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

FreeatlastChitchat

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 FreeatlastChitchat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FreeatlastChitchat (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/India-Pakistan

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

4/18/2016 A comment which compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers". Obviously WP:BATTLEGROUND, obviously personal attack. A quite odious personal attack at that.
4/18/2016 Response to request to strike the above mentioned PA. Some kind of unbacked accusation of meat puppetry or something. Even putting WP:ASPERSIONS aside, this speaks to the fact that the user has a battleground mentality and is WP:NOTHERE.
4/18/2016 Doubles down on the personal attacks with further personal attacks and further accusations that other editors are equivalent to "Holocaust deniers"

Per this also it appears the user is under a 0RR restriction, which would mean that these edits [1] and [2] are a violation of it.

Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by User:Spartaz [3].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[4] Blocked for a week for similar. Note closing admin's admonishment: "Imposition will depend on behaviour after return from block. Patience levels noticeably low so recommend keeping nose clean."

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [5]

Basically the user's whole talk page is a billboard for warnings and sanction notifications.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1RR didn't work. One week block didn't work. 0RR didn't work. Unless the user dramatically changes their approach to editing it's time for a topic ban at the very least.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to SheriffsinTown's accusations (which are actually sanctionable as well since they fall under WP:ASPERSIONS) what I did is remove a whole bunch of POV text which looked like an attempt to turn the article into a WP:COATRACK. It's funny to be accused of "battleground" when I'm actually probably the one person on that article that is more or less uninvolved (I've edited it before in passing just in the course of my regular editing) and doesn't have a dog in this fight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Sheriff, can you point to exactly where "ARBPIA specifically prohibits such behavior"? Where does it do this "specifically"? And what behavior? I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to also point out that despite FreeatlastChitchat's comment, no one ever said that "Biharis were just killed in the process". Go to the article talk page. Press Ctrl-F, search for "killed in the process", all you find is FreeatlastChitchat making that false accusation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ffs. To those who are claiming that FreeatlastChitchat didn't accuse anyone of being a Holocaust denier - well, I guess you're right. He accused other editors of being the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Which is what I said above in my statement (to quote myself: "compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers"") . If you really think that makes it better than please, WP:WIKILAWYER to your hearts' content. Here is their statement:

"We have the same with Holocaust deniers ... So it is quite clear that some deniers are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) I ask only this".

Now obfuscate and battleground' onward.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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 FreeatlastChitchat

@Seraphimblade I am removing everything from my statement except the bare bones.

I have never called anyone a holocaust denier.
I have stated that some people who are denying the Bihari genocide (multiple RS call it genocide) are comparable to holocaust deniers in view of wikipedia rules i.e. the same rules of topic bans and sanctions should apply to both.
I stand by my statement that anyone who denies any genocide (Bihari or otherwise) should be treated as holocaust deniers are treated on wikipedia and he should be t-banned and sanctioned immediately. Not doing so will show that wikipedia is biased
I have stated that saying 150,000 people who were killed and raped were just a few hundred people who were just killed in the process is a very crass and inflammatory statement and should lead to a topic ban immediately.
I have stated that misquoting an editor or cherry picking their statements out of context is a very bad faith habit and should be avoided. I have given a detailed table below showing how KT has been guilty of misquoting and cherry picking.

KT's claim	Actual Statement/Context	Difference in meaning
fake POV pushing piece of WP:BULLSHIT	To be frank I am surprised that a hoax and fake POV pushing piece of WP:BULLSHIT is being given a dedicated RFC. As per WP:DENY we should not allow this to happen, the creator of the RFC should understand that if we start going through RFC's for every stupid hoax inserted by a vandal and a serail socker, then they actually win.	The actual target of the statement is the "vandalism" caused by a serial socker. KT or his editing has not been targeted. I am 100% clear in saying that the vandalism of a serial socker is the target of this statement not KT.
Policy-based discussion is not enough, "consensus" is required (to make edits)	I said "you need consensus to re introduce a sockers contributions" You said "I am not buying that argument". Nothing more I can say here I am afraid, no matter how much I try to work with you if you disagree with basic wikipedia policies such as consensus there is nothing we can do. feel free to edit the page as you wish, you clearly think that you own this article and I am sick and tired of editors who think consensus is not required. So GL with editing the page I'll wait for someone else to revert you.	A clear case of bad faith misquoting, what I said is the exact opposite of what KT is trying to push forward
you continue to make zero sense.	you continue to make zero sense.	An editor who only "comes alive" every three or four weeks to push nationalistic propaganda is trying to go against two RFC's and a long standing consensus and is edit warring on top of that. KT has failed to mention this teeny tiny fact.
you are in a delusion about how consensus works	What exactly are you aiming for here? That no content should be created until every single editor says "YES"? If this is the case, then sorry to say but you are in a delusion about how consensus works. There will always be POV pushers around and other warriors who will want their own version inserted. Consensus is usually reached without their input, rather despite their input. So when you see four editors agreeing to a basic statement, you should calmly back away and rethink your own position.	KT fails to mention that anyone having the view that "every editor" must agree before content can be added, does have a skewed view of consensus. When two guys(or the same number of editors) disagree it is a dispute. However if an overwhelming majority supports an edit then disagreeing with that edit does not break consensus.
you do not like to debate	you do not like to debate, you do not intervention. How would you like this article to be edited?	KT says he does not want anyone else to intervene in editing the article and he hats other people comments without their knowledge and goes against WP:TPO so of course he should be asked how he wishes for editing to happen.
What exactly seems your problem?" ... "why all this drama here?	why are you telling me to "let it rest" when I have not even "started" anything? I just requested you to involve/ping more than one user next time there is a controversial discussion. What exactly seems your problem? And why did you open this thread style discussion here instead of my TP? I mean if you have to talk to me, use my TP why all the drama here? I really don't care if you are a nationalist or not. All I see is that you have pinged a user multiple times without pinging anyone else and he has taken your side, so I kindly requested you to stop. I am quite sure that from on you will never ping Ghatus without pinging another editor, so there is not even a problem to discuss. Why are you prolonging this?	KT pings Ghatus to a controversial discussion without pinging anyone else. When this happens again and again(You can see that they commented within hours of each other here as well) I kindly request him to stop with a single line "please do not canvass". KT starts the drama at ReagentParks TP with a Long drawn out thread style discussion.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG as User:Volunteer Marek have been displaying battleground behavior which involved large-scale removal of sourced content from 1971 Bangladesh genocide and restoration of unsourced content. I am not sure what Wikipedia policies he is following to do all this. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits such battleground behavior. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: If you see comment by Freeatlast, he did not call Marek a "holocaust denier", he just mentioned in the context that if someone denies holocaust then they are banned for that then why it is so that if someone denies genocide against Biharis then they are not banned? I don't see any accusation or blame towards another editor and i do not see him calling another editor a "holocaust denier". Marek is taking it "out of context" here! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: Ghatus did say that "in that process some Biharis were killed". I am sure Freeatlast did not mean that you said it when he mentioned that. Please don't think that all replies are directed towards you, especially when multiple people are participating in a discussion. I think Freeatlast made a general statement about the whole discussion after seeing Ghatus's comment. You clearly don't think before you make an accusation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This AE was filed taking a comment out of context and twisting it to make it look like worse than it was. The latest comment by Kautilya3 is also nothing but taking comments out of context and making them look as bad as they can be made but if you go through those comments, they do make sense and these attempts are just nothing but making an opponent shut up from those pages to turn the consensus in favor of a specific POV. I think issuing a t-ban in result of this request will be harsh and unfortunate. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Just a comment to clarify. I have no issue with the case or parties, but I don't think anyone called anyone a Holocaust denier. The statement was "we have the same with Holocaust deniers." In other words, the issue is similar to those who deny the Holocaust, not that anyone here is a HD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TripWire

A simple glance at Freeatlast's comment will tell the reader that he did not call anyone "holocaust denier" nor did he display any WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. So, that's that. But I am compelled to point out that the way VM is accusing everyone around him of WP:ASPERSION, he should be careful as he commonly violates this policy himself in routine:

Accuses editors commenting on a RfC of tag-teaming despite the fact that OP invited editors on this RfC at "Notice board for Pakistan-related topics" diff

"And so far I don't see any un-involved editors (except perhaps myself), just the usual WP:TAGTEAM" [7]

Again call editors commenting against him at the RfC of being 'friends', implying that they are tag-teaming:

"That's why your and your friends' attempts at hijacking this article" [8]

Even casting aspersions right here at the AE board on editors for tag-teaming, even though all the editors are the same who were already involved in the RfC which caused this report:

"I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM" [9]

And this really has to end. VM is continuously, despite being reminded and cautioned is casting aspersions and accusing everybody of everything that comes into his mind. It seems he is so sure that he'll get away with it that he consider himself immune to sanctions. I think he should be told that he isnt.

And before he accuses me of tag-teaming, I'd like to info that I am already involved at this board. A WP:BOOMERANG shall be in order here, I guess.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 19:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VM, please stop WP:cherrypicking Freeatlast's words and synthesising a conclusion. What Freeatlast said was:

"Removing this (Bihari genocide) amounts to genocide denial, and I personally think that anyone removing this should be sanctioned (he says that those who deny genocide must be sanctioned). We have the same with Holocaust deniers (i.e. as Holocaust deniers are sanctioned, so must be Genocide Deniers, in this case ho deny genocide of Biharis - he is simply equating genocide deniers to Holocaust deniers and demanding equal sanctions for both), why won't these guys accept that Biharis were killed?"

He further says:

"It is quite clear that no one is removing ANY part of the article (i.e Freeatlast is not denying or removing info related to genocide of Bengalis - hence not denying it). So it is quite clear that some deniers (yeah, some [genocide, not Holocaust] deniers) are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) (who deny Bihari, not Bengali genocide) I ask only this, where exactly does it say that this article is exclusive to the killing of Bengalis? If Biharis were killed they should most definitely be included."

I dont think he is labeling VM or for that matter anyone as a Holocaust denier. At most what he suggested was that those who deny Behari genocide (i.e. say it didnt happen during the events of 1971), should also be equated with genocide deniers and as such must be sanctioned as is in the case of Holocaust deniers.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArghyaIndian, Volunteer Marek made 49 edits at Talk:1971_Bangladesh_genocide (more than any other editor involved at the RfC) and 33 edits at the main space of the article and you still think he is an uninvolved editor?! I am sorry, but you surely are not here to build Wikipedia—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 23:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ArghyaIndian, didnt you claim to be a new comer?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 19:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by My very best wishes

Several contributors blame VM of "genocide denial". What genocide? They tell about genocide of Biharis population. However, vast majority of sources tell about genocide of Hindu, not Biharis population (e.g. There is an academic consensus that this campaign of violence, particularly against the Hindu population, was a genocide - from good summary review). Even Rummel expresses concern that the violence against Biharis was a "democide" which is not the same as "genocide": "How much of this was democide (intentional killing by government or its agents) is a question". One can find very few sources which call violence against Biharis a "genocide". Hence the current description of this simply as "violence" was correct. That is what vast majorty of sources tell. It seems that several contributors are trying to push their nationalistic views by including fringe or poorly sourced materials/claims, and blame VM and other contributors of "denying" these materials/claims. This happens on a number of pages, such as Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, and Mukti Bahini. My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Rhoark

Though I find VM's positions on this article content unconvincing, FreeatlastChitchat's delcaration you deny one genocide, you deny them all. There should be no place on wiki for people who deny genocides is totally unacceptable. Editors must be prepared to continue working with those who reach different good-faith conclusions after examining the same evidence. Rhoark (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark but don't you think that in basic etiquette some things are universally respected? I mean shouldn't editors first try to be a teeny tiny bit civil about an issue before coming to their conclusions? Does the opinion that thousands of people were "just killed in the process" not cross that line? You can see from the said TP that I did not just start throwing around accusations nor was I bible thumping. I was just saying that troll-ish comments like the one i mentioned should not be made on wiki and if they are, the editors should be sanctioned. And as this is my personal opinion, I have already said I will accept any sanctions that may be enforced due to my expressing this personal opinion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

Freeatlast seems to have been around the circuit for a while, but his participation in South Asian conflict pages is only about a couple of months old. The pages include Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, 1965, 1971, Siachen conflict, Kashmir conflict, List of Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, and possibly other pages he is still discovering. On all these pages, his edits to mainspace are minimal, mostly limited to reverts in support of editors that accord with his POV. He probably knows nothing of substance on these topics. Given how limited his contributions are, he certainly throws a surprising amount of weight around on the talk pages.

On Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, "fake POV pushing piece of WP:BULLSHIT"
On Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, "are you a sock?", Policy-based discussion is not enough, "consensus" is required (to make edits).
On Talk:Siachen conflict, you make "literally zero sense".
On Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, "you are in delusion about how consensus works".
On Talk:Kashmir conflict, "you do not like to debate",
On User talk:RegentsPark, "What exactly seems your problem?" ... "why all this drama here?".

I am pretty sure that his idea of "consensus" is for a bunch of editors to gang up and CRUSH the others into submission. He feels entirely free to target editors with his cutting, pointed, sanctimonious remarks as if he is a prima donna veteran of Wikipedia. With his accusation of holocaust denial, he has clearly crossed the line and the pity is that he doesn't even realize it. We certainly don't need such prima donnas on conflict pages that are already dealing with difficult subjects that need to account for multiple nationalist POVs. I recommend that Freeatlast be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to SheriffIsInTown, Freeatlast certainly knows ARBIPA standards and, if his remarks seem passable to him, it is only because the situation has degenerated to such an extent that this kind of behaviour has begun to look normal. We need to start somewhere in cleaning up the toxic culture on these pages, and let this be it. If we don't start enforcing them, ARBIPA sanctions become meaningless. By my own experience, such behaviour is almost never tolerated on India pages, where also all kinds of nationalists prowl, because loads of admins monitor them. In contrast, the South Asian conflict have become a lawless zone. We have to say "enough is enough." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghatus

This editor (FreeatlastChitchat) is a habitual battleground editor. He was trying to create a false equivalence between the real victims of genocide ( with academic consensus) and those killed in other ways. There is no academic consensus that killing of "a few hundred" Biharis was a "genocide" from any angle as against the killing of "a million" Bengalis by the state with impunity. Anyone who opposed that PoV pushing was insinuated as a "genocide denier", though the case in reality was the opposite. One can not say that Jews also massacred Germans in some places and hence both are equally guilty. Hence, like Kautilya, I also recommend that Freeatlast is to be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages. Ghatus (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ArghyaIndian

I will like to draw administrator's kind attention towards SHERIFFISINTOWN's battleground behaviour (I also recommend that SheriffIsInTown should be topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages). He said I think issuing a t-ban in result of this request will be harsh and unfortunate. clearly shows that he is just here to WP:TAGTEAM and defend a user who shares his POV (as VM said). A quick look here [10], [11], [12] will show that this user have long displayed an incomprehensible pattern of shielding editors (who shares his *POV*) from sanctions and downplaying their disruption. He's doing the same here! His comment adds no value to this discussion whatsoever. Maybe (*as also suggested by admin Spartaz*) administrators should consider banning him from commenting here at AE in the future. Contrary to what SheriffIsInTown said in their last lines, he reported me right here at AE asking a T-ban (when I have less then 6 edits to that page/talk page combined) just because I voted *Reject* in the RFC. He left no chance of threatening me and he intentionally targeted me again and again. Right here, he called User:Volunteer Marek (a completely uninvolved editor) a battleground editor, and on talk page he intentionally targeted User:My very best wishes [13]. Per Volunteer Marek and above users, this editor (FreeatLastChitchat) should be topic banned indefinitely. This user (Freeatlast) has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with over the top nationalist bias and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Based on the ample amount of evidences (I provided in my statement below in second report right here at AE), SHERIFFISINTOWN should also be Topic-banned (as also suggested by administrator SPARTAZ, but he is on wiki leave currently SEE.... Spartaz further warned this user on their talk page [14]). Also, SheriffIsInTown was previously t-ban by HighInBC for a period of one month from one page (It seems from his talk page) because of the same reason *POV Pushing* and *Edit Warring*. SHERIFFISINTOWN'S's long term Edit Warring (recent 3RR violation), large scale POV pushing on all the 1971 related INDIA-BANGLADESH pages, continuous violating WP:ASPERSIONS and his attempt of harassment are equally sanctionable as well. Please look at the edit diffs/evidences I provided below in my statement (right here at AE in the second report). Reviewing admin should take a look here at once (report filed by an uninvolved editor Mhhossein ). Also, Freeatlast is commenting on other's statement which as per the rule he cannot! In addition, his total word count is far more then 500 word. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TripWire should be sanctioned per WP:ASPERSIONS for blatantlyattacking other editors right here at WP:AE. VM is a complete uninvolved editor who rarely have edited that page before. When a group of editors who shares same POV tries to hijack an convert a NPOV article into a POV COATRACK that matches with their POV, then uninvolved editor would come and oppose. Your long term pattern of TAGTEAMING and shielding each other, whenever anyone of you gets reported at noticeboard is soon going to WP:BOOMERANG on you. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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

Ah, FreeatlastChitchat--one of my favorite battleground editors. Marek, 0R was suggested but not imposed, it seems from the DS log. I think I already blocked FreeatlastChitchat once and I really don't want to do it again, but you can't go around calling someone a Holocaust denier; FreeatlastChitchat, you have been skating on thin ice for a while, and you shouldn't be surprised if you fall through it this time, though I for one will be sad to see it. But calling someone a Holocaust denier does no service to the victims of another genocide. Sheriff, if you want to bring Marek up on charges you will have to do so in a separate section--I doubt that this will go very far, though. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pretty clear that Freeatlast was suggesting that VM was to be included among the supposed collection of Holocaust deniers--and that comment itself, pace Tripwire's simple dismissal, is battleground editing. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see a comparison to Holocaust deniers rather than directly calling someone one, but for clarity's sake, that's still quite inappropriate. It seems there's a lot of issue here with "Comment on content, not the contributor." FreeatlastChitchat, it would be very helpful if you could trim your statement to focus on the behavioral issues raised here, we don't decide content disputes at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArghyaIndian

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 ArghyaIndian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ArghyaIndian (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/India-Pakistan :

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

00:50, 19 April 2016 Left a highly nationalistic slur at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh using a proxied IP, This was also a bad faith message as well accusing a bunch of editors as Pakistani POV pushers. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits use of Wikipedia for political propaganda on nationalistic lines and instructs to display good faith to fellow editors while editing Pakistan/India topics. (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Wikipedia is not a soapbox)
12:59, 19 April 2016 Votes in the RfC signed in as ArghyaIndian using exactly the same nationalistic slur and bad faith message as was done using proxied IP at WP Bangladesh (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Wikipedia is not a soapbox)
04:54, 20 April 2016 Left the same message using the same proxied IP with exactly same text as was used in above two edits, difference is this message was left after he was alerted about WP:ARBIPA so this is a clear violation of WP:ARBIPA after him being alerted about that. (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Wikipedia is not a soapbox)
10:34, 21 April 2016 Continues making highly controversial edits to a highly controversial topic 1971 Bangladesh genocide even though an RfC is going on at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide to which he participated. Instead of waiting for conclusion, he goes in and removes a huge chuck of text along national lines
16:30, 21 April 2016 Does it again after being told that "Please refrain from major changes while the discussion is ongoing.", gets reverted again by an unrelated editor, Please note that this edit has an evidence of meatpuppetry in it as Arghya included the instructions issued to him by another editors in the edit. Meatpuppetry is sockpuppetry and sockpuppery was another decision covered by WP:ARBIPA#Sockpuppets.
16:56, 21 April 2016 But does it again! (Remember others are waiting for talk and RfC but he keeps editing along nationalistic lines

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14:51, 19 April 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Requesting a topic ban for ArghyaIndian in topic area of India/Pakistan broadly construed based on evidence of nationalistic propaganda and assuming bad faith along national lines.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification to the editor

Note: Requesting @Laser brain: or another admin to restrict ArghyaIndian statement to less than 500 words so i can reply them keeping myself under 500 words. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Arghya claims to be a newcomer yet cites policies like WP:BITE, WP:BATTLEGROUND and know that meatpuppetry is reported under sockpuppetry, each of which i did not know until very recently. Arghya claims that he copied/pasted the content from WP Bangladesh to the RfC and IP was not him but you see the IP's comment from WP Bangladesh was removed by me at 09:00, 19 April 2016 and Arghya added the same comment at the RfC at 12:59, 19 April 2016 so he is kind of giving a very lame excuse of copy/paste. Please also note Arghya did not edit between 2 April 2016 and 19 April 2016 and his first edit after 17 days was the vote at RfC. That comment is a clear example of WP:DUCK. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning ArghyaIndian

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 ArghyaIndian

This user is bullying me continuously from past one-two weeks. He is intentionally targeting me again and again. But lemme tell him, I'm not going to be bullied or threatened. He seems to be leaving no chance of WP BITING. I am not the only one whom this user has tried to WP:HARASS. This user has attacked and targeted many uninvolved users on article's talk page see and on their talk pages see. (*just because they opposed his strong POVish edits* (which are itself sanctionable since these pages are covered by ARBIPA and WP:NPOV is one of the Wikipedia's main pillar). Admins should take a look at the revision history of the page to get a better understanding of this user (along with his WP:TAGTEAM) attempt of hijacking and converting an NPOV article into a complete POV COATRACK, promoting fringe and preposterous theories. (All uninvolved users pointed out this on talk page including Ghatus, KT, Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes, and so on).

To administrators; please note that this user is intentionally trying to present me as a edit warrior and as a nationalist user here in a sheer bad faith (which I am not).

This IP is not myn. I just copy and pasted his comment at article's talk page because the IP was absolutely correct and a patrolling user Sminthopsis84 also agreed with the IP. They also suggested a topic ban for SheriffIsInTown. Again this IP is not myn as i already explained above. This Infact should be considered as obvious personal attack since this user is trying to connect me with unknown IP's based on his suspicion. They should report me at SPI noticeboard to clear their suspicion. Infact his unback accusations are sanctionable itself since they fall under WP:ASPERSIONS.
SheriffIsInTown is intentionally distorting and mispresenting edit diffs as explained below.
04:03, 20 April 2016 I created a new section regarding misleading figures in the lead that was recently added without any discussion whatsoever at talk page [15]. Uninvolved editors Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes also agreed with me and Infact VM also asked me that which older version I have in my mind. Since the editors agreed with my objections, I tried to find an older stable NPOV version of the article's lead. I waited for a day and finally restored an old version 10:30, 21 April 2016, but by mistake I restored the wrong version but I quickly asked for the help on the article's talk page can be seen here. And I think that KT was aware of it and that is why he/she reverted me. I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead (as discussed and agreed on talk page) so that is why I made this edit (13:25 21 April 2016) but after realising that I did a mistake, I quickly self reverted this time within a minute (13:36, 21 April 2016). But as I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead, I made this edit again ([16]) but unfortunately I again made a major mistake and messed my notepad stuffs while editing but before I could self revert myself, an patrolling user already reverted me ([17]). This time I made this edit correctly ([18]) and I was correct too. Many uninvolved editors agreed with me [19], [20].
To Administrators; please take a look here at once. [21], [22] MASS REMOVAL OF CONTENT by this user (that he doesn't like), large scale POV pushing and edit warring on all Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He's doing this all from a long time now.
SheriffIsInTown tried to WP:HARASS other users including me with 3RR templates when they hardly made two reverts [23] but he WP:EDITWAR on these pages from many months, as noted by other users ([24], [25]). But I'll give recent examples. This user went on to remove mass contents from Mukti Bahini. This user did not seek talk page to address issues but instead was engage in intense WP:EDITWAR with multiple users, same is the case here.
As pointed out by uninvolved users [26] this person went too far in claiming that some parts were "irrelevant" and in saying that some parts were unsourced when the sources were there as external links. Other uninvolved users also pointed out the same, to quote; One thing I saw was your quest to remove certain relevant and sourced information from multiple pages like here.
This user made around 7 reverts on Mukti Bahini within 1½ day just to remove mass contents from lead (that he doesn't like), which is still there. These back to back 4 reverts are Infact very well within 24 hours. Clear WP:3RR violation.

