topic-banned well before. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strike Eagle

I've known TopGun for quite some time now and all I can say is that he can't seem to doesn't want to shed his battleground mentality. I would like to say only about the recent issues though. He accused me of responding to canvassing(verified by admins here that there was none) and then reverts me in another article when I add reliable books as sources. He claims stability as the reason for revert...I don't know any policy which states stability means consensus. And then abuses the TW tool by making what obviously is an intentional revert without summary. Later he makes a null edit only to give the most vague edit summary I've seen in my entire life. He doesn't bother to clarify why my book sources are not reliable and his newspaper is more reliable. I still don't get how DS is related to this....apparently it seems as an effort by TG to divert people from his reckless abuse of reversion and self-proclaimed and declared results to wars...Thanks, ƬheStrike Σagle

Result concerning TopGun

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
On an initial look. This case is a bit of a mess. TopGun's block log has 8 entries from 2012. MastCell also stated in November 2014 that "a number of TopGun's blocks resulted from his interactions with an abusive sockpuppet (DS); TopGun would likely not have been blocked in some instances if this had been clear at the time"[33]. So that point of this complaint is muck raking. Also the list of diffs is mainly non-actionable. Only 2 diffs (and only 1 of the reverts from December 3rd 2014) come after a valid AC/DS notification[34]. Also the point re: ignoring RSN consensus is moot since the discussion at RSN ended without consensus[35].
Now after all that these are mainly matters for WP:RSN. Ocultzone's understanding of WP:PRIMARY borders (at best) on wikilawyering. The only matters that comes close to action IMO are the edit-warring on December 3rd and the misrepresentation of sources by TopGun. Regarding the latter this edit[36] is indeed disruptive. The source quoted says nothing about a major Pakistani victory and is in fact a discussion of how both the armies used their armored formations poorly and how both proved adept with smaller forces. How this relates to a "Major victory" for anyone is very unclear. And I would indeed classify this as disruptive use of sources.
I'd like to see input from other sysops before commenting further but I'm looking at the actions of both TopGun and Occultzone--Cailil ^talk 14:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TopGun what evidence is there of DS sending emails to OccultZone?--Cailil ^talk 15:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TopGun the source says nothing about ANY victory. You threw in a source that does not relate to the content. That's effectively spamming a contested piece of text with "references" that do not support the assertion. That's disruptive editing. I suggest you don't belabour the point. Also please take a step back there is no need to rush. If Darkness Shines is working with Occultzone it will "come out in the wash"--Cailil ^talk 15:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too am looking at the behaviour of both users. I'm not convinced that there is enough (one edit war which didn't cross 3RR and the source misrepresentation) is enough to topic ban in itself. However the personal attack and divisiveness of referring to another editor you've edit warred with by their country ("another Indian editor" in TopGun's statement) in an AE report suggests to me that the topic area would be best served by removing TopGun from it. Regarding OccultZone, I'm not convinced (yet) that there is enough there to warrant a topic ban yet, also considering that they haven't been reported at AE before, though I wouldn't have an issue with a reminder to submit actionable and relevant evidence and to ensure that they cooperate with others when trying to come to a consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The things I find most pressing on TopGun's side are is misuse of sources (and defense of that) and indeed the casting of aspersions. OccultZone was admonished by the user (StrikeEagle) he contacted, TopGun's over-hasty and divisive action then (December 3rd) and now in misconstruing it in a way that implies impropriety on StrikeEagle's side (where there was none) is a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. On OccultZone's side this whole case is designed to rake as much mud and patch together as many things to make TopGun look bad (which was thoroughly unnecessary) combined with the non-neutral message to StrikeEagle which although not canvassing was bad form (see here). Given all that I'd be happy with a final warning to OccultZone re:WP:BATTLE (and unclean hands at WP:AE) and a topic ban for TopGun--Cailil ^talk 12:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also User_talk:Callanecc#AE_questions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Darkness Shines, he implies that he has appealed his ban to ArbCom. I can see good reason to revoke talk page and email access but given that appeal I'd like to see an Arb comment--Cailil ^talk 12:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're probably pretty safe in pulling it, they'll comment or add it back if they think it necessary. Given they haven't started a public discussion they'll probably do it in private. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's been no further admin input, since the comments from myself and Callanecc, I'd suggest closing with a topic ban (from the India, Pakistan and Afghanistan topic areas) for TopGun, and a final warning re: WP:BATTLE for OccultZone. Unless there's further comment in the next 24 hours I'll make that close myself.
Given the complexity of the Darkness Shines issue I'd suggest being conservative, however if the BASC does not unblock him and there is any further interference with this topic area an individual case laying out all the evidence and the timeline might (and I stress "might") be necessary--Cailil ^talk 13:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This report shows edit warring by User:TopGun on the Battle of Chawinda, a topic from the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and follows a previous AE complaint in late 2013 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#TopGun. At that time the complaint was about edit warring at Operation Chengiz Khan, a topic from the 1965 war between India and Pakistan. The decision in the 2013 AE case was to issue TopGun a final warning. If it was in fact a final warning then this time around we need to do something. So I would propose a ban of at least three months from the topic of all the wars between India and Pakistan. I don't see enough problem with User:OccultZone's edits to do anything. His decision to go to WP:RSN was reasonable and is a good step to take to minimize edit warring. If a formal RfC had been held at Battle of Chawinda (which would have been sensible) my guess is that OccultZone's arguments might have prevailed. TopGun's effort to make this battle into a major Pakistani victory looks like an uphill struggle given the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the area of your suggested ban, however given that the final warning was a year ago I wouldn't think that three months is going to do the job. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an issue (see here) with how the final warning was removed from the log such that I don't believe it should have been as it was a discretionary sanction, so we should probably wait for that to be sorted out before we take action here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:53, 17 December 2014‎

