Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive146

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Blippy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Standard discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience and fringe science topics, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2#Discretionary sanctions

Blacklight Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article about a company that claims (and has claimed for a couple of decades, now) to have developed remarkable new technology to extract energy from hydrogen atoms using a non-standard theory of physics. The topic falls squarely within the bounds of fringe science and arguably falls under 'cold fusion' as well.

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

In a long series of edits around 15 and 16 January, Blippy edit warred extensively to include favorable content and claims from a Blacklight Power press release. This edit warring resulted in 72 hours of full protection of the article. While the article was protected, it was discovered that Blippy's additions included a substantial copyvio. As a result of the ensuing AN/I discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Breach of copyright in a locked article) several revisions of the article were deleted, and Blippy's edits were removed by an independent admin while the article remained fully protected.

Over a period of just under four days, Blippy engaged in slow edit warring by making daily reverts to re-add certain claims to the article. These scientific claims were sourced, rather dubiously, to The Village Voice (a tabloid newspaper). This edit warring began less than a day after the previous full protection of the article had expired.

1. 20 January
2. 22 January
3. 23 January
4. 23 January

Four separate editors disagreed with the use of the source and independently removed the claim from the article: Bhny, Noformation, Alexbrn, and AndyTheGrump. Several editors tried, and failed, to explain their concerns to Blippy at Talk:Blacklight Power#Village Voice addition.

When Blippy was cautioned (by me, TenOfAllTrades; see diff below) about edit warring on the content, he decided instead to start edit warring to add a {{POV}} template to the article. So far, we're up to three attempts – in less than 24 hours – to 'spite tag' the article since he couldn't get his way.

1. 24 January
2. 24 January
3. 24 January

On the talk page, he justifies his action by claiming that "many of the editors [t]here seem to be justifying their removal of such material based on personal animosity toward BLP [Blacklight Power]": Talk:Blacklight Power#NPOV. Once again, on the matter of the tag he is a lone holdout against the consensus of several different editors, including Alexbrn, Roxy the dog, and Jim1138.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. On 18 November 2013 Blippy was notified of the discretionary sanctions applying to pseudoscience topics by Bbb23 (talk · contribs).
2. On 23 January (yesterday) Blippy was explicitly cautioned by me – TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs) – that edit warring could lead to a block or topic ban; he then immediately began edit warring to add a {POV} tag to the article.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At this point, it doesn't seem likely that this editor will be able to contribute positively on this topic, as he has been edit warring continuously and making baseless insinuations of bad faith ever since the article's full protection expired—protection which was the result of Blippy's own earlier edit warring. While Blippy's only recent edits have been to Blacklight Power and its talk page, I very much doubt that encouraging him to bring his approach to any other articles in this topic area would be helpful. I would therefore recommend a topic ban on cold fusion and fringe energy topics, broadly construed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Fair enough; his recent edits have essentially all be related to his editing (and edit warring) at Blacklight Power. Looking a bit deeper into Blippy's contribution history – something that I hadn't really taken the time to do until now – is interesting-bordering-on-informative: Blippy's last 500 edits. Blippy was a relatively prolific editor back in August 2009, but received a 24-hour 3RR block for edit warring over a {POV} tag (sound familiar?) during some heated editing at Sense About Science, and then disappeared from the project – at least as a logged-in editor under this account name – for four years. In November 2013 Blippy made dozens of contentious edits at Rupert Sheldrake and its talk page (and on a few noticeboards related to that dispute), apparently edit warring just as vigorously then as he is now (per Vzaak's evidence below). His editing on Sheldrake virtually stopped when he was warned about discretionary sanctions, leading to another hiatus—this time for just two months. From mid-January to the present we have the extant edit warring and IDHT behavior at Blacklight Power, only briefly interrupted by a page protection.

All of the pages involved relate to fringe and pseudoscience in some way, with Blippy attempting, against consensus and using the same disruptive tactics, to weaken Wikipedia's reporting of the mainstream scientific position. Based on his pattern, a page ban will solve the problem at Blacklight Power, there will be a reprieve for a few weeks or months, and then Blippy will find another fringe-science article that he feels is unfairly skeptical and resume his disruptive editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

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.

This disagreement revolves around the second & final lede para which reads (with my proposed addition in italics):

The proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics and critics have ruled it out on those grounds, with some labelling it "fraud", "extremely unlikely", lacking corroborating scientific evidence, and a relic of cold fusion. In 2009 IEEE Spectrum magazine characterised it as a "loser" technology because "most experts don’t believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don’t present convincing evidence", however other scientists have expressed interest in exploring his work further.

My proposed edit attempted to provide a summary of relevant material that appears further down in the article (that some scientists consider BLP's claims worthy of investigation) which is not otherwise represented in the lede viz.:

By 2000, Mills raised $25 million in funding for the company, recruiting several researchers to sit on the board, which subsequently included representatives of venture capital firms, a former CEO of Westinghouse and turnaround expert Michael H. Jordan...