He was told by atleast two users in edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced [27], [28] and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead. He was further warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here [29].
For the sake of betterment and neutrality of this project area of India.Bangladesh.Pakistan, I highly recommend SheriffIsInTown be indefinite topic-banned from all South Asian conflict pages (as reasons and evidences provided above). This user has a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with a strong nationalist bias and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by Administrator Spartaz. Spartaz warned this user right here at AE that they are strongly minded to impose a T-ban if this user continue to make nationality based slurs. They further warned this user on their talk page [30]. Spartaz did not replied further because they said, they are on wiki leave currently. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His further accusations are not worth replying. However, since he made strong personal attacks directed towards me, I'll reply.

I am on wiki from a while now. Many uninvolved editor called you a WP:BATTLEGROUND editor, so my knowledge of these policies is quite obvious.
As I already said, that IP is not myn. You have all the rights to report me and clear your suspicions. Then why you're not reporting me and instead hurling accusations at me?
This user further tried to WP:HARASS me by calling me a meatpuppet at ANI (but not reporting me at SPI, as I pointed out), clear personal attack, quite odious personal attack at that. Note that he called me a meatpuppet but is asking me how do I know about meatpuppet noticeboard (even though I gave him the meatpuppet/SPI noticeboard link through a google search). Clearly, he is trying to fool others here.
This user doubles down on the personal attacks with further personal attack and with further accusations by calling me a meatpuppet again here, when I have replied him in straight and in befitting words at ANI. [31], [32], [33].
Further personal attacks by calling me a DUCK. This user has crossed all the borderlines of WP:PERSONAL, WP:HARASS & WP:BITE. These unback extreme accusations falls under WP:ASPERSIONS. I'll say again, this user should report me at SPI to clear his suspicions and after the result comes negative, this user either should apology or should be indefinitely ban.
If no administrator take actions against this user, then it will mean that such nationalist users like him have a free license to harass other users. Most importantly, this user is edit warring, pushing blatant POV across these ARBIPA articles (in an global source of knowledge) from many months now and his extreme POV edits has indeed gone unnoticed which has already ruined many articles (specially India. Bangladesh related). --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: His RFC was premature (as noted by other uninvolved users). As MVBW said on on article's talk page RfC does not ask well defined question. If, for example, the RfC was about changes in one specific paragraph, then indeed, it would be best not to edit that paragraph. One can not "freeze" whole page by starting an RfC. Furthermore, I only tried to 'restore old NPOV lead. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

This does appear to me as a battleground request because SheriffIsInTown edit war on these pages for months, but reported someone who only started. In addition, after looking at changes by SheriffIsInTown on this page, it appear that he inserts wording like "a number now universally regarded as excessively inflated" and "however some scholars consider this number to be seriously inflated" in introduction, instead of simply providing a range of numbers - as the more NPOV version preferred by ArghyaIndian. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

Saying there are POV pushers in this area is calling a spade a spade, and no one involved appears to have any inhibition about editing while the RfC is open. This area needs more admin scrutiny than is seen through the keyhole of AE filings. Rhoark (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ArghyaIndian

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

@ArghyaIndian: Please try to cut down your statement to focus only on points relevant to this request, and to be concise and clear about what it is you're saying. @TJH2018: Please do not comment in other editors' sections. You're welcome to make a statement in a section of your own if you'd like to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Haumea

Sailor Haumea is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of longevity, broadly construed. Zad68 20:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Sailor Haumea

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Clpo13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sailor Haumea (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/Longevity#Motion: Longevity (August 2015) :

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

14:55, April 12, 2016 First removal of entries not sourced to the Gerontology Research Group (GRG)
15:23, April 18, 2016 After a discussion, announces rejection of consensus and intent to revert to their preferred version
15:28, April 18, 2016 Removes all entries not sourced to GRG
15:40, April 18, 2016‎ Same as above, despite warning that there is consensus to include other reliable sources
15:59, April 18, 2016 Third revert, as above
09:50, April 23, 2016 "us vs. them" mentality indicated by claim that article has been "hijacked"
09:55, April 23, 2016 Another removal of non-GRG sources, self-reverted
10:04, April 23, 2016 Clearly states that they do not accept non-GRG sources

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a long-running issue on longevity articles. Basically, there are some editors who believe that Wikipedia should only list supercentenarians that are verified by the GRG. However, a recent RfC resulted in the consensus that any reliable source is fine. Sailor Haumea showed up on List of oldest living people and removed all non-GRG sourced entries. They were reverted and engaged in talk page discussion (Talk:List of oldest living people#Reverted back to GRG-associated) where it was explained that all reliable sources are accepted. They rejected this and edit warred to their preferred version, reaching, but not breaking, WP:3RR. However, they have continued to state their rejection of consensus and reverted again, though they self-reverted immediately after. This pattern of behavior is clearly disruptive. Editors with similar attitudes have been blocked or topic-banned under these discretionary sanctions: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#930310, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#GreatGreen, not to mention those blocked or topic-banned under the original ruling. Given the behavior here and the fact that they appear to be a single-purpose account focused on longevity articles, I recommend a topic ban until such time as they can work with consensus instead of against it. clpo13_(talk) 17:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sailor Haumea: Maybe those experts should learn to follow the rules if they don't want to get blocked or topic banned. This isn't about expert vs. non-expert opinion. This is about being disruptive. clpo13_(talk) 03:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not the one being disruptive, you are. You're ignoring the experts. Sailor Haumea (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Sailor Haumea

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 Sailor Haumea

Longevity is a field requiring verifiable content. Sailor Haumea (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get banned, so I will follow consensus. I won't try and argue that the GRG is some special source. You win. Sailor Haumea (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what another expert, Robert Young, has to say:

"Is Wikipedia going to decide who the oldest person ever is? Yes or no. Because if there are no standards of validation, then Calment doesn't have a record. Or, is Wikipedia going to follow its own rules and reflect the mainstream, outside-source consensus..."

Another thing. They keep claiming "Oldest in Britain" isn't reliable. That's blatantly false, as we see here, a supercentenarian's obituary names both Oldest in Britain and the gerontology forum The 110 Club (though erroneously thinking The 110 Club's members run Oldest in Britain):

[34]

Stop trying to force a change of consensus by topic banning and blocking everyone in your way. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EEng

Since stating above that "I don't want to get banned, so I will follow consensus", SH has just gone back to the usual longevity-fan nonsense:

What's with these people anyway? No evidence SH is interested in anything but longevity [38] so let's save time -- skip the topic ban and go straight to indefinite block. E Eng 16:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says something that you had to block several GRG correspondents (such as 930310) to achieve your goals...blocking the experts from editing is a sign you're wrong. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Glrx

I believe I am uninvolved. I haven't been following longevity, but I did comment in Ollie231213's appeal of a topic ban in this area 3 months ago.[39]

Ollie231213's appeal was declined 14 February 2016.

The Sailor Haumea account has been active since 24 February 2016.

From talk page comments,[40] Sailor Haumea seems well aware of the decision to use sources other than GRG by 22:23 18 April 2016, but SH believes that decision was wrong / had been "debunked". Comment also shows that SH knows editors are getting blocked for editing behavior wrt longevity.

SH does 4 reverts on 18 April 2016[41] before an explicit 3RR warning on 18 April at 23;11.[42]

Discretionary warning hits 23:13, 18 April 2016.

SH continues to revert and speaks of "Establish a consensus".[43] SH appears to be a sophisticated user.

DS allows a 1-year topic ban, and that is what I'd recommend at the minimum.

I believe there is a colorable claim that SH is avoiding an existing topic ban. (First 2 diffs by EEng also show correlation with DN-boards1; see also User talk:DN-boards1#Blocked.) Glrx (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not DN-boards1. Sailor Haumea (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sailor Haumea

Sailor Haumea is clearly persistently disruptive in the longevity topic area, exhibiting edit-warring behavior, tendentious editing and ignoring consensus, thus they are indefinitely topic-banned as an AE action.
Separately there are telltale signs that this editor appears to be misusing multiple accounts. I will deal with that separately, acting as an individual administrator outside AE action. Zad68 20:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwillkane

User:Wikiwillkane is warned to observe the terms of the 500/30 general prohibition. Further edits like those listed in this complaint may lead to a conventional ARBPIA topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Wikiwillkane

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wikiwillkane (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:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

25 April 2016 Editing in the topic area
25 April 2016 Editing in the topic area
25 April 2016 Creating article in topic area
26 April 2016 Editing in the topic area
26 April 2016 Editing in topic area
26 April 2016 Editing in topic area
26 April 2016 Editing in topic area
26 April 2016 Editing in topic area

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not applicable

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

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Informed by Huldra of the arbitration decision barring users with less than 500 edits from editing in the topic area on 25 April. Warned by me that continuing to edit in the topic area may result in being reported. Continued to edit in the topic area without responding. I dont know if its just they dont know to click on the link that says you have new messages or not, but something should be done to make sure the editor is aware that their edits are in violation of that decision (regardless of the general quality of the edits, which is bad) and that they agree to abide by the decision and refrain from editing in the topic area until they are allowed to do so.

The last edit was following my warning, all the ones from the 26th were after Huldra's notification, which as the editor is here responding to this makes me think that it was not simply being ignorant of the big you have new messages link meaning something. But regarding Dafna Meir, its an article on a woman killed in Israeli settlement by Palestinians. I dont think it gets much clearer than that, but hey who knows, maybe Im wrong and this new account knows something I dont. Pretty sure I did not reference a Roseanne Barr edit, but hey as the user brings it up, material on BDS is fairly clearly within the topic area as well. nableezy - 20:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Wikiwillkane

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 Wikiwillkane

I was given a warning from Nableezy regarding the 30/500 and heeded his/her advice, and have not edited since on a page that came up with a 30/500 warning. However, Nableezy seems to be unilaterally expanding the 30/500 to anything related to Israel. Editing Roseanne Barr's page with the simple fact that she was a keynote speaker at an anti-BDS conference in Israel seems well beyond the scope of the 30/500 and does not seem to be the original intent of the rule. If the 30/500 rule is placed on the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment (BDS) Movement, you will need to stop thousands who are presently editing on that topic without 30/500.

Regarding the Dafna Meir page, it never mentions "Palestinians" or "Terrorists," so, again, it should not be part of the 30/500 rule. It was about the murder of an Israeli woman.

Obviously, the 30/500 rule is not clear as some pages have the warning, others do not.

What about Roseanne Barr? At what point does the 30/500 not exist? If the word Israeli, anti-BDS, is that entire article now part of the 30/500? Dafna Meir did not mention Palestinians at all. She was a murder victim.

Statement by Huldra

Obviously, this editor does not believe that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is valid for them. After being warned, they start the article about Dafna Meir (nominated for deletion), claiming that it should "not be part of the 30/500 rule." (!) Please, could someone make this editor understand that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is also for them? Huldra (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if Wikiwillkane actually creates an article on Simone Zimmerman "a Jew hired to be Bernie Sanders' Jewish Outreach Coordinator. She was let go because of her expletive-filled tirades against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and her detailed support of BDS" ---according to Wikiwillkane, then he should be blocked immediately, Huldra (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if he has any information/proof of " Paid operatives" on wikipedia, I suggest he looks at WP:COI, on how to deal with that, Huldra (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter James

The restrictions specifically mention "page" and "article". If editors intend to apply it to related content in generally unrelated pages an amendment should be requested. Peter James (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR: @Wikiwillkane: I would regard the Dafna Meir article (and others mentioned) as related - perhaps the subject wasn't but the event that is the only reason for the article's existence is, and Wikiwillkane is aware of this. I was referring to the Roseanne Barr article. Peter James (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: The Scientology case adds "or discussions on any page", should this case be amended to add that? Peter James (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikiwillkane

I agree to stay away from the Israeli-Arab conflict until I have reached the 500 edits. However, Wikipedia's 30/500 rule now seems to be extend an extremely board net over what is considered the "Arab-Israeli conflict." The 30/500 rule was on certain pages of that conflict, such as "Israel" the "West Bank," etc. Now it moved into an area that is discussed, especially regarding BDS, in almost every university campus today. Are you stating that a college student cannot write about a visiting lecturer who discusses BDS because they do not have 30 days or 500 edits on Wikipedia? Roseanne Barr is an internationally known celebrity who was a keynote speaker at a conference in Israel and it was written about extensively. This NOW is under the umbrella of 30/500??? Does that mean that nobody can write on the Students Justice for Palestine Wikipedia page because they discuss BDS? Hillary Clinton is a vocal critic of BDS. Does that mean that nobody can edit her page to reflect this or to write about a speech she gives? Wikipedia must look how many users are now using the 30/500 rule specifically to stifle the voices with opinions different than theirs. Deleting my comments that Roseanne was a keynote speaker at a conference in Israel based on 30/500 is such an example. When an administrator must do a search to see that one news article listed Dafna Meir's murder as terrorism in order to justify that she falls under the 30/500 rule is again an example of far-reaching.