I agree with Ed re: the 3 month ban. But I do see exactly where you're coming from Callanecc. Given that this is a first topic ban I think 3 months is a reasonable sanction. If TopGun returns and repeats old behaviour we can note here that recidivism will be looked upon harshly. If there is no consensus re: OccultZone then we have to leave that (however, I consider the conglomeration of actions on view here to be sufficiently belligerent to raise concern).
There are a number of messy aspects to this case however and they revolve around TopGun and OccultZone's interactions with Darkness Shines. To my mind we either take the conservative approach of sanctioning TopGun alone, or we push this up the line to the Committee and let them deal with the whole scenario. Or we do a bit of both, sanction TopGun and let the committee confirm it or repeal it and let them sort out the DS and OZ situation (my preferred option if the conservative approach is not followed). None of these scenarios are good.--Cailil ^talk 14:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO DS is "kicking up enough dust" while blocked for admitting sockpuppetry to cause the complication. If one looks at the DS SPI there is significant concern re: !Vote stacking and hounding TG in the WP:ARBIP area for me to raise an eyebrow. Furthermore the interaction issue between both TG and DS is long standing (see here). To my mind none of this excuses TG's actions (especially while DS is blocked) but it may warrant examination. Future Perfect's contribution to the DS SPI is convincing that this is serious. Furthermore given that the BASC may not know (however unlikely that might seem) that this case is significant to DS's appeal perhaps sending the Darkness Shines aspects of this case to the Committee is actually the only thing we can do, given the danger of being countermanded and then creating a further mess--Cailil ^talk 14:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM tells blocked editors not to blame others for their predicament. Though TopGun is not here as a blocked editor, he seems to think a lot of blame for past events can be laid off on User:Darkness_Shines. I don't think Darkness Shines was forcing him to declare the Battle of Chawinda to be a major Pakistani victory in spite of the feeble sources for that conclusion, or to keep reverting when others disagreed. I suggest we do not ask Arbcom to sort this out. You could argue that the edit warring here was not enough to justify AE action, but pointing to Darkness Shines for extenuation is implausible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely I agree there is no excuse for TG's actions. And I support sanction against him. I am however concerned that the wider issue will recur, but perhaps it's best to wait and see with regard to that and just close this with a 3 month topic ban for TG?--Cailil ^talk 18:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've imposed the topic ban, I think it's best to deal with any further issues then if they come up, or if something happens in the meantime we can address it then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steeletrap

Steeletrap blocked for three weeks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Steeletrap

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Steeletrap (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/Austrian economics#Steeletrap topic-banned; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#May 2014 (BLP discretionary sanctions)

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

02:53, 29 December 2014 - A series of edits to the article on Reason magazine that removed some secondary-sourced material as non-notable, while grouping two large paragraphs under a section heading for "Promotion of revisionist history and Holocaust deniers" with the effect of drawing special attention to the claims in that section. One of the people named in the section is Austrian economist and Ludwig von Mises Institute scholar Gary North. Steeletrap removed material about North and given the material about North that was retained, the heading could be taken as implying North was a Holocaust denier when the actual content of North's article does not show him expressing such a view.
21:27, 29 December 2014 - Removes a bunch of mundane biographical material about Justin Raimondo backed by his articles, while leaving more negative material backed by his articles. The removal include a piece written by Austrian Economics and LvMI co-founder Murray Rothbard. Misrepresents a piece by Raimondo where he explicitly rejects conspiracy theories in favor of mainstream news reports presenting information critical of the official story to claim he is a conspiracy theorist in the lede, in addition to adding the "conspiracy theorist" category. An additional change was replacing the "Early life" section heading with an unflattering section heading.
07:05, 23 December 2014 - Changes section heading about Stefan Molyneux encouraging adults who came from abusive homes to break off contact with their families to describe it as "Encouraging children to leave their families", adds to the lede that Molyneux has been compared to a cult leader, and adds a section based off a single source about a recently-filed lawsuit that is still pending.
[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] - Edit-warring to restore these changes.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision on Austrian economics linked to above.
Notified of BLP discretionary sanctions a week prior to earliest edits.
Previously warned here that editing material backed by people from the Mises institute would be a topic ban violation.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This had been raised at AN where there was clear support for some sort of block or extended topic ban against Steeletrap, but it was closed following a request by Steeletrap that a couple editors endorsed on the basis that it should be taken to AE. Steeletrap subsequently left a notice on my page suggesting that any request I filed could be used to accuse me of forum-shopping. Much of the editing Steeletrap has made on the above articles on libertarian topics are similar to those which were so problematic in the Austrian economics case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, there are BLP discretionary sanctions in place that would cover the rest of Steeletrap's edits, I did cite them above and Steeletrap was notified of said sanctions. Not sure why people keep acting like the topic-ban violations are all that is being raised here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, people I am noting the BLP violations that fall under BLP discretionary sanctions as well, not just topic-ban violations. My concern is fundamentally with the malicious editing of BLPs. The topic ban violations are just an additional cause for sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[43]

Discussion concerning Steeletrap

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 Steeletrap

Justin Raimondo says Israel knew about 9/11 and did nothing about it. That's a conspiracy theory, according to WP and RS generally. It is a violation of NPOV to characterize these views merely as "questioning the official story," as Devil has. Gary North is clearly a skeptic about whether Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. Such skepticism is akin to skepticism that the world is round. It makes him a Holocaust denier, m unless he has recanted his views. Unfortunately, I have no confidence that the Committee knows what "Holocaust denial" refers to according to RS or that they will take time to look it up. (RS define people such as David Duke who do not explicitly deny but merely express "skepticism" of the Holocaust as deniers.) In any case, my header did not intend to refer to North; in fact, it can be read as referring to the other, more explicit Holocaust deniers mentioned in the article. (The content about the deniers has been in the page for months and was not added by me.)

I have no confidence in the ability of the Arbs to recognize any of these facts, since the Committee is generally quite lazy and uninformed. Steeletrap (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Nor do I have any confidence in their ability to look at the substantive intention of the TB rather than punishing me for clearly accidental and technical violations, which did not make anyone associated with LvMI/AE look bad, and which I corrected seconds later. Steeletrap (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, I have decided to leave Wikipedia. My decision will be the same no matter whether the Committee comes to a sensible or absurd decision in this case. Steeletrap (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One quick clarification, in response to the straw man arguments by other users. Though my retirement is (following this comment) official permanent, it should not be used as an excuse to evade any sanctions. In my opinion, any sanctions in this case would be ridiculous. But the case has to be judged on its merits, without regard for my retirement. It would set a terrible precedent for users to be able to avoid sanctions simply by strategic "retirements." I care about this community too much to endorse terrible precedents for rule-making. Steeletrap (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The laziness of Arbcom continues to cause problems. The vast majority of "warnings" cited by Whisky came from people with vendettas against me who are not even admins; I didn't listen to them because I disagreed with their allegations that I violated the TB. I would bet my life that the Arbs were too lazy to look into whether the previous TB violations of which I was accused were actually violations. (Now, they will rapidly look them up to try to save face; but this attempt at face-saving will be biased, and they will not give a fair hearing to my view that the previous warnings were in relation to non-violations of the TB.) if they weren't, then clearly the fact that I "ignored the warnings" regarding them was justified and had nothing to do with the (accidental, technical, and immediately corrected) TB violations TFD, Srich, and other longtime ideological enemies of mine have pointed to in the present case. I think that the "Arbys" belong at the fast food restaurant, and not attempting to formulate and apply rules. In any case, I'm done with this community. While it's a great resource, it needs better people at the top. The arbs are remarkably lazy and prone to group think. Steeletrap (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC) They also tend to be hypersensitive and obsessed with their power; I guarantee my "block" gets extended simply because I hurt their feelings by calling attention to their laziness and indifference.[reply]

Statement by Bladesmulti

Steeletrap has been involved in pseudohistorical revisionism. One such example includes her changes on Exorcism, Steeletrap claimed that Exorcism is a pseudoscience. She edit warred, and blatantly misinterpreted the source in order to her preferred version.[44] She also claimed that such claims requires no citations.[45] Many other editors joined this page and told Steeletrap, that how wrong she is, she still seemed to have learned nothing, and further attacked other subjects, one of the editor remarked her thoughts to be anti-religious.[46]

Such attitude is clearly unhelpful. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3 weeks/1 month block seems like a nice decision. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Though I am not always a great fan of Fleet Street as a Wikipedia source, this article from The Guardian will give a quick feel for what "deFOO"ing is.

I would have great concern should Wikipedia portray "deFOO"ing as an innocuous or even benign practice, I am sure that the balance of RS do not do anything of the sort.

As to the other matters I little or no knowledge of them, and hence leave them to others.

A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

Statement by RAN1

This complaint has very little to do with the topic-ban. The first diff shows Steeletrap editing ‘’Reason’’. In it, she edits out a passing mention of the criticism received by ‘’Reason’’ in response to articles by Martin and North (used as a lead-in to the next paragraph), but not the information that North wrote such an article. Considering the sentence was a transition and had more to do with the criticism ‘’Reason’’ attracted, this is probably on the fringes of the tban. The second diff removed a deadlink attributed to Rothbard. The source was moved due to restructuring, and the original reference can be found here. Considering the URL was bad and the source is primary, and the other sources removed are mostly primary, the second diff has less to do with Steeletrap’s topicban and more to do with BLPPRIMARY and WP:BANEX. The third diff has nothing to do with the tban. Sanctions here should not be considered under this particular tban. —RAN1 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stalwart111

I don't think most of the edits represent a breach of the topic ban, and there's quite some background to my having formed that view. Some 1.5 years back I worked with a small group (including Steeletrap) to clean up a group of articles relating to the LvMI, on the basis that they had been created by obviously conflicted editors (though in good faith) with the aim of promoting the Institute. The articles included BLPs for North and Rothbard and were sourced (almost entirely) to self-aggrandising articles written by their colleagues from the Institute. I formed the view, then, that the group of articles represented a walled garden at least in general terms, if not specific terms (WP:WALLED). The suggestion that the articles were a walled garden or were otherwise closely related was vociferously argued against by a number of people including an editor recently banned by ArbCom for a long history of personal attacks and harassment which started way back during those initial discussions. Correct or not, the view that they were not "all the same" prevailed and has been the established consensus since; each BLP forced to stand or fall on its own merits. It should be pointed out that a lot of that "separation" resulted from work subsequently done by that group to find sources other that colleagues with which to source those BLPs (something later described as an "attack" on BLPs because while many of the non-independent sources were positive, many of the independent sources were critical. I think ArbCom's sanctions against Steeletrap were lazy and didn't take into account the long history in this particular topic area. While I agree that some of Steeltrap's methods have been aggressive, sometimes disruptive and often "take no prisoners", there are born of a genuine desire to resolve some fairly glaring COI, WEIGHT, RS and V issues in some high-profile BLPs. Were I implementing such sanctions, it would be done so from the perspective that all articles in the walled garden that is the LvMI on WP should be considered "connected" and a topic ban from the Institute should therefore be a topic ban from BLPs whose subjects owe their notability to the Institute and its supporters. But the community has decided otherwise and those leading the charge did so with a cloud of personal attacks against Steeletrap and others. To now turn around and say, "turns out you were right, they are closely connected and so you breached your topic ban" is grossly unfair.

From a purely technical perspective the suggestion that everyone who has ever supported an LvMI initiative or attended an LvMI event or spoken at an LvMI conference or lecture or worked closely with someone who was a member or leader of the LvMI is an "LvMI topic" from which Steeletrap is banned is a bit silly and that doesn't seem to have been the intent of the sanction. The intent seems to have been to ban Steeletrap from subjects/topics clearly related to the institute. I'm not sure what "persons associated with them" is supposed to mean with regard to "Austrian economics". That's a school of thought. Is he banned from editing the articles of anyone or anything or any group which has similar views or an aligned world view? Libertarianism and Austrian economics are not the same thing either. Again my point about the sanctions seeming lazy - catch-all phrases that Arbs thought would allow little wiggle room with no real understanding of the context or the very specific consensus (and very specific personal attacks) that went along with it. They are so vague as to be unworkable and this AE request (which I think is entirely good faith and I have a lot of respect for ~~TRPoD~~ TD'sA) is the direct result. Either make the sanctions clearer and make the associated warnings specific or withdraw them.

TL:DR? The sanctions were stupid and lazy to begin with and this is the inevitable result. Fix the sanctions or get rid of them. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Srich32977 is partially right with his parole analogy - in this instance it was the parole board responsible for the original conviction though. His "final warning" suggestion is a good one. Just realised my original statement exceeded 500 words, for which I apologise profusely (this is my first ArbCom-related comment anywhere). St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell, @Callanecc... So without acknowledging the stupidity and laziness of the original sanctions, ArbCom are going to double-down and impose a block for something that even they acknowledge might have been a misunderstanding as to the outer limits of a topic ban? Though good-faith, the warning from Beeblebrox doesn't gel with the history of the issue or with the topic ban that was implemented. It was suggested that he remove "any page related to the topic from your watchlist" to avoid temptation. But nobody seems to have actually defined what those "related" pages might be and (again) Steeletrap was told emphatically, repeatedly (over the course of 18 months) and by multiple people (to the point where they claim consensus) that articles like North's and Rothbard's and Molyneaux's were "not related" except by some tangential "school of thought" type stuff. This was raised in multiple ArbCom cases. Steeletrap and I have an interesting past and I have no "vested interest" in defending him (and I'm not) - this is a process issue that goes to the heart of ArbCom's ability to issue workable and stable sanctions that pass the test of time. Especially since his retirement makes anything moot anyway, ArbCom has a chance to self-reflect and fix the problem (including the other similarly clueless sanctions from the same case). If there are no objections? I suppose I "object" (not that it carries much weight) but more than anything I'm just disappointed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell, I know you're not ArbCom but they seem to have washed their hands of it - leaving the "mere mortals" to enforce their unworkable sanctions. There's plenty of room for doubt because "Austrian school of economics" is a school of thought. It's the Austrian school of economics, not the Austrian School of Economics. You can't enrol there and take a class. Anyone who shares their philosophy could reasonably considered to be "related". It's like a topic ban on "classical music" interpreted to mean anyone who has ever picked up a violin. I don't think the topic ban was "unfair" (he should be sanctioned and I supported topic bans in this area long ago), I think the way it is being enforced is unfair but my opinion is that the unfair enforcement stems from the original wording, not the good-faith efforts of admins here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Srich32977