I would like further clarity from EdJohnston. Are you stating that all users without 500 edits and 30 days on Wikipedia are not allowed to edit anything that is connected to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement... not just on the BDS page, but any pages totally unrelated to BDS. So, if Howard Stern goes on a rant against BDS, a user without 500/30 cannot update Stern's webpage? Is that what you are stating?

Without responding to my previous questions, EdJohnston asked me to agree to his terms. I still don't have clarity, but I'll agree to this: I will stay away from marked pages of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as unmarked pages such as Israeli Palestinian Conflict and the Palestine Liberation Organization. However, I will not refrain from simply editing in Roseanne Barr's page that she was a keynote speaker at an anti-BDS conference in Jerusalem or from editing about Student's for Justice in Palestine, or anything related to BDS. By doing this, you are limiting thousands of students from editing on a topic that is discussed daily in universities globally.

Better you look at your own 500/30 policy and how editors are using it specifically to limit other (less biased) POVs. This is the crime more than having a historian edit on Wikipedia with less than 500 edits.

And I will be creating a Simone Zimmerman article. This is a Jew hired to be Bernie Sanders' Jewish Outreach Coordinator. She was let go because of her expletive-filled tirades against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and her detailed support of BDS. The slippery slope you've created about how 500/30 extends is getting slippery and slippery.

Rather than Wikipedia spending its time and efforts attacking people like me who simply want to edit, why don't you create regulations against paid operatives who are trolling Wikipedia for users like me, who have different opinions, then throwing the 500/30 net to limit their ability to edit? Sock puppetting no. Paid operative abusing the 500/30 rule okay.

If Huldra wants me banned because I've said that I will create a Wikipedia page about Simone Zimmerman, then I suggest you get ready for the onslaught of hundreds, if not thousands of editors that you will need to sanction. This is not a threat. It is a reality about BDS and the debate that is happening in our colleges across the country. This 500/30 has become too far reaching and is well beyond either the original intent or scope of why it was created. I am now signing off for the end of Passover and the Sabbath, and I'll return on Sunday (if I need to respond to a question).

Statement by RolandR

Peter James above engages in the most egregious wikilawyering with his quibble about "page" and "article". The sanction explicitly refers to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Every one of the articles noted in the original complaint (Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian political violence, Dafna Meir, Omar Barghouti, Judea and Samaria Area) is unequivocally related to the conflict. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to construe any of them as unrelated. RolandR (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James continues his irrelevancies. The article on Roseanne Barr was not mentioned in the complaint, and has only been raised as a distraction manoeuvre by Wikiwillkane. In any case, editing an otherwise non-related article to add a reference to the conflict is indeed covered by the sanctions, as has been confirmed in a case relating to edits to Mobile, Alabama. RolandR (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darwinian Ape

rant on

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

The problem comes from the sanction itself rather than the editor conduct. 500/30 restriction is the antithesis of Wikipedia, yet here we have a broad spectrum of (current and future)articles with that restriction. Wikipedia, encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless it's a contentious topic, then you have to first go edit articles about broomsticks and teaspoons. Oh and did I also mention you have to wait for a period of 30 days? Same as acquiring a gun! Yes editing Wikipedia and guns, totally the same thing.

rant off

If we put my little objection to the sanction aside, the problem is not adding the brand new extended protection to all pages that are "reasonably" construed as related to Arab Israeli conflict. Doing so will prevent this kind of AE requests to a degree. And it's only fair that we have a standard in preventing these lowly new editors and IP's from editing other than the involved editors of their respected articles.(What I'm trying to say is they may be unconsciously biased in their reporting.) That is my humble opinion on the matter. Darwinian Ape^talk 18:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Wikiwillkane

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

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is marked on its talk page with the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} template. Revert-warring at Roseanne Barr to add mention of a speech at a BDS event also evidently falls under the sanctions. (Other edits of Roseanne Barr would not be covered). Dafna Meir, an Israeli woman killed at the West Bank settlement of Otniel in what is described by the Times of Israel as a 'terror attack' is presumably part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'd go ahead with a block of Wikiwillkane unless they agree to stay away from the Arab-Israeli conflict until they have reached 500 edits and 30 days' activity. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwillkane has responded and agreed to stay away from the Arab-Israeli conflict until they reach 500 edits. Under my interpretation this means, no more edits like any of those given above as diffs 1 through 8. It also means not posting A-I conflict-related material anywhere on Wikipedia, such as in his own sandbox or on user talk or noticeboards. If he accepts this then the complaint can probably be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The committee has in the past decided that discretionary sanctions can apply to just one section of a larger article. They ruled that the Scientology-related content of an article fell under discretionary sanctions but not the rest. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiwillwane, creation of a new article about Simone Zimmerman that mentioned the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement would indeed be a violation. It doesn't appear that you have any plans to abide by the 500/30 restriction, so I suggest this request be closed with a block or other sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Wikiwillane is warned to abide by the 500/30 general prohibition. Should he make further edits like the eight diffs listed in this report, he may be given an indefinite topic ban from all of WP:ARBPIA. This would prevent him from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages and noticeboards, and from making A-I related edits to other articles that are mainly not about the conflict, such as Roseanne Barr. This would take away any uncertainty as to what rules apply. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by STSC

Appeal declined at this time. The totality of the diffs initially provided were more than adequate to justify the ban and no evidence has been presented to show the ban is no longer needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – STSC (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of Falun Gong, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#STSC

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

Notification of that administrator: [44]

Statement by STSC

I appeal the sanction and I want it to be lifted. Based on this discussion on the neutrality of the article title [45], The Wordsmith wrongly determined that my comment "openly supports the elimination of a religious group as a good and necessary thing".

I commented, "Falun Gong was considered [by the Chinese] as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore [the Chinese considered it] must be eliminated from China"... Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society."

My comment was pointing out that "Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China" is a Chinese internal policy. I used the wording "was considered" by a third party, the sentence as a whole was meant to be expressing the viewpoint of China.

Further statement

Admins are accountable to the Wikipedia community and they must properly explain their actions; and we certainly don't just accept some blanket statements as to what they think without showing any concrete evidence. It's a hasty and poor judgement by The Wordsmith who has not thoroughly investigated the complaint in a fair manner. STSC (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith's decision [46] was based on a comment in a discussion in June 2015, I have refuted his claim that my comment supports the elimination of a religious group. He then came up with other claims in his statement in this appeal but failed to provide any evidence as to when, where and how. I must ask the sanction to be lifted in the interest of accountability and fairness. STSC (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I would review here the diffs which were cherry-picked to build up the baseless accusations by TheBlueCanoe. (I can only input bit by bit here when time allows)

[47] – "claiming that something attributed to a third party is actually just from 'Falun Gong sources' "

The source: ReligiousFreedom2009 from U.S. Department of State [48] clearly states as 'Falun Gong sources'. (Last sentence of section 1)

[49] - "Torture deaths as reported by the New York Times are merely 'alleged' "

The source:[50] In the New York Times article, there's no trace of mentioning Falun Gong adherents had been "tortured to death"; there's one sentence stating "where it has been dogged by allegations that it uses torture to crush believers into submission."

[51] [52][53][54] - "Changes the caption on an image of Gao Rongrong – a Falun Gong practitioner who, according to multiple reliable sources, was tortured to death in custody in 2005. STSC edits the caption to remove mention of the fact that she died, and adds the qualifier that she was only 'allegedly' tortured."

Only one source was linked to the image:[55], an Amnesty International report in German. In its English translation, "The Falun Gong practitioner Gao Rongrong died in June in custody... In 2004, she was allegedly punched in the face..." It does not say Gao was "tortured to death". The caption was meant to describe the image of the scarred face of Gao while she was alive.

[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64] - "Obsessively wikilinking the word 'cult' "

TheBlueCanoe is deceivingly telling a misleading story here; I was restoring the Wikilink to cult which had been repeatedly removed over a long period of time by two editors. One of them was later blocked [65], the other one had agreed to stop [66]. STSC (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBlueCanoe: To repair damage from vandalism is certainly not "tendentiousness and battleground behaviour". Your persistently making false allegation against other editors is actually a disgraceful behaviour. STSC (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

@The Wordsmith: Please show us the evidence of "bias and POV pushing". STSC (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Please show us the evidence that demonstrates the "cause for concern to justify the sanction". STSC (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBlueCanoe: I could have replied point by point to your baseless complaint but I did not have the time to do so. Don't try to misrepresent my comment of 1 June 2015, in that discussion about the neutrality of the title Persecution of Falun Gong, I said, "Unlike the main religious groups - Christianity or Islam, Falun Gong is just a cult as classified in China. What the Chinese government did was crackdown on a cult inside China. "Persecution" is not a suitable word to describe the government's operations on the illegal activities within its own country... such process should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable... My main point is Wikipedia must not take sides on this." I stand by my comment which is wholly related to the argument as to whether the word "persecution" is neutral. STSC (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: You should not take my comment out of the context of whether the title Persecution of Falun Gong is neutral per WP:NPOV. I was pointing out the word "persecution" would suggest that the Chinese policy of elimination of Falun Gong is undesirable, therefore it would make Wikipedia appear to take sides on Falun Gong. As I suggested in that discussion, "Crackdown on Falun Gong" would be a more neutral title. STSC (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: You don't just believe whatever the accuser tells you but can you show us what is wrong in those diffs dated some time ago? STSC (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: If you want any specific information then I will try my best to provide. I don't think The Wordworth's conclusions are reasonable because obviously he has not looked into the circumstances and the sources related to those diffs. STSC (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrigley: I have put too much faith on the admins as I wasn't bothered to defend myself against each accusation. After all, the admins are not qualified judges, but The Wordsmith clearly has not done his job properly; if he had looked into the sources and the circumstances related to those diffs, then he would had found out the accusations are baseless. Besides, those edits happened quite a while ago. To give me a topic ban is quite a joke, I sincerely hope that no element of prejudice has played a part in the admin's decision. STSC (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: I have refuted the allegations in those ANIs so you just leave them out of this case. STSC (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zujine: You're not in a position to "recommend that the appeal be declined". And please leave your attacks on other editors out of this case. STSC (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: I can say this absolutely - I personally oppose any form of torture and cruelty to humans or animals. STSC (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

Obviously I stand by the sanction I imposed. I believe it to be in the best interests of that topic area that STSC be removed from participation. Reviewing their contributions makes it clear that they have lost the ability to edit in accordance with our policies and guidelines. I believe their pattern of bias and POV pushing to demonstrate an agenda that is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. Therefore, a lesser sanction or finite duration would not have been effective. I arrived at this conclusion after an in-depth review of all the evidence presented and after careful consideration of all the statements given, and I maintain that it is within the bounds of Administrator discretion allowed by Discretionary Sanctions.