As mentioned, Steeletrap edit-warred to restore BLP-violations on the Molyneux article. Sadly these were done even though a discussion was underway in which she did not participate. Her TBAN violations were self-excused as being "technical", or "corrected", "not TBAN-type edits", etc. But it was disruptive to give these excuses because the edits should not have been done in the first place. (Patient notice of these violations were placed on her talkpage (now archived).) Stalwart111's criticism of the original Arbcom proceeding (or the Arbcom process overall) does not help resolve what action(s) should be taken. (They are akin to parolees complaining to their parole officer that their original conviction was unjust. The parole officer's job is to enforce the conditions of the parole.) All this being said, I recommend that this AE be closed. Steeletrap needs to be warned, though, that should she return and make more problematic edits, she will be totally banned from editing. – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will clarify my parole analogy. The Arbcom is the entity that issued a decision. If a block had been imposed, enforcement would be automatic. Since a TBAN is the sanction, it is up to editors to monitor and comment – and to ask for enforcement when violations occur. – S. Rich (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: I hope you will consider that a formal ~~warning~~ bit of advice was given once before. Subsequently there were additional violations. Although they are not part of this AE, they were commented on in her talk page. (I was preparing to expound on them here when she retired.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC

@Callanecc: For the AE advice, not a formal warning, given on 13 June. Also see old User TP (20 July, section 38 titled "TBAN"; 5 August, section 39 titled "August 2014; & 3 December, section 46 titled "Topic ban violation"). – S. Rich (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsing ~~a one-month~~ any sort of block. Not that the length is important give her retirement, but the block-log will document the sanction and serve as a reminder to edit more responsibly should she un-retire. And, following unretirement, should problematic edits show up in other areas additional sanctions may be requested. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

Announcing retirement should not allow the editor to evade accountability, especially as such retirements are often done for drama purposes for periods as short as 24 hours. As pointed out by TFD in the ANI thread, even if it's not a violation of the TBAN, the MO of the disruptive editing is exactly the same as what resulted in the TBAN. And it does appear they in fact are violations of the ban as presented in the opening statement.

In the ANI thread, Steeletrap went on to accuse Srich of misogynist hounding and TFD of white nationalist bias and hounding diff (which couldn't be further from the truth) and finally bashed the ArbCom in the statement here. Now to consider the TBAN violation as a little mistake worthy of a simple warning after this kind of poison-the-well-and-run tactic would make AGF seem like a suicide pact. --Pudeo ' 22:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

Steeltrap begins Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by Steeletrap by saying, "Justin Raimondo says Israel knew about 9/11 and did nothing about it. That's a conspiracy theory, according to WP and RS generally." That is to justify his 02:12, 29 December 2014 edit, "Raimondo is also a conspiracy theorist and a proponent of 9/11 Truth; he argues that the "official 9/11 narrative doesn't make sense."[47] He explains the edit in his next edit, "(adding that raimondo is a conspiracy theorist.)"[48] The text is entirely sourced to Raimondo's article, "9/11: Our Truth, and Theirs The "official" 9/11 narrative doesn't make sense". In the article Raimondo does not describe himself as a conspiracy theorist, nor are any secondary sources provided to support that judgment.

After Srich reverted the edit with the notation "Revert edits = TBAN pertains to Mises.org related individuals", Steeletrap reverted more or less to his version with the notation "undoing reversion but re-adding information I deleted about an Austrian economist.".[49]

This is I believe a violation of synthesis and label. It is particularly egregious because it concerns a biography of a living person. Whether or not Steeletrap is in violation of his topic ban, he has merely moved to related articles and continued the same editing approach that led to his topic ban.

It seems that only an extension of the ban to all political articles would curb this behavior.

TFD (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Steeletrap

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

I'm not familiar with this case (I seem to have somehow ended up mainly dealing with the geo-ethnic bartlegrounds at AE), so I'd like to give Steeletrap a chance to defend herself and I'd like other admin opinions, but on the face of it the diffs do appear to show a topic-ban violation unless there's some subtlety I'm not seeing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that they are violations of the TBAN. Even though it is pushing AGF given the other comments I am willing accept that this was a mistake (didn't realise it was covered by TBAN) and I'd suggest a warning making it clear that any further violation will result in a block (assuming that the retirement isn't permanent). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd agree that such a warning might be the best course of action here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'll close with a warning in 48 or so hours unless other admins have a different opinion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate: With just the edits reported I don't think we're at the stage of BLP sanctions yet, though that combined with the TBAN vio is concerning and does call for a logged finally final warning in the AE case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977: Can you please give me a link to the warning? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this, the more I think some sort of substantive action is required. This is not Steeletrap's first violation by any stretch of the imagination. There might be good reasons that those adjudicating on previous violations decided that no sanction was required in those cases individually, but taken as a whole, they do show a pattern. Even if we weren't talking about obvious and repeated violations of the topic ban, the purpose of a topic ban (especially one imposed as a result of a complex arbitration case) is to remove the editor from the topic area because their continued presence there has been judged not to be conducive, yet the pattern here would seem to show that Steeletrap has no intention of moving away from the topic area, and will continue to violate the letter and the spirit of the topic ban if we close this with no tangible action. Srich's link to Steeletrap's talk page as it was on 31 December is telling: I count 89 (eighty-nine!) mentions of the word "ban", and it seems that every time somebody has tried to engage with Steeletrap informally about possible violations of the topic ban, she has responded with scorn and contempt. See, for example, Beeblebrox's comment (in his then-capacity as an arb): Perhaps you would find it more compelling if an actual arbitrator told you that your edits violated the topic ban? Yes they did. You are topic banned. That means you are supposed to stay away from the topics you are banned from. That includes bringing up the topic yourself or participating in discussions of it anywhere on Wikipedia. Further attempts to end run the topic ban and continue to attempt to influence topics you are banned from will result in blocks. I hope that is clear enough for all of you. My usual advice for anyone under a topic ban is to simply remove any page related to the topic from your watchlist and don't even look at any of it. That way it is a very simple matter to avoid violating the ban. and Steeletrap's response.
I'm all for last chances, and even for multiple last chances, but at some point enough really is enough, and in this case I think we've reached that point. While Steeletrap has retired and I'm not doubting her sincerity, we have no guarantee of its permanence and she has explicitly stated that she doesn't want her retirement to exempt her from sanctions. I recommend a one-month block as long enough to give Steeletrap and everyone else a break, but not being so long as to suggest that her continued contributions (to topics from which she isn't banned) are unwelcome. It's a relatively sever sanction, but at this point I think it's proportionate to the repeated violations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the number of warnings (thanks S Rich) I'm coming around to the same point of view, but I think imposing the most severe sanction we can is perhaps a bit much, I'd support a two to three week block but not a month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between three weeks and a month strikes me as dancing on the head of a pin but I have no objection to three weeks. A fortnight is too mild in my opinion given Steeletrap's apparent disregard for her ban and lack of intent to comply with it. She could easily have been blocked on multiple prior occasions; that she wasn't appears to be a combination of luck and WP:ROPE. (HJM on my phone. Will re-sign with my admin account in the morning). Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 01:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between three weeks and a month at the moment is a week and a half. I'll close with the 3 week block in around 24 hours if there are no objections in the meantime. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: We're not ArbCom. This page is run by admins. We mere mortals have quite a lot of leeway with discretionary sanctions, but when it comes to specific remedies like this topic ban, we have very little. We can only decide whether the remedy has been violated, and if so impose what sanctions we feel are necessary. I sympathise with the feeling that the topic ban was unfair, but that's not our call, and honestly I'm not sure that "banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased" leaves a lot of room for doubt. The place to clear up doubts or request alterations to the remedy is WP:ARCA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MrX

No AE action needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning MrX

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:NEWBLPBAN WP:ARBAPDS

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

Congressman Steve Scalise may have spoken at a conference hosted by David Duke over a decade ago. The main source for this claim is a blog, which found an anonymous post on the stormfront website claiming so. Scalise has subsequently admitted to speaking in some capacity, but there is significant room for debate about if he was aware or the groups relationship, or if he even spoke at a different conference entirely at the same location.

This section is now a massive portion of the subject's BLP based off of a one time event in 2002 and is screaming BLP violation all over the place. It deserves some mention per WP:WELLKNOWN, but not 30% of the article, especially when the core of the story is a SPS blog that found a post of stormfront forums, and ESPECIALLY if any defending comments keep getting removed.

[50] shows that MrX is clearly aware of the dubious WP:GRAPEVINE sourcing of this very defamatory claim
[51] Use of personal blog as a source for defamatory content.
[52] Removing sourced notable opinions commenting on the issue providing balance (Although WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV could have been better)
[53] Removing opinions again (that were better attributed) and restoring SPS blog as a source
[54]Addition of contentious material to lede without sourcing as required by WP:LEADCITE "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons, must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement."
[55] WP:COATRACK Addition of information about other people's membership in group
[56] Removal of sourced statements from those directly involved in incident.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrX&diff=640662726&oldid=640567495

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Bbb23 yes, MrX filed first. I had been considering this report prior due to the issues above, but wanted to keep things collaborative. However, if the ability for me to deal with obvious BLP issues is hampered then other avenues must be followed. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein MrX is aware of the American politics case since he just filed a report on Azrel [57] and he is very active at WP:BLPN so should be very well aware of the BLP policies.

Sandstein Callanecc : MrX and I have resolved our issues with each other and agreed to a Mutual 30 day 1RR in the article in question. See discussion at : User_talk:MrX#blpsps. I believe there is no desire for either party for an IBan (see overtures in that discussion in both directions about editing collaboratively), and in any case, one flare up seems insufficient for such a sanction. MrX has withdrawn his An3 Report, I should have reciprocated here yesterday, but based on the comments below I thought it was already going to be closed. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrX&diff=640666573&oldid=640663292

Discussion concerning MrX

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 MrX

Greetings. My editing and discussion participation on Steve Scalise almost entirely complies with our policies and guidelines, notwithstanding that I am prone to occasional errors. Where I believe I may have erred is by citing CenLamar.com, a political blog of a law student. I cited it, not as a source of content for the article, but as a means for readers to locate the original source of the controversy. WP:BLPSPS advises against using blogs as BLP sources, however it was my recollection that this was not a hard rule, but a guideline subject to editorial discretion. As I conceded here, I should have used CenLamar.com as either a non-citation-footnote or an external link. It is worth noting that dozens of reliable (news) sources have cited CenLamar.com as website that broke the story, thus WP:USEBYOTHERS is a mitigating factor.

I stand behind my other edits and my conduct. They fall well within the bounds of editor discretion, and in no way violate policy. A review of the article history and talk page will show that I have been careful not to edit war on the article, and I have consistently discussed disputes on the talk page, expressed a willingness to compromise, and I have striven to represent all sides of the controversy according to WP:NPOV.

In my opinion, this request is vexatious, frivolous, and a direct reaction to my filing an edit warring report on Gaijin42.- Mr X 18:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no justification for an IBAN. Gaijin42 and I are quite capable of editing the same topics collegially, and absent evidence to the contrary, an IBAN should have never been brought up. We have already arrived at an amicable solution to curtail edit warring. As I mentioned on my talk page, and here for the record, I value Gaijin42's contributions to Wikipedia.- Mr X 16:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: To clarify, we didn't agree to an IBAN; we agreed to a 1RR on one article, for the next 30 days. Discussion here.- Mr X 00:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

A clear case where neither editor appears to understand the futility of seeking out the drama boards to redress grievances about the other editor. To that end: a mutual ban on either mentioning the other's name or edits, or editing immediately following the other on any Wikipedia page of whatever kind, or of revising an edit by the other except for grammar or spelling would seem better than the usual difficult-to-enforce IBans. Collect (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MrX

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

Before User:Gaijin42 filed the report here, User:MrX had filed this report against Gaijin42 at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request is not actionable and borders on the frivolous. All but the last diffs predate the alert and therefore cannot grounds for discretionary sanctions. The last diff, whatever its merits at a content level may be, is not a WP:BLP violation and therefore not grounds for sanctions. Sandstein 16:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of the diffs but the last diff (singular) predate the alert, and I agree that the last is not a BLP violation. I disagree that the report borders on the frivolous; it is frivolous.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gaijin42, the ARCA request by MrX does not demonstrate awareness of BLP discretionary sanctions, because that ARCA request was about American politics, which is not currently in its entirety covered by discretionary sanctions. The request is still not actionable because you have not shown that MrX was aware of WP:NEWBLPBAN before the time of the edits at issue. Incidentally, even your alert is invalid because it does not name the sanctions topic and does not link to the Committee's decision. Sandstein 17:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't actionable with regard to MrX. Both of them are now officially aware of NEWBLPBAN due to their participation here so we don't need to worry about alerting anyone. Regarding Gaijin42, this finding seems to suggest that this behaviour isn't out of the ordinary so I would consider imposing a two way (only because I don't believe one-way IBANs are useful, though apart from that I don't have an objection to someone proposing it) IBAN between MrX and Gaijin42 with a warning that Gaijin42 should expect the same (and a block) if they make any further frivolous reports. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No particular objection as concerns Gaijin42. But I am of the view that no sanctions should apply to MrX (including one end of a bilateral interaction ban), without it being clear that they engaged in misconduct and were previously aware of discretionary sanctions as provided for in WP:AC/DS. This has not been shown here, in my view, and therefore any interaction ban should not apply to MrX. Sandstein 13:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point re not being aware (between sentences I seem to have forgotten that), it will need to be one way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given their agreement for a voluntary mutual ~~IBAN~~ 1RR I think we can close close this with no further action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: As Sandstein pointed out MrX wasn't aware (per procedure) of the discretionary sanctions so evidence has to come from since they participated here and I don't think there is enough. Given that I'll close this with no further action around 24 hours if no one else comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JzG

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

Request concerning JzG

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

17 December 2014: JzG/Guy misrepresents scientific consensus about effectiveness of acupuncture (in fact there appears to be no unified consensus, rather a range of views). Asserts "consensus view that the weak positive results are fully consistent with the null hypothesis" despite no evidence to support existence of such scientific consensus. There is no single consensus evident in MEDRS's (or in clinical practice at academic centers, at many of which acupuncture is used) when it comes to efficacy for pain, cf. this; nor is there any source meeting WP:RS/AC. Indeed, there is evidence of a mainstream view (from the highest-quality MEDRS in the field) that acupuncture is more than a placebo and a reasonable referral option (for more re which, please see here [58]).
I'm not providing other diffs; I believe JzG would readily agree that this is a view he's repeatedly affirmed, and according to which he has edited that article numerous times.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: nothing pertinent.