I take pride in the fact that of all the enforcement actions I have issued, only one has ever been overturned, and that was in 2010 (and by an editor who was later banned by the Arbitration Committee). However, I'm still human, and therefore fallible. I welcome a review of the sanction issued. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

It seems highly unlikely that anyone will overturn this topic ban, but here are some quick responses to the discussion:

Yes, STSC was describing the Chinese government's viewpoint. Yet, in his own voice, he then opines that the "elimination" of a religious creed should not be considered undesirable. This is what's problematic, and it speaks to his bias. I thought this was pretty obvious.
Shrigley observes that there is more than one way to interpret the Chinese government's campaign to eliminate Falun Gong. This is true. On the one hand, it involves the use of torture and "reeducation" to force people to abandon the practice. (The notion that this is about enabling people to "return to their families" or reintegrate into society may be the government's purported justification for forcible imprisonment and torture, but it's difficult to sustain in the face of the evidence). When ideological reprogramming fails, physical elimination does occur—this is why some jurists have argued that the campaign may be characterized as a genocide. Large-scale killing may not be the first resort, in other words, but it has happened. The only real question relates to the scale of the killing. Either way, it doesn't seem like a stretch to say that these policies amount to a "persecution", or that they are undesirable from a human rights perspective.
There are many scenarios where central governments prohibit torture but lack the capacity to enforce that prohibition at the local levels. That is not what's happening here. Human rights groups, scholars and journalists studying this campaign instead observe the opposite dynamic: central-level authorities sanctioned the use of torture against Falun Gong adherents, created a quota system that incentivized abuse, and granted impunity to the local enforcers.
I don't think anyone need be concerned that STSC's absence will have any undesirable effect on these pages.

Finally, this may be obvious, but Shrigley is not exactly "uninvolved"—at least not in the broader Falun Gong topic area. Some time ago I recalled that he fought vigorously (and unsuccessfully) to prevent an article about an apparent Falun Gong torture death from appearing as a DYK.[67] There too, he presented himself as a neutral reviewer—which he evidently was not.

I see Shrigley has moved his comment to the appropriate section. That's good. Though it's still not clear what he hopes to accomplish by rehashing a bunch of discredited Chinese government talking points against Falun Gong. Is the goal is to excuse state-sanctioned torture by making the victims appear less sympathetic? And if so, how does this relate to STSC's competence as a Wikipedia editor? It's all a bit mystifying. Also, I sincerely hope that Shrigley did not mean to imply that support for torture and killing on the basis of religious creed is a "Chinese cultural point of view", because that would be grossly offensive.

TheBlueCanoe 18:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to STSC:

[68]-There were two sources for the claim, one of which (an article in the Telegraph) clearly attributed the claim to a Chinese human rights lawyer.[69] When pressed to explain this edit on the talk page, STSC pointed to the Telegraph article—not the State Department report—which suggests that he knew the claim was supported by both sources.
The New York Times article cited does indeed reference Falun Gong deaths. It's in the lede paragraph, attributed to human rights groups. Also, see WP:ALLEGED
The Amnesty International source say that she died in custody—this is the crucial piece of information that STSC removed—and that she was reportedly tortured on the face and neck with electric batons. Several other sources corroborate this as well.
I never implied that the wikilinking of "cult" is, in isolation, a problem. But STSC edit wars repeatedly to wikilink this word—and no other. It's evidence of tendentiousness and battleground behaviour. TheBlueCanoe 13:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

Only wishing to point out here that the elimination of a religious creed of any sort is not in and of itself in all cases definitely undesirable. If it were possible to retroactively eliminate heaven's Gate or the People's Temple, as groups, prior to the eventual suicides, I think most people might find that desirable. And there are or have been a few other religious groups over the years which have had core beliefs which have later been found to be without any reasonable foundation, and I rather doubt that the "elimination" they may have suffered when their beliefs were found baseless is one most people would necessarily find objectionable. Also, honestly, if Christian Identity or perhaps other groups tied to White supremacist ideology were "eliminated" in some way, preferably through means other than killing all of them of course, I wonder how many people would object.

I also, admittedly belately, support a lot of Shrigley's comments below regarding the "political correctness"/"PRC is bad" attitude which tends to prevail relating to FG related matters in the West. By most medical standards, FG practices qualify as quack medicine, which a lot of people in China accept because it is (1) traditional to them and (2) a lot cheaper than more useful Western medicine, which doesn't have the same pseudoscience/quackery issues as FG and other Qigong practices do. The fact that FG is now the standard-bearer of Western criticism of the PRC is another issue. We have had editors here labelled as supporters of the PRC for disagreeing with FG, if I remember correctly, and that same tendency toward labelling of FG opposers seems to me to be even stronger in outside press.

Right now, the assessment criteria of the Falun Gong work group at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Falun Gong articles by quality statistics indicate a total of 28 articles of stub class or similar here, not counting all the NA pages. Is there any sort of way to maybe put them all under pending changes or similar so that maybe the only way to bring really substantive changes to them is through broad consensus through an RfC? That is, admittedly, a rather draconian proposal, but with so few articles, and what is to my eyes a rather obvious Western bias in the issue, it might, maybe, be workable. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

I am unconvinced that STSC was describing only the perspective of the Chinese establishment, and not their own authentic views (or possibly if they are living in China, views that they are compelled to publicly adhere to.) It's plausible that the "must be eliminated" section was intended to imply "from the perspective of the Chinese authorities", but such an interpretation does not concord with the rest of the statement, "...such process should not be described as 'persecution' as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society." This strikes me as the perspective of someone who internalizes official Chinese diktat rather than just describes it. If I'm wrong though, STSC should have no trouble positively affirming that no one should be violently compelled to renounce religious beliefs.

Anyone seized by a fashionable moral relativism should actually read the practices detailed at Persecution of Falun Gong, which is not so much analogous to Germany's treatment of Scientology as to Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, which I challenge anyone to describe as "internal policy for the good of its society." Rhoark (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrigley: Denouncing any particular government is not required, but it is required to be here to build and encyclopedia and to refrain from promoting violence. I'll reiterate that if this is simply an issue of misunderstood grammar, STSC should be able to assert not just that it was mistaken grammar, but that they do not in fact advocate that people be imprisoned and tortured for holding Falun Gong beliefs or possessing Falun Gong literature. Rhoark (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrigley

TheWordsmith's comment here, which justifies the sanction, does not show me that he critically considered whether TheBlueCanoe's diffs about STSC correctly impugned STSC's character. The filer of that original AE request is, as is obvious to anyone with experience in the Falun Gong editspace (it is necessary to drop certain cultural biases: more on that later), very motivated to see a sympathetic viewpoint to Falun Gong represented on Wikipedia, and to see unsympathetic viewpoints excised. I wish more people made specific comments analyzing the diffs and how they were presented. I don't have time now, but maybe I will if this appeal stays open a few more days.

If this diff is considered the "smoking gun" of STSC's supposed animus towards Falun Gong, it is weak evidence indeed. In the first place, the sentence structure (admittedly, his grammar is not perfectly native) shows that STSC was describing a viewpoint -- of Chinese society in general or the Chinese government in particular, it is not clear but does not matter -- and not expressing it: Falun Gong was considered... and therefore must be eliminated note "was considered [by China]", not "should be considered [I implore you]". Also, I think STSC was not delicate enough with language on a very delicate subject. "Eliminate" can mean two things.

Falun Gong as a corporate entity, à la RICO, must be eliminated. On an individual basis, this means a kind of intervention by local government officials to persuade FLG members to return to their families, accept medical care that the practice had forbidden, etc. I encourage speaking about the Chinese government's efforts like this, because it is more precise, and it is a dispassionate extension of people-first language. People join the rolls of Falun Gong, and can separate themselves from and denounce the organization (even if FLG continues to count them); they are not Falun Gong until they die, as the extremists would say.
Falun Gong as a collection of people, must be "eliminated". Obviously this language suggests that some kind of horrible mass-killing is going on, which is the image that human rights advocacy groups would like to evoke, but it doesn't quite jive with what the best scholars of Chinese politics and religion think the state is trying to do. "Religious persecution" is similar language; our article on it immediately talks about crimes against humanity. If you think speaking of "persecution" is okay in this case; you are probably a victim of an etic WP:WORLDVIEW. We are much more careful here on en.wiki about describing the laws that, say, the German government uses to limit Scientology as "persecution" of that religion/cult/whatever-group.

A cursory look at TheBlueCanoe's diffs reveals them to be deeply problematic for anyone with specialist subject knowledge. For example, TBC lists this diff as evidence of STSC's bias. However, as with many third world countries, torture happens in China by local governments, despite it being illegal on a national level (and prosecuted by the central government when these cases are exposed!), because of certain perverse incentives to improve crime statistics for increased funding: the idea that certain incidents of torture happened as a planned tool of a national campaign against Falun Gong is pretty controversial. Shrigley (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoark, we should not be taking a page out of Joseph McCarthy's playbook and demanding that someone denounce the Chinese government in order to edit Wikipedia's articles on these topics. This is a problem that all editors with lived experience or advanced education in the China-related topics area face: just by understanding the Chinese cultural point of view enough to explain it, you are accused of being a PRC government shill, rabid nationalist, or paid public relations specialist. With Falun Gong it's even worse, because answering what they consider to be "slander" is practically a religious precept. (It also boosts their profits and employment.)

I am glad that more people have realized that Thewordsmith's enacting of the ban was immediately based on a misinterpretation of STSC's grammar. In the original AE thread, and here, STSC did not argue vigorously and specifically enough that TheBlueCanoe was misrepresenting the diffs. I could make that argument, but that would just lead TBC to continue to cast aspersions on me. Since unfortunately this discussion has turned into a kind of referendum on how we feel about what's going on in China, I should point out that Falun Gong's activities do not end at China's border. In addition to their propaganda, the organization's exclusionary practices against gay people, mixed-race people, and those who submit to modern medicine, provoke controversy in the Chinese diasporic community. Despite what some editors here imply, FLG's critics are not only one government. Shrigley (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Now, just for commenting on this AE request in a skeptical manner, I myself am being attacked and my views misrepresented. What I actually did in my above statement was note that STSC did not complete a diff-by-diff refutation of TheBlueCanoe's case against him, and therefore think that this appeal has a "Chinaman's Chance in Hell" of passing. This is not a "defense" of STSC; it is quite the opposite. Also, let me disclose a personal viewpoint: I deplore the way that Falun Gong members have been treated in China. Full stop.

Zujine links to an old AE case where he asked administrators to topic-ban an editor who wished to include some academic criticism of Falun Gong's activities on Wikipedia, as evidence of my "disruptive" behavior or something. If you care to look at my statement there, it is replete with diffs showing how Zujine (in 2013) edited aggressively to promote Falun Gong's point of view and suppress FLG-critical points of view. I not only proved the standard activist stuff from him, but also that Zujine has conflict of interest and editor-hounding issues in this topic area.

Three years later, Zujine evidently has not stopped these behaviors. He and his protégé TheBlueCanoe like to talk about an old DYK on an article on which all three of us collaborated (or at least, I tried to collaborate with them—even approving their article, and they assumed bad faith at every turn). I have assumed good faith for so long with these problematic editors, and tried so hard to find a middle ground on Falun Gong articles, that they should beware the boomerang they throw so much. Shrigley (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zujine

In view of the unfortunate lack of self-awareness or contrition demonstrated by STSC in this process, I would echo @User:Seraphimblade and @User:Dennis Brown and recommend that the appeal be declined.

I would also welcome administrator's views on whether a warning is in order for Shrigley. On numerous past occasions at AE, this user has come to the defense of clearly disruptive editors in this topic area (for example, see cases against User:PCPP [70][71] and User:Bobby fletcher [72]). Although it may be a novel interpretation of policy—and certainly one that would need to be applied with great caution—I wonder whether repeated attempts to shield obviously disruptive editors from much-deserved censure may itself be a form of disruption. And though it's pretty stale, the user's conduct at this DYK nomination[73] is troubling. Shrigley acted as a neutral reviewer for the DYK nomination, despite prior involvement in the topic area and clear animus toward Falungong [74]. He approved the review on the condition that his heavily edited version of the article be accepted. If anyone rejected his edits, he would declare the page "unstable" and thus withdraw approval for the DYK (uninvolved editors ultimately overturned his arguments). I have a hard time believing this was anything other than a deliberate abuse of process meant to derail a legitimate nomination.—Zujine|talk 18:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by STSC

What Was Said

The critical edit here, apparently, is this:

Not every cult is harmful. Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China; such process should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society.

This is neither very clear or grammatical, but of course Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and some editors are not native speakers. If I were copy-editing this, my assumption is that the intended meaning was that "Falun Gong was considered [by the government] to be a danger to Chinese society; therefore, [the government] believed it must be eliminated from China." I would then have inverted the order to remove the passive: "The government considered Falun Gong to be a danger to Chinese society, and that it ought to be eliminated from China. This is not, I think, a strained or unreasonable interpretation, and seems to me to be a reasonable summary of one received narrative.