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

Here. (only done as a formality; user is a veteran admin active in topic area and is certainly aware of these sanctions)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: It is tendentious to dismiss significant views, especially by admins whose views will tend to weigh more than most users; this is true no matter what side the view is on. Apart from this misrepresentation of the literature, JzG/Guy is highly clueful, and a block or ban would be imo quite unnecessary. All I seek is a warning, and that it be a formal one, since Guy is imo likely to dismiss it if it just comes from me (despite the sources mentioned above). I also hope such a warning would serve to put other editors on notice, e.g. Kww, who has made a similar misrepresentation; see his ArbCom request (diff), as well as editors on either "side" who misrepresent scientific consensus. I suspect Guy will dismiss this and ask for a boomerang, but the evidence is what it is.

Re JzG/Guy's statement: His sources obviously weigh, but don't outweigh mine and prove no consensus (even if they pretend one exists). He's right re qi but that's immaterial. Also see here (scroll to "The emerging acceptance of acupuncture...) for a quote from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, the "most recognized book in all of medicine"[59]. That too is a stronger MEDRS than Guy's. Also see e.g. National Health Service: "There is some scientific evidence acupuncture has a beneficial effect for a number of health conditions." [60]. I don't say my sources are consensus, just significant views rebutting Guy's assertion.

I also don't have a high opinion of Guy's ES & reply to my notification. Not the incivility, but the dismissal of valid criticism. And no, this isn't about gaining an advantage in the ArbCom case; it's unlikely to be heard.

Callanecc, I think JzG is still failing to take this seriously (see user talk thread), but I doubt that's significant. I see no other behavioural issues at this time. (There are behavioral issues with QuackGuru, cf. just below, but that's for a different venue, if any.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru (who has a long block log) and I have had numerous disagreements, and I see he hasn't dropped the stick despite my having been on a long wikibreak. He has a habit of "wondering" about my COI status [61][62][63] even though I've answered him three times already [64][65][66] and my comments on COI are linked in my signature line. Isn't this harassment? (If anyone really wonders about anything else QuackGuru is saying, just let me know.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Cailil (and also Sandstein), re content issues and AE: My complaint was about tendentiousness regarding content, so the two are kind of hard to separate. Although I explained above why I gave just one example, I understand Sandstein's point about needing to show evidence of persistent tendentiousness. Cailil, Sandstein was right to AGF about my relative lack of familiarity of AE. I'm clueful about the topic area and WP:5P, but not so much about dispute resolution boards. I'd hoped that neutral third parties here could "referee" a quick examination of MEDRS's, among other things. Next time (whenever that is) I'll seek feedback before posting. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: here; diff

Discussion concerning JzG

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

Statement by JzG

Procedural note: Middle8 as an involved, indeed partisan, editor, probably should not be issuing AE notices to admins. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Middle8 accuses me of misrepresenting the scientific consensus. The consensus is that qi and meridians do not exist, there is no empirical evidence to support the existence or validity of acupoints, and the evidence for effect of needling is equivocal and problematic due to the difficulty of blinding to needle insertion.

Believers, of course, dispute this. That doesn't stop it being true. HSE, Ireland's national health body, summarises absence of evidence for existence of qi. What we do know, is that proponents of acupuncture routinely spin negative results as positive, see Pain Science for example. A systematic review of systematic reviews found no evidence that acupuncture is anything other than placebo. Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh also summarise the scientific consensus as I do. Ernst is arguably the most prominent credentialled expert on CAM in Europe; his studies on acupuncture are regularly published in the peer-reviewed literature (example). His view is actually mroe skeptical than mine, in that he considers the recent evidence with stage-dagger needles is conclusive and proves that insertion of the needle also makes no difference. You can read his views at his blog.

There are no accepted scientific or medical treatments that rely on the concepts of qi, meridians or acupoints. The acupoints and meridians did not appear in anatomy textbooks last time I checked (I no longer have a copy of Gray's so cannot verify this here and now). There are differences between acupuncture traditions as to their location. There is no consistent associated anatomy. To quote Ernst's 2006 review:

There is some tantalizing [e.g. 32, 33], but no compelling scientific evidence for the existence of either meridians or acupuncture points [29]. Different authors disagree about their location or number. The evidence from histological studies or assessments of electrical conductance is unconvincing [29]. Some researchers have suggested that the collagen content within connective tissue imparts electrical conductive properties which correspond to meridians [34]. If one believed modern texts on acupuncture, there would be no space on our body surface which is not an acupuncture point [35].
— Acupuncture – a critical analysis, Journal of Internal Medicine 2006; 259: 125–137

This is not markedly different from my summary, but it is different, markedly and significantly different, from the "consensus" as expressed by acupuncture advocate Middle8.

My personal view is that ~~anatomy~~ acupuncture [anatomy is only distraction therapy for med students] is actually a form of distraction therapy, a known effective psychological technique. Yes, it's a placebo, but a theatrical one, and sufficiently theatrical to engender known psychological effects.

This does not, of course, mean that my understanding of the scientific consensus is authoritative or unchallengeable, but it does mean that this request is frivolous, vexatious, and made in order to attempt to gain an advantage in a dispute (see case at ArbCom currently being considered).

Middle8 is asking you to legislate scientific consensus and establish that his beliefs are objectively correct, while the summaries I cite from journals and other sources are not. Journals are not a magic wand, of course: Chinese journals publish essentially no negative results of acupuncture at all, so the scientific community generally discounts them heavily in reviews. Most of Middle8's mainspace edits relate to acupuncture and TCM, many of them constitute edit warring and I see strong evidence of m:MPOV.