Even if the sentiments ought to be ascribed to the editor, which I think is doubtful, we have "Falun Gong is a danger to society and must be eliminated from China." This is intolerant and un-American, but I’m not entirely certain that we should be banning people who hold un-American beliefs. I would observe that the Court of Massachusetts felt much this way about Roger Williams in 1636, that American Nativists expressed much the same about Catholic immigration, and that a current candidate for the US Presidency has called for a moratorium on Moslem immigration. Even if policy prohibits the practice of religious intolerance, I doubt that it prohibits its description.

STSC is incorrect in asserting that this "should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable." Persecution is precisely the right word. An non-native speaker, or simply an editor with a limited background, might recognize only the informal, colloquial sense of persecution, and not understand that this is precisely its technical meaning. Otherwise, STSC’s statement makes no sense at all.

I don’t disagree with Seraphimblade -- I’ve not examined the rest of the history -- but I suggest this ill-composed passage has been misinterpreted. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, absent this particular diff and associated Wikilawyering, the remaining 39-odd diffs in the initial filing appear sufficiently compelling. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With actual, rather than pretended, respect, this is not Wikilawyering. It’s close reading and editing of the passage that one administrator considered of special importance. I possess some small expertise in this area, which that administrator might lack; not everyone is called upon to review technical and scholarly papers by non-native speakers. WiikiHounding, however, is contrary to policy. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should understand that the world, and the Wikipedia community, encompasses many persons with expertise in many areas; some of whom perform the task of reviewing technical and scholarly comment by non-native speakers of English on a daily basis. In this particular instance, I do not believe that the original finding was contingent upon this singular diff, and to focus thereon is to follow a red herring. Nor do I believe that the appellant has shown that the original finding was flawed; far less sufficiently so as to uphold this appeal and overturn the finding. WP:HOUNDING is indeed contrary to policy, I encourage those engaging in it to stop. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous ANI filings

I also note the following filings at WP:ANI - December 2015 [75]; February 2016 [76] - which would seem to indicate that the behaviours discussed in the original WP:AE filing are both long standing and wider spread than the Falun Gong topic space. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by STSC

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

The original complaint had more than enough cause for concern to justify the sanction imposed. I'm quite honestly amazed it took that long for it to happen. Needless to say, I therefore recommend to decline this appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MarkBernstein makes some interesting points, but no single statement by STSC was the straw that broke the camel's back so it wouldn't change the outcome. I believe The Wordsmith's conclusions and actions were reasonable and executed within policy. I don't see new information that warrants removal of the topic ban so I recommend declining the appeal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zujine - That would be outside the purview of Arbitration Enforcement. We try to focus on Arb decisions only, as well as any immediate problem that needs attention during the process. Long term problems not related to Arb decisions should be handled at ANI or at DYK or the right venue for that particular problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Seraphimblade and Dennis Brown: decline. MarkBernstein's analysis of "the critical edit" above is interesting, and we certainly need to keep in mind that not everybody is a native speaker. But there have been so many other "critical" edits. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Jonniefood

Jonniefood topic banned 90 days from the topics of The Troubles and the Ulster Banner, broadly construed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Jonniefood

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mo ainm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jonniefood (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/The Troubles :

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

[77] First revert
[78] Second revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Diff of notification of sanctions

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 2 April 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clear breach of the 1RR that is enforced on all articles related to The Troubles. This editor is a single purpose account in the area of the Ulster Banner and the Northern Ireland flag issue..

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification of this request

Discussion concerning Jonniefood

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 Jonniefood

What a load of nonsense. The first was because Soclaire inserted factually inaccurate material concerning local government. The second was because Mo ainm/Goodday then went on to inserted completely nonsense information that Northern Ireland was somehow different. The two edits were not related in the slightest. They aren't simply back and forward reverts Jonniefood (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Miles Creagh)

The diffs presented by the reporting editor don't seem to show true reverts, as each deals with different material and distinct language in the article in question. Also not sure it is appropriate to comment on the editor rather than content, by mentioning SPAs etc. Miles Creagh (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

@Miles Creagh: Regardless of whether the reverts were each for different material, if they were both within 24 hours of each other and both reverts, that's still a violation of 1RR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Uninvolved Editor)

Result concerning Jonniefood

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

This looks like a pretty clear 1RR breach, and the editor was specifically notified of 1RR by KrakatoaKatie when giving the DS notification. I think a break from the topic area may be in order, though at this point I probably wouldn't make it indefinite for a single violation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editor is new but was given clear warning. I would agree with Seraphimblade in that an indef topic ban would be unwarranted and likely counterproductive. I would recommend a 90 day topic ban, which would give them time to get up to speed on how we do things here, and still give them a second chance in a reasonable period of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbatai

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 Abbatai

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: OptimusView (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abbatai (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 :

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

14:20, 1 May 2016 1st revert
15:17, 1 May 2016 2nd revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[79] Blocked 3 times for editwarring and disruptive editing

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): *Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [80].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The article is placed under 1rr, and Abbatai already made 2 reverts of his edit of April 20th ([81]).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [82]

Discussion concerning Abbatai

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 Abbatai

14:20, 1 May 2016

The first edit above was not a revert at all. I added the word "separatist" with reference to NKR, previously it was stating NKR Forces in the lead.

And this one: 15:17, 1 May 2016 was my first and only revert in which I explained why? on talk page and invited users to discussion. See [83] and [84] Thanks Abbatai 18:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Abbatai

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

As Abbatai had previously added the "separatist" wording on 20 April, both edits were clearly reverts to a previous version, so this is a 1RR violation. The previous edit warring sanctions were many years ago, so I'm not inclined to factor them too heavily, but I think some time away from the topic area might be in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The blocks were so long ago as to be almost meaningless here. While Seraphimblade is correct that the same "separatist" verbiage was added 10 days prior with the same citation (which looks to check out), and it was technically a revert, to me this fades a bit with time. Still sanctionable, but not as severe as other 1RRs I've seen that happen over a day or two. He might have thought it really wasn't a 1RR violation, even though it technically was. Since he hasn't been sanctioned in a very long time, and never for this particular Arb restriction, I would lean towards a very short topic ban, say 30 days, which would probably be adequate to prevent problems in the future. I won't argue against something somewhat longer, I just think that is proportional to the disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AmirSurfLera

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 AmirSurfLera

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: AmirSurfLera (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/Enforcement/Archive161#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AmirSurfLera :

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

2016-05-01T16:27:41 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed".
2016-05-01T16:28:06 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed".
2016-05-01T16:43:00 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed". Editor added the following to the Ken Livingstone article - "Actually Netanyahu said that initially Hitler had no intention of exterminating European Jews, instead he wanted to expel them from Europe, but he changed his mind after being persuaded by the Palestinian leader at the time, the mufti Amin al-Husseini, who argued that the expulsion of the Jews would result in their arrival en masse to Palestine."
2016-05-02T12:50:24 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed". Edited the caption of an image in the Palestinian territories section of the Antisemitism article about Palestinian mufti Amin al-Husseini.
2016-05-02T12:51:45 Edit related to the "Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed". Added a template requesting a source for the same caption as above.

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2014-07-08T06:27:20 by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since AmirSurfLera's appeal for their indefinite ARBPIA topic ban to be lifted was declined in January 2015, they made no edits to Wikipedia using this account until a couple of days ago. Since reactivating this account they have made what I regard as 5 topic ban violations so far. I contacted them (User_talk:AmirSurfLera#Topic_ban_violations) to inform them that if they "make another edit that violates the topic ban I will file an AE report". Since I did not find the response satisfactory I have come here. The first 2 edits I listed above are unambiguous topic ban violations. The editor's explanation was "I made a mistake on Barghouti". Fine, they made a mistake. The last 3 edits listed all relate to Palestinian mufti Amin al-Husseini and the Israeli Prime Minister's stated view that a Palestinian was responsible for persuading Hitler to exterminate European Jews. AmirSurfLera's view is that "I didn't violate my topic ban with the rest of the edits, since they are related to Nazism, antisemitism and the Holocaust, not the Arab-Israeli conflict. I wasn't banned from all Jewish-related articles". I find this response unacceptable. Please ensure that this person cannot use this account to violate their topic ban. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[85]

Discussion concerning AmirSurfLera

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 AmirSurfLera

I'm not sure what Wikipedia means by ARBPIA. I interpret articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, an article about the economy of Israel, as far as I understand, is not part of this area, even though it's connected somehow. An article about Kiruv in Orthodox Judaism, is not related to ARBPIA, nor an article about a British politician. I wasn't expecting to be accused of violating my topic ban for editing about antisemitism, Nazism and the Holocaust. For example, this edit and this one are related to the Holocaust and antisemitism. In the first case I restored the picture of a neo-Nazi protesting in Berlin. In the second case, even though the mufti was an important actor in the Arab-Israeli conflict, I simply restored a caption about his meeting with Hitler (removed by Pluto2012 without previous discussion). The Mufti was other things besides an enemy of Israel (like a recruiter for the SS). If I made a mistake and I violated the ban with those edits, I offer my sincere apologies, I won't edit in those articles anymore. But I came back to edit in good faith (starting with Holocaust controversies), not to cause troubles in ARBPIA. I'm sorry that I edit on Jewish-related topics only, but I don't know anything about cars, bugs, trees and elephants.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, although my knowledge of religion is limited. I'll be more careful. But what about antisemitism? (excluding Hamas, Hezbollah and things like that)--AmirSurfLera (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Reply to my comment moved from admin section to editors' section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Zero0000

The violation is obvious and I can't imagine how anyone could dispute it. Zero^talk 14:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012

AmirSurfLera refused to selfrevert his edits on the article 'Antisemitism' despite he modified the caption on the Palestinian nationalist leader Haj Amin al-Husseini and that he re-inserted a picture in the "Palestinian section" with the portrait of Yasser Arafat. These are obvious violation of the topic ban. and he/she is perfectly aware of this.Pluto2012 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning AmirSurfLera

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

These are unambiguous violations of the topic ban, and this editor already has several sanctions for violating the restrictions in this topic area. AmirSurfLera, if you would care to comment here and explain why this is happening, I suggest you do so sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- AmirSurfLera I am, to be quite honest, not too impressed with that explanation. There's quite a bit about Judaism that you could edit without even getting close to the border of the topic ban—notable synagogues and rabbis, historical Jewish scholars, Jewish holidays and practices, kosher diet regulations and kosher foods, any number of things. At this point, I really don't see any reason to disagree with what Dennis Brown has said below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unquestionably, these are violations of the topic ban. On his talk page he excuses the edits by the fact that some had already reverted them, but this is nonsensical as a defense as they weren't his actions, but a defense to his actions. They only have 525 edits, they are already topic banned, they asked to have ban lifted without editing outside that area at all, then left without making any edits and then came back again and instantly violated the topic ban. This is a textbook POV/SPA case. Anything short of an indef block seems a waste of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein

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 MarkBernstein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: MarkBernstein (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: Discretionary sanction (interaction ban)

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

Violation 3 May reply to DHeyward.
See also informal warning earlier in discussion [86]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [87]

Amended 23:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Discretionary sanction; topic ban, gamergate

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

Violation [88] -- both the edit summary and text explictly refer to Gamergate.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein

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 MarkBernstein

The (modified) three-way topic ban between myself, Thargor Orlando, and DHeyward specifically allows participation in noticeboard and ArbCom cases in which one or all are a party. Moreover, asking an editor to confirm an interpretation of a statement, or to clarify a statement that might be ambiguous, does not infringe the topic ban. To make assurance doubly sure, I checked in advance with the administrator who composed and modified that topic ban whether it was intended to prevent my participation in a case to which DHeyward is a party.

MB: Is it the intent of your (modified) topic ban vis-a-vis DHeyward to preclude my participation in Arbcom cases in which DHeyward is a party?

admin: Absolutely not. I designed the topic ban specifically to allow both of you to participate in editing the same articles and specifically to avoid the situation where one of you was forbidden on commenting on an issue or an edit or a person who was not one of the two of you.

You may quote me on this on-wiki or anywhere else.

MarkBernstein (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the responsible administrator whether the intent of the topic ban precluded participation in an Arbcom case to which DHeyward is a party They replied, "Absolutely not." I had stated this clearly here hours before @Kingsindian: added his predictable contribution. If the admin was correct, this complaint is groundless and disruptive. If he was incorrect. I cannot see that I can be blamed for relying on his explicit and emphatic instruction. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the discussion above was by email, lest the query itself violate a topic ban. (Holy Kafka, Batman!) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: DHeyward asserted a fact in passing, in a large block of text. I merely asked to confirm that what he wrote is what he intended to write. This seemed uncontentious and innocuous; people do sometimes omit words or overlook ambiguities. It’s hardly disruptive. As to whether I might have asked on-wiki, I am glad to see you confirm my understanding of policy, but -- as you see here -- to ask on-wiki would have required a prudent editor to first ask another uninvolved administrator or arbitrator whether they were permitted to ask the banning administrator. Hello, Mr. Kafka! Meet Mr. Xeno! Email can be simpler, and other factors (these will occur to you) also commended it. If you wish, you are free to ask the administrator to confirm the quotations. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the ArbCom case in question explicitly excludes Gamergate, and both arbitrators and clerks have repeatedly asserted that the case is not related to Gamergate. Nor does it involve gender-related controversies. I have commented in a general way about threats against Wikipedians, but not all threats derive from Gamergate. (Arbitrators interested in off-wiki harassment may want to take a look at the customary sites, which have not been completely inactive overnight.) MarkBernstein (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: On DHeyward, I have supplied the instruction I received from the responsible administrator. I had every reason to rely on them. On the discussion at AN/C regarding the employment of threats to coerce a Wikipedia administrator -- a matter which has now been confirmed -- I did not identify the source of any threats and, with the exception of the death threat that appeared on Wikipedia, have not characterized them. I believe I am permitted to pursue my research and to fulfill my professional obligations when publishing elsewhere. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The email exchange above dates from 3 May 2016, 11:05 AM EDT. My research interests include hypertext, knowledge representation, new media, and web science, and I publish results and commentary on these topics (which occasionally touch on Wikipedia) in a variety of places in the course of that work. Thanks for asking. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

In the last AE request, MarkBernstein stated that I was momentarily under the mistaken impression that the tridirectional DHeyward topic ban had been waived for noticeboard complaints. It had in fact only been waived for initiating noticeboard complaints. I would like to hear from Mark Bernstein if this interpretation is wrong. Because the comment in question here is clearly not initiating a noticeboard complaint. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can MarkBernstein also tell us when this email interaction with Gamaliel took place? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

I'm also rather perplexed that MarkBernstein doesn't think that 1 and 2 are violations of his more recent topic ban. Either he doesn't think they're violations or he just doesn't care. I'm struggling to see how discussing Gamaliel's restriction from enforcing GamerGate arbitration provisions doesn't fall within "prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." The tban contains no exceptions for anything, and there's no way those edits fall within WP:BANEX. GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further topic-ban vios: 1 2 3. The contention that discussing Gamaliel's arb restriction from GamerGate isn't a violation of a tban from GamerGate is... interesting... GoldenRing (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

Given that the relevant sanction between MarkBernstein and DHeyward is a topic ban and not an interaction ban, it's hard to see a direct reply from MB to DH as a violation per se. Nevertheless, MB has in recent days developed a habit of testing the edges of the topic bans to which he is subject, demonstrated by the following:

[89] Musing about a topic he is banned from. Mark reverted this himself after a few hours and no responses.
[90] Discussing Gamergate in a comment about Gamaliel's ongoing ArbCom case. Mark struck the portion mentioning Gamergate within minutes.
[91] Discussing on Coffee's talk page a revdel on the Gamergate talk page. Mark reverted this comment in a few hours during which no one responded to it directly.
[92] This actually was a per se violation of Mark's DHeyward topic ban, in which he directly quotes a statement from DHeyward (among other statements) and then casts aspersions about "red herrings" and "crocodile tears." He struck the portion quoting DHeyward when I reminded him that he was still subject to that topic ban.
[93] Musing about possible threats made to Gamaliel off-wiki, presumably by Gamergate. MB may deny that he intended to implicate Gamergate in this comment but I don't believe that denial would pass the smell test.

In fairness to Mark, he has generally reverted/struck these offending comments on his own initiative. But while that might excuse a single violation, it begins to look like a deliberate effort to opine on a prohibited topic while avoiding sanctions after three or four occurrences. I think Mark ought to be dissuaded from this course of action. Whether that takes the form of a stern warning (although warnings have had less than stellar effectiveness with MB in the past) or something more serious is for wiser heads than mine. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MB writes above: I have commented in a general way about threats against Wikipedians, but not all threats derive from Gamergate. True enough, but when he tweets a link to those comments with the caption Wikipedia: did Gamergate harassment successfully intimidate an Arbitrator? from the Twitter account listed prominently on his personal webpage, to which he links on his wiki user page, it's pretty clear that he intended those comments to pertain to Gamergate in violation of his topic ban. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

While I'm uninvolved when it comes to Mark, I (tried to) participate in that Arb case and mentioned Mark as the beneficiary of too much goodwill by an admin, which is not his fault. The participation is still enough that I will stay on this side of the "results" line and just opine. I think if Mark had been named as a party to the case, it would be easy to overlook or even grant a temporary stay of the restriction while he participated in the case. Something to consider is the poorly chosen title of the case "Gamaliel and others", as Mark has been mentioned in interactions with Gamaliel several times, including by myself, although never in any way that indicates Mark did anything wrong. Judging from past cases (and this one) he could theoretically be added to the case with no explanation, or simply sanctioned without being formally listed as a party. This assumes he did something wrong prior to the case that would warrant sanction, something I have no evidence of. It is simply saying there is at least a possibility that he would be mentioned for sanctions, and would feel the need to defend himself or participate. I say this only because I think this AE case is just a tiny bit in the grey area. Honestly, Mark should have asked for a temporary lifting first, he should have known this would be seen as violating the topic ban, and I don't there there is any question these are textbook violations, but if I'm fair, I have to admit the circumstances here are very different than arguing on an article talk page. How much that should play into sanctions, I leave to those that are totally uninvolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden

This is getting ridiculous.

@MarkBernstein: If “professional obligations” necessitate your posting to wikipedia, you must disclose any potential overlap - see WP:PAID and WP:COI. If not, it’s irrelevant.

The spirit of the restrictions are straightforward: avoid Gamergate and DHeyward. If you can abide by that I’m sure you can be productive elsewhere. If not, the community has better things do than police this “I’m not touching youuuu” nonsense.

Regarding “the instruction[s] received from the responsible administrator” you’ve been asked to clarify whether this came before or after you made the following comment (diff in Kingsindian’s section):

I was momentarily under the mistaken impression that the tridirectional DHeyward topic ban had been waived for noticeboard complaints. It had in fact only been waived for initiating noticeboard complaints.

Despite several posts you have not clarified. Please clarify so we can wrap this up. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: Thank you for clarifying the dates. If that's the case the responsible administrator has given apparently conflicting instructions which you shouldn't be held responsible for. I suggest the complaints re: your interactions with DHeyward be dismissed and either the responsible administrator clarifies explicitly, on wiki, the scope of the interaction ban or another administrator applies a more straightforward restriction. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72

The diffs provided by NE Ent and Starke Hathaway are clearly within the scope of the respective topic bans. The advice provided by the Admin imposing the "DHeyward" topic ban explicitly states that commenting on the other topic banned person is within the scope of the ban; the diffs show commetn on that person.
I would suggest, however, that this is mainly supportive of the inadequacies of the topic ban itself; and demonstrative of the the inconsistent application of these bans thus far. I, therefore, recommend no sanction on the basis of the clear breach of the ban on commenting on DHeyward; but do firmly recommend that Admins should find consensus that this ban; and the corresponding bans on DHeyward and Thargor Orlando should be rescinded.
The clear, continued, breaches of the topic ban on Gamergate, however, I leave to the mercies of those same persons (tender or elsewise). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

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

MarkBernstein, can you provide a link to this discussion you had with the admin? I think it's important to see it in context. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- MarkBernstein can confirm, but given the reference to "you may quote this on-wiki," I take it that this was communicated by e-mail or similar, not on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MarkBernstein, just as a point of clarity, asking the sanctioning administrator for a good-faith clarification about the scope of a topic ban would not be a violation of that ban. "Asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" is explicitly listed as a ban exception. However, I do see some difference between the sanctioning administrator giving permission to participate in a case in general, and specifically replying directly to and arguing with another individual subject to the IBAN during participation in that case. I don't see anything in Gamaliel's clarification that would allow direct interaction, just general participation in the same area. The exemption is for "...commenting on an issue or an edit or a person who was not one of the two of you...", which seems to explicitly rule out commenting on an issue or an edit or a person when it is one of the two. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the admin that MarkB is referring to above is Gamaliel, then this is the most recent on-wiki clarification (November, 2015) of MarkB's interaction ban from DHeyward in the words of Gamaliel. He is allowing MarkB and DHeyward to open enforcement requests against each other, but "The topic ban on discussing one another otherwise remains in place." The original ban as well as the above revision can still be found in WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015 by searching for the word 'Thargor.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While Mark doesn't outright say the word "Gamergate" (except when he does), it is blatantly obvious that that's what he's talking about. There are also the diffs of him plainly referencing DHeyward, without necessarily using the name. The sanctions he is under are bans from discussing the topics, not just mentioning the words, and these diffs would appear to show Mark testing the boundaries. While I don't think a block to enforce the ban is necessary or warranted here, it would be a good idea to formally clarify whether or not this is allowed under the terms of his active sanctions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gala19000

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 Gala19000

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Oatitonimly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gala19000 (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 under related conflicts, concerning Turkish conflicts with Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Albanian, and Kurdish. Specifically Turkish articles.

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

[94] calls a user an Armenian nationalist
[95] calls a user a Bulgarian nationalist
[96] calls a user a Bulgarian nationalist again
[97] calls another user a nationalist
[98] calls a user an Albanian nationalist
[99] calls a user an Albanian nationalist again
[100] calls a user an Albanian nationalist yet again
[101] calls a Kurdish user a nationalist

[102][103][104] removes sourced content and puts unsourced claim, edit warring, breaks WP:3RR on Operation Steel [105][106]
[107] edit warring and removes sourced content on Zeitun Rebellion (1895–96)[108][109]
[110] adds WP:ALLEGED and removes sourced content on Battle of Holy Apostles Monastery
[111] replaces sourced content with unsourced claims on Siege of Berat (1455)
[112] removes sourced content on Greco-Turkish War (1897)
[113][114][115][116] edit warring on Siege of Plevna
[117][118] edit warring on Greek War of Independence
[119] removes sourced content
[120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127] removing sourced content, edit warring, and breaking three revert rule on Gülbahar Hatun
[128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144] many instances of edit warring, removing sourced content, and adding unsourced content on Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)
[145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152] 3RR broken on Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War
[153][154][155][156] 3RR broken on on Turkish War of Independence

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

[157] warned about edit warring
[158] warned about topic bans
[159] warned about edit warring again and three revert rule
[160] reported for edit warring on noticeboard
[161] warned about topic bans again, by admin
[162] reported for edit warring on noticeboard again
[163] warned about edit warring yet again
[164] warned about harassment
[165] warned for edit warring
[166] warned for disruptive editing
[167] edit warring notice
[168] edit warring notice

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has a tremendous history of violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:PERSONAL, and WP:EDITWAR ever since joining wikipedia and has only gotten warnings, seems to think this is a game. An indefinite topic ban is strongly needed. Oatitonimly (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[169]

Discussion concerning Gala19000

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 Gala19000

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gala19000

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

HughD

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 HughD

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: HughD (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

"You are now banned from editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed until August 28, 2016" [170]

Expanded on 26 April, 2016 [171], "Your topic ban is expanded to include a ban on editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed, on any article. Your topic ban is extended to Jan 1, 2017." (Talk page notification [172])

As part of the ARE closed on 26th April, it was noted that the way HughD has been editing climate change articles is a violation of his topic ban, ".Again, the topics themselves are not related to conservative politics but the nature of HughD's edits are within them related to conservative politics (Mother Jones categorizations at the very are conservative politics even if you don't consider climate change issues per se related). Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 "

HughD was also warned, "The kind of playing round the edges of the previous ban (which was for the same area, but shorter) that led to this AE filing won't be tolerated. If you're in doubt whether the ban allows you a particular edit, please ask an admin before making it. There's a kind of logic in not blocking now, yes, but it also means the user has got away with a lot. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)."