As an involved administrator I cannot sanction Middle8 for this tendentious behaviour. I think someone else might feel that the WP:BOOMERANG is a real possibility here. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RAN1: you cite, for example, this [67] and [68] as "uncivil". It's hard to see how one can deal with obdurate editors engaged in civil POV pushing without being blunt. That statement is blunt, not rude or uncivil. In the end, it profits nobody to use weasel words and play softly-softly, because we know from long and bitter experience that a clear and unambiguous statement is much less likely to be misunderstood or misrepresented. As to responses to Middle8's vexatious report, perhaps not trolling the admins is a better response than telling the admins to be delightful when being trolled? Just saying. We are, after all, dealing with human volunteers, not people paid to smile at the customer's every statement. It is fine to be blunt, direct, brusque even, just not rude, and I wasn't rude. Not that I wasn't tempted. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

AE can only address matters of conduct, not content. All of this, save the first sentence, is re-litigating the content issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

JzG has accurately represented scientific consensus. There certainly are groups that have different priorities and, as a result, put out different messages. That's the primary problem with something studied so many times: there will inevitably be false positives, and supporters will seize on those false positives as evidence that the vast bulk of studies are wrong.—Kww(talk) 14:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, people are guilty of conflating two different concepts, and that conflation is causing us difficulty. Being a placebo doesn't mean it doesn't make people feel better: actually, a placebo specifically is a treatment of no actual value that makes people feel better due to psychological factors. All an insurance company or health subsidy looks at is whether a treatment is cost effective: if a placebo makes some percentage of patients feel better and the cost of that placebo is low, it makes sense for an insurance provider to pay for it. That doesn't make it a medically-validated treatment, it only makes it cost effective.—Kww(talk) 14:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QuackGuru

I am very familiar with Middle 8. We go way back. This is not Middle 8's first account on Wikipedia. See User:Middle 8/Privacy. Middle 8 appears to have a COI. See User:Middle 8/COI.

In late October 2013 the acupuncture page was junk with Middle 8 editing the page. Editors added numerous reviews and Cochrane reviews and updated the page. Middle 8 is laser focused on acupuncture. So it was no surprise that Middle 8 was not thrilled with the changes. Middle 8 signed a malformed RfC against me.[69] See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2#Outside_view_by_Jmh649_.28Doc_James.29. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed_six_month_topic_ban_of_User:Middle_8_and_User:Mallexikon. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#User:Middle_8_again. User:Middle 8 is well aware of the sanctions.[70][71] I think WP:BOOMERANG is the likely result for Middle 8. I propose an indef topic ban for Middle 8. Middle 8 is wasting our time. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed QuackGuru's opening paragraph as it concerned a content issue rather than an issue of editor conduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RAN1

Template:Cue Middle 8 was officially notified about discretionary sanctions twice in mid-2014, both instances with regard to fringe and pseudoscience. He should be well-aware of what DSes are and how they work by now, and is liable to being sanctioned here for his actions since then. His interactions with Guy have been civil afai can tell; however, it should be noted that he has a COI. He announced his COI sometime before April 2014, and continues to edit the article with controversial changes, with a notable string of long-term edit warring back in October (see: [72] [73] [74] [75]).

Guy's most recent edit to the acupuncture article is 8 months ago, with only two other edits this year, one a small addendum and the other a revert, so nothing sanctionable there. Guy's talk messages re Middle 8 are civil, see [76] [77] [78] [79] [80]. The only instance of incivility on Guy's part was a user talk discussion on Middle 8’s COI, prompting these terse responses from Guy [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]. The user talk indicates a few spots of incivility towards Middle 8, but not a pattern for it.

Ultimately, this looks like an attempt by Middle 8 to soapbox by AEing an admin, which unfortunately succeeded in pissing Guy off. I think an admonishment (if not a warning) for Guy for not keeping calm and an emphasized warning to Middle about how discretionary sanctions are for behavioral issues only, would be appropriate for this. --RAN1 (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

I'd class myself as "previously involved" in the Acupuncture article since I have edited there in the past, but gave up and effectively topic-banned myself because the article sucked too much and the Talk page environment was too toxic to allow a realistic prospect of improving it. Life has been better since. I have also had a number of exchanges with Middle 8 on the topic of conflicts of interest, both on the Acupuncture article's Talk page, and elsewhere – so I am familiar with Middle 8's editing history and stance.

This strikes me as an extraordinary AE filing since Guy's expressed view (with which Middle 8 obviously disagrees) is nevertheless perfectly respectable, and was made only on a Talk page. To request AE for this is a strain of Wikipedia's mechanisms.

I think this represents the latest in a pattern of behaviour over the last year which has also caused unnecessary strain:

Middle 8 has a COI and to their credit, took this to WP:COIN [87] where the advice seemed to be that yes indeed Middle 8 did have a COI which should be heeded. However by reframing the question and ignoring the responses Middle 8 seemed to take from this a different view and writes in an essay (linked from their sig) that "I don't have the specific 'Wikipedia kind' of COI".[88] as a justification for not being bound by WP:COIU.
In view of the above, there have been a number of contentious edits made to the article: deleting information about acupuncture's risks,[89] and repeatedly chipping away at critical content in the lede.[90][91][92][93]
Middle 8 endorsed a hostile RFC/U against QuackGuru and during the course of this it became apparent they had not even properly reviewed the case that was being made, which was based on weak or false evidence. This again strikes me as an attempt to use Wikipedia's mechanisms to "do down" an opponent without taking proper care. See the section here ("I overlooked this insufficient evidence when I certified the RfC").
During a content dispute Middle 8 has engaged in canvassing with the non-neutral announcement to would-be recruits that another (actually highly experienced) editor is "not grokking some basic stuff" and that "there's only one right way to read the paper"[94] (which comment itself speaks of a problematic approach).

In deciding whether any WP:BOOMERANG applies to this filing, I think the above could be usefully considered. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

Double standards applied. When newbie editors respond to disagreements in confrontational ways in topics under DS, they get banned. However, when established editors and admins, like JzG, respond rudely to edits which go against their personal POV, they, perhaps get warned. Or perhaps not. You guys kill me. Cla68 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JzG