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

26 April 2016 This is the exact Mother Jones article (Dirty dozen of climate change) mentioned by Ricky81682 on 18 April 2016
26 April 2016 The same MJ article added a second time after another editor removed the material as "reference stuffing" by William M. Connolley
25 April 2016 RfC added to the ExxonMobil climate change article in a way which may be considered political. (Questioned by Arthur Rubin and myself).

The below edits may be considered political as they tend to further what appears to be an objective to cast Exxon's actions in the most negative light possible with respect to climate change. By them selves I do not believe these would be violations but they may be when considered in context with other edits.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Oct 11, 15 Violation of topic ban resulting in warning.
Oct 29, 15 1 week block for violation of ban. Appeal of block was rejected [173]
Jan 7, 2016 1 week block for violation. Appeal of block was rejected [174]
26 April 2016 Extended block by 6 months

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A request for admins involved in the previous discussion to review the 26 April edits prior to filing any ARE was made. Bishonen, [175], "I'm not sure. Sorry, Springee, I'd rather not make the call either." Dennis Brown, [176], "I don't have time to really look closely, but at first glance, I can easily see why you might be concerned." Laser brain was contacted[177] and followed up with HughD [178] resulting in an unsatisfactory explanation and Hugh's claims of nothing but civil behavior, "I am proud of my article space focus, my good articles, all my edits, and in particular my superb edit summaries, and my exemplary participation and focus on content in article talk page discussions... All of my edits are good faith improvements to our encyclopedia and respectful of the topic ban; I respectfully request specific diffs of edits you feel are not, and an opportunity to discuss and self-revert." The last comment was questioned by both Safehaven86 (end of section) and Anmccaff [179], "Anmccaff: I'm tired of dealing with him, to be honest. If you believe he's violating his topic ban, please open a report at WP:AE for wider input." Editors involved with the article in question have also expressed concerns with HughD's edits and behavior. [180]

The ARE closed on 26 April originally suggested an edit block of 30 days but based on HughD's engagement in discussion an assumption of good faith was given and no block was included. The refusal to consider the concerns of others involved with the ExxonMobil articles and condescending replies do not support an assumption of good faith nor do they appear to support seeking consensus. (Comments directed at Beagel [181][182][183] )

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HughD#Notice_of_WP:ARE

Discussion concerning HughD

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 HughD

No topic ban violation. No disruptive editing.

Let us together examine each the reported diffs, in turn:

No topic ban violation. No disruptive edit.
No topic ban violation. No disruptive edit.
No topic ban violation. No disruptive edit.

In summary, no topic ban violation, and no disruptive editing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rush to discuss how severe the sanction is deeply disturbing. I must insist on some demonstration of the ability to distinguish a vexatious filing from disruptive editing. I plan to appeal any sanctions from this filing. Please help. Respectfully I must insist that each responding uninvolved administrator very specifically identify an edit that is a topic ban violation, uncivil, or disruptive, and very specifically why, citing specific policy or guideline, before joining the chorus. Go on record, please.

I must insist on some acknowledgement of the above "your own conduct may be examined as well"; respectfully I ask each responding uninvolved administrator demonstrate some due diligence, and include some comment on complainant's editorial behavior, even if it is only to say you see nothing actionable or to praise complainant's contributions to our project. Go on record. Thank you.

conservative US politics from 2009 to the present

Respectfully, a reminder: I am not banned from politics, I am not banned from all topics on which two or more Americans may disagree, which of course is all topics. If you think Mother Jones (magazine), or ExxonMobil, or climate change is in scope of American conservative politics, please clearly say so and sign your name. Thank you.

Izno, thank you for your suggested sanctions. Kindly explicitly state which edit or edits in your view are a topic ban violation and why it is a topic ban violation. Context matters. Be fair. You quote an excerpt from a source, not any content that I added to article text.

Serial complainant, single purpose account harassment and noticeboard specialist again artfully juxtaposes edits to give the appearance of an edit war. Let's take a closer look.

Article ExxonMobil

14:13, 26 April 2016 NapoleonX, a one week new editor, deletes "...and was a leader in climate change denial" from ExxonMobil, one of the most notable aspects of the subject, amply manifest in multiple noteworthy reliable sources. Edit summary "Climate Change denial is a pejorative and abusive term. The theory of Man caused Climate Change is a theory, it is not the Holocaust, an absolute fact, and linking Holocaust deniers with skeptics of a Climate Change theory is insidious. I removed it." A good faith edit by a new user. As regular followers of noticeboards know, the term "denial" is emotionally charged, and a frequent target in my area of interest, our environment. Please see Talk:Climate change denial and archives for more.
16:36, 26 April 2016, 16:39, 26 April 2016 Contended content, what do grown ups do? In support of the deleted content, I added neutral noteworthy reliable source references first...
16:47, 26 April 2016 ...then restored the deleted well-referenced article content with edit summmary for new colleague, "+ rs refs; sources say denial, and we can, too; please join discussion at climate change denial, thank you"
16:43, 26 April 2016 In the middle of my three edits, William M. Connolley, one of our shall we say more iconoclast editors in the area of the environment, and an editor for whom vigilance in addressing WP:OVERCITE is a major source of pride, occasionally regardless of how contended or stable the content, jumps in and creates an edit conflict. Once he sees where I'm going, that I am not overciting for overciting's sake, that I am addressing the deletion, he lets it stand.

So string me up.

When RfCs are criminalized, only criminals will use RfCs. RfCs are not disruptive, RfCs are the opposite of disruptive. 30 May 2015 EdJohnston challenged me to be part of the solution; since then I have embraced dispute resolution including our content noticeboards and requests for comment and have at all times been civil. Meanwhile SPA serial complainant is a fervent champion of the supremacy of the local consensus, often when the local consensus consists only of themselves, and has specialized in the application of behavioral noticeboards in content disputes, and in disrupting dispute resolution. Complainant hates any attempt to broaden community participation. Complainant wants to take RfCs away from me, in fact all editing privileges. It only takes one admin to help complete their year-long project. If you are so inclined I must insist you lay out your reasons very explicitly and very clearly and sign your name.

Dennis asked for options. Some reasonable, measured options uninvolved administrators might consider in addressing this filing, were anyone interested in anything other than a witch burning.

A reminder to complainant regarding our project's harassment policy WP:HARASS
A reminder to complainant that they were asked by an administrator to cease harassment 18 October 2015
A reminder to complainant to focus on content and not editors WP:FOC
A reminder to complainant to kindly limit future reports to edits that harm the encyclopedia WP:HERE
A one-way interaction ban on complainant
A two-way interaction ban
Propose to our arbitration committee that WP:ARBCC be eliminated by subsuming it under WP:ARBAP2

I oppose sanctions without specific edits clearly violating specific policy or guideline. Thank you.

"I find it difficult to believe that you are so dense as to not understand..." Enough of that. That is weasel. I understand the topic ban very well and respect it at all times, thank you. You are responsible for explaining your administrative actions. You need to clearly explain how you believe an edit is in scope of conservative American politics. Do not shirk your responsibility by insulting your target and labeling them as unworthy of good faith and a well-reasoned cogent explanation demonstrating due diligence and careful reflection, respectfully request you strike through. I am a veteran productive content provider volunteer with multiple good articles, a good article in the pipeline at all times, an article space percentage of 68% and I deserve better from you. It is simply not the case that anything any two Americans might consider controversial is in scope to conservative American politics WP:COMMONSENSE. Thank you.

Statement by Only in death does duty end

Climate change != American conservative politics. American politicians may make climate change an issue at times, however that does not defacto make climate change as a topic part of the american politics area any more than any other topic US politicians decide to talk about. If you are going to extend that reasoning to literally everything politicians talk about, you also need to *explictly* ban Hugh from abortion, gun control, immigration etc etc. Hugh is clearly topic banned from one, and not another. Since topic bans are specifically about the topic, not the article page so lets look at the two issues above listed by the filer:

1 (and 2). Edit adding a climate change ref to a corporation article. At *best* one or two of the people mentioned in the article referenced are linked directly to politics (either ex politicians or staffers) the vast majority are private corporation funded (or puppets). Neither the edit itself, nor the wikipedia article are linked to conservative american politics. That mother jones is seen as a conservative politically source, is not a reason to ban edits that reference it. You wouldnt attempt to restrict an editor from all reference use from the BBC if someone was banned from UK Liberal Politics.
3. RFC on adding climate change material to a corporation article. Issue was discussed 3 months previously (without a formal RFC) - Hugh opened an RFC for wider discussion. 3 months might be a bit short for 'consensus can change', and while some might find it disruptive, it is clearly within the scope of the article and a formal RFC is one method of (content) dispute resolution. Attempting to get someone banned from the area by claiming it violates an unrelated topic ban is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Izno

I rarely make a comment on a drama-related board, but I would tend to agree with the assessment that HughD is attempting to skirt his topic ban, given his focus on a certain set of sourcing in the context of certain articles

Remedy suggestions (and thoughtsmithing welcome): topic ban HughD from editing any topics, broadly construed, related to the post-1944 era. You can probably go back to post-1933 era (when The New Deal started). That would cover most of the major American political points of recent times--gun control (only so problematic as it is since the NRA started being active in politics in the early 30s), climate change (most of the science of climate change starts after World War II), and etc. Using a modern source to discuss, say, Japanese art of 1850, would not be intended to be a violation, but I suppose you might consider that blurring the line... a view, which, if taken, probably means he deserves a block. --Izno (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edit 2, HughD specifically quotes the following text from a book published in 2010: "major figures from the US (such as Exxon Mobil, conservative think-tanks and leading contrarian scientists) have helped spread climate change denial to other nations". That seems to be a topic ban vio, but I'm not experienced with such things. --Izno (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning HughD

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

I'm stymied. HughD had his topic ban (Conservative Politics) extended 6 months for skirting his topic ban last time, yet this looks similar. This is adding the exact same source to the same type of article that got you a sanction last time. I have no idea what is going on in your head here. Please enlighten us in 500 words or less, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We may need to clarify the restriction here, but the only way is to make it more onerous in scope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The simplest way may be to extend the political area, broadly taken, to include climate change (perhaps borrowing language from the arbcom case there), which (since before 2009) have been a hot political issue in the US so would easily quality in this area. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was thinking something along those lines as well. Climate change has more politics than science, here and elsewhere. We can't sanction if we broaden, but the goal is a solution, not retribution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the "statement" offered, I believe that HughD has no intention of complying with the restriction. The comment made looks suspiciously like trolling at this point, and a block may be the only way to enforce the ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh, this isn't about anyone but you. The problem is that it appears you are trying to skirt the sanctions yet again. I would suggest focusing on a path forward instead of worrying about others. I've already said you are using the same sources for the same kinds of edits in the same kinds of articles as last time. It might be your opinion that these don't skirt the sanctions, but it is the opinion of the community that matters, not just yours. Any edit you make that has a political element to it is on the border of your topic ban. This means your topic ban is more than about the current elections, it is about US politics in any way. Climate change is certainly a political topic more than a scientific one. Just looking at ONE edit: you weren't entering temperature or other scientific data, you were entering a source on Global Climate Coalition, a lobbyist group. ie: their only purpose was to wine and dine Congressmen to push their agenda. They played a part in blocking the Kyoto Protocol. They spent exactly $0 on scientific research because their mission was 100% political. They dissolved due to public pressure. I find it difficult to believe that you are so dense as to not understand that these edits have a political content to them, and that this is skirting your topic ban. That one edit is block-worthy. You are headed down the road of being indefinitely blocked from any political topic plus a block. That would be the easiest way to deal with this problem, as you aren't making it easy nor giving us many options. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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