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

This is a content dispute and therefore not actionable. The arbitration process, and by extension arbitration enforcement, can only address problems of editor misconduct, but can't decide who is right in matters of content. While it is conceivable that persistent tendentious (aggressively non-neutral) editing could be considered sanctionable misconduct, one talk page edit is certainly not misconduct, whatever its merits may be. Assuming in their favor that they are not familiar with the purpose of AE, I would only warn the complainant that any repeated misuse of the AE process by making unactionable complaints may, in turn, be considered disruptive and sanctionable. Everybody who is commenting here should not comment on the merits of the content dispute; such contributions may be removed as out of scope. Sandstein 17:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On reading the case and reviewing Middle 8's editing history[95] I'd be more inclined towards a harder WP:Boomerang. I see absolutely no reason at all to assume Middle 8 is unaware of AE's purpose - especially given that they were involved in an AE case about Fringe science in 2009 (yes that's 5 years ago but it's a world aware from being unfamiliar with AE in the context of fringe science). This looks like a straight forward attempt to "win" a content dispute by removing/chilling "the opposition" with process. I'd tend towards a sterner final warning for abusing AE and re: WP:BATTLE--Cailil ^talk 23:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: Just to note, any editor may issue an alert, regardless of involvement (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts). Your status as an administrator is irrelevant. When acting as an editor on a content issue, you're just any other editor. No opinion on anything else yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hence WP:INVOLVED. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the complaint as currently written is asking us to rule on a content issue, which we cannot. @Middle 8: If you believe that there are behavioural issues which we can address please present them as soon as possible. Given the incivility in the response to the notification of this AE request [96] (note that I haven't looked into the interaction between Guy and Middle 8 to see if this is explained by a pattern) suggests there might be conduct issues worth addressing (specifically civility) but evidence of those would need to be provided, I haven't looked beyond this. I'd also note that AE is unable to make decisions based on use of admin tools per WP:AC/DS#Placing sanctions and page restrictions, though actions or comments made while using them or while discussing using them may be admissible (I don't think there is a precedent on that? This is probably as close as we've come to any action by admins). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok having had some time to review Middle 8's contribs I agree that there is some clear evidence (cf. RAN1's fist para and Alexbrn's statement) of tendentious editing regarding Acupuncture possibly due the issues related to the COI, but that neither here nor there. There is definitely growing evidence that a ban is needed to prevent this disruption, however if other admins are happy to review Middle 8's contribs in detail in this request then I'd encourage other editors to present evidence regarding Middle 8's conduct since 8 May 2014 when they were first alerted to the sanctions.
With the current level of evidence I would be in favour of a logged warning for JzG to stay calm and remain civil in discussions as well as a warning regarding comments like "should not be issuing AE notices to admins" (in his statement above), given that they were previously given a logged DS [warning for comments somewhat like this. Regarding Middle 8 I'd suggest a logged warning/admonishment for tendentious editing, including edit warring and WP:BATTLE, with the evidence presented so far. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this remark[97] actually constitutes incivility in this context. While it's ad hominem, given what looks to me like a very bad faith abuse of the AC/DS alert system I think it is an understandable, if rash & regrettable, reaction.I missed the edit summary, yes this is incivility. While I'm against any action being taken against any innocent user who is being vexatiously "process wonked" in principle I think a warning might in fact be appropriate. Guy is 100% wrong about admins being warned by other editors & I think a reminder about that is appropriate here too (HJM's wording above is spot on). That said if there are wider conduct issues (which would seem to be historical) between Middle 8 and Guy this would be better handled by dispute resolution attempts (mediation etc) or RFC/U or RFAr such matters, seem to me, to be beyond the scope of this forum--Cailil ^talk 14:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given Callan's link to JzG's previous warning, I'd be inclined to go with something stronger than a warning. Imagine if a non-admin had been warned to watch their tone, for example, and was then brought back to AE and responded to the AE request in the same manner that resulted in the first warning. But I'm not sure what we could do, and I'm not sure that AE has the authority to sanction an admin for mentioning their admin status in a content dispute. The policy just says we can't restrict the use of the tools, but I wonder if this is sailing a little close to the wind? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cla68: Do you have anything useful to add or are you just trolling? You're very welcome to contribute if you'd like to present evidence or analysis of evidence against JzG. If that doesn't interest you, I suggest you withdraw your comment. Bear in mind that there is ample precedent for editors being sanctioned for disrupting this board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin

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

Request concerning Arthur Rubin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 162.119.231.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Discretionary sanctions :

Principles

Neutral point of view

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.

Advocacy

Wikipedia articles should present a neutral view of their subject. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion is prohibited.

Battleground conduct

Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable.

Making allegations against other editors

Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.

Recidivism

Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

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

19:42, 8 January 2015 Reverts to non-neutral version which contains unsourced original research
19:32, 8 January 2015 Reverts to non-neutral version which contains unsourced original research
15:35, 3 December 2014 Argues that a term is "pejorative" or "propaganda" based on his belief and insisting that no source is necessary because no one disputes it - that's a violation of all three core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR.
15:31, 2 December 2014 Moves article from "Gun show loophole" to "Gun show loophole controversy", a less neutral title that implies it's only a controversy instead of a real issue, without any discussion.
09:51, 19 November 2014 Reverts to non-neutral version which contains unsourced original research, and brushes aside concern about lack of source.
06:28, 4 January 2015 Ditto
03:51, 2 January 2015 Argues that a paper by epidemiologists at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center is de facto unreliable (despite admitting he never read it) supposedly because evaluating injury rates is probably outside their field of expertise.
22:42, 2 January 2015 Ditto
19:55, 8 January 2015 Accuses me of "POV pushing" - an attack on another editor with no effort to resolve a problem.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Arthur_Rubin_topic-banned

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 19:59, 16 May 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Arthur Rubin keeps violating principles from the ArbCom's Gun Control decision. As an administrator he knows the rules but as an editor he doesn't follow them. He advocates a position by labeling a widely held POV as "pejorative" "propaganda", in articles and on talk pages. He reverts articles to restore non-neutral text without sources, despite objections of many editors. He doesn't seek consensus or compromise. He uses talk pages to say he's right and other editors are wrong. He says sources for his own assertions are unnecessary because they are "facts" that can't be disputed, while he discounts expert sources as being unreliable. He smears me as a POV-pusher as a dismissive insult better suited to driving off an editor than to resolve any article problems. The demonstrable "fact" is that he's using Wikipedia to advance a political position with whatever editing tricks are necessary. That's just what the ArbCom and the community have said is unacceptable.

Maybe this is off-topic but gun control is one of the agenda items of the Tea Party movement, a topic where Arthur Rubin has already been sanctioned. During the Gun Control case, he argued that another user should be banned from articles about gun control because of that user's problems with editing Tea Party articles.[98] Should he be held to the standard he sets for others? You decide. These repeated problems, with the Tea Party and with gun control, are examples of his recidivism - once again he's forcing through non-neutral edits about political issues in violation of Wikipedia policy.

It might be easy to toss this out as a content dispute, or give a fellow admin extra leeway. Doing that wouldn't stop Arthur Rubin from making more reverts of reasonable edits, more additions of unsourced POV or more unsupported accusations about other editors. Arthur Rubin is an editor who can't or won't edit in a neutral manner on issues related to gun control. That's obvious to anyone who reviews his work.

AE is the venue for enforcing the ArbCom's decision requiring editors in this topic to comply with site policies. This board should take appropriate action now to prevent the waste of many hours by many editors in the future. Inaction by AE probably means more battleground behavior to advance a cause, more one-sided editing of contentious topics, more antagonism to those who disagree, more defiance of the ArbCom and more violations of site policies.

Sorry if this isn't formatted or framed perfectly. Please fix any mistakes in this complaint. I've already devoted more time to this than I should have to, and I won't be able to edit again in the upcoming week.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

##16:04, 9 January 2015

Discussion concerning Arthur Rubin

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

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Arthur Rubin

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

[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