In 2013 BLP was one of 54 applicants to receive ~$1.1M grant from the New Jersey Economic Development Authority and was awarded a Trailblazer award by the New Jersey Technology Council.

Around 2002 the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) granted a Phase I grant to Anthony Marchese, a mechanical engineer at Rowan University, to study a possible rocket propulsion that would use hydrinos.

In a 2007 review of cold fusion research, researcher Edmund Storms put forward the hydrino model as a possible explanation for cold fusion.

In 2012 after investigating the BLP process, both Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary of Rowan University and Professor of Chemical Engineering at University of California, Santa Barbara, W. Henry Weinberg claimed that the BLP process is legitimate.

I believed that adding something along the lines of however other scientists have expressed interest in exploring [BLP's] work further was a reasonable summary of this content. The fact that BLP have had independent investigators supportive of their claims, and they (and others) have published many articles in peer reviewed journals, are some of the most notable things about BLP (as compared to other 'free energy' types), and this information is an important part of the BLP story which I believe should be reflected in the lede of any fair WP article on them.

I have engaged with other editors on the Talk page, but often they would revert and/or make broadly dismissive comments - often ad hominem in nature - but then not respond to the responses I made to their criticism (the editor lodging this complaint being a case in point). I accepted that the consensus was not to include my (or a similar) edit in the lede, but I believed this consensus to be in violation of NPOV, so introduced the POV tag in the hope of attracting the attention of more editors beyond those who - in their comments - had been expressing hostility toward BLP in a way which seemed to colour their perspective on my proposed edit. However, the tag was also deemed inappropriate. I was half way through seeking some different views via the dispute resolution form when I received notification of this process, which I believe means that avenue can no longer be pursued. Hopefully this process will generate sufficient interest from disinterested editors to resolve the matter one way or another - I'm always open to learning from mistakes I make (the copyvio business for instance), and readily acknowledge that being in the midst of a disagreement can skew one's perspective and judgement beyond what is reasonable, so I am very open to the advice of those who have no strong views either way on BLP. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TenOfAllTrades not only fails to demonstrate edit warring in the diffs provided but doesn't seem to be understand WP:Consensus. "After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change it." Simply reverting the edit at this stage is not an option. "When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." Before reverting, editors are to discuss the added material. Yet Bhny reverted the edit in question without prior discussion. In his comment he justified the revert with the claim, "(need better source than Mills...)" indicating that he didn't know Blippy's source was a major US urban weekly, The Village Voice, which is cited in countless articles throughout Wikipedia and undeniably a reliable source (and no, WP:RS doesn't set a different standard of reliability for science articles). Yet TenOfAllTrades carries on the charade, claiming in his request that the material is "rather dubiously" sourced, though he knows it's the Voice, not a press release from Mills, as Bhny apparently believed.

Bhny additionally claimed in his revert that he "removed weasely 'some scientists.'" Again, WP:Consensus: "An edit which is not clearly an improvement may often be improved by rewording." One way to fix the problem would simply be to quote from the cited article, which reads: "More quietly, however, some scientists are taking notice." This way the reader knows the "weasel word" is in the source itself and not a poor characterization on Blippy's part (and yes, "some" is a useful word, meaning neither "none" nor "all"). Instead of leaving the added sentence alone or changing it into a direct quote, Bhny chose to edit war. Not content to see Bhny have all the fun, Noformation jumped in and reverted with the same (weaselly) non-justification. 91.221.58.5 later supplied the third revert with no comment whatsoever. Seems that once a couple of reverts have occurred, the fact that they're not based on policy is no barrier to adding more. The final member of the tag team was AndyTheGrump, who justified his revert by noting a failure of consensus on the talk page.

Yet the talk page discussion reveals no willingness on the part of the dissenting editors to base their objections on actual policy. Aside from declaring himself "a little uncomfortable with using the Village Voice" as a source, Noformation claims we need to know why "any particular scientist is interested in this technology," implying that the editor, Noformation, is more of an expert on this sort of thing than the scientists in question. It goes without saying that no Wikipedia policy justifies Noformation's demand for extra information. According to Jim1138, "one can almost always find 'other scientists' who support a dubious claim." The point, however, is that a reliable source reports that some scientists, even if Jim1138 knows better, aren't convinced that Mills' claim is dubious. TenOfAllTrades steps into the breach with the following zinger: "The problem with 'some scientists believe' and variations on the theme is that it is true for virtually any assertion you might wish to make." Guess what, Ten, the claim is legitimized by the presence of a reliable source. By contrast, "virtually any assertion" doesn't have sources backing it up, so we don't have to worry about "virtually any assertion" worming its way into Wikipedia. Alexbrn chimes in to claim the edit is "not neutral," as if accurately paraphrasing a reliable source could somehow be construed as POV. It's POV when it's not sourced, when it's the editor's opinion. Again, what we have here is a complete failure to comprehend policy.

According to Andy, the "viewpoint isn't 'significant' if it is held by a tiny minority, by definition." And this takes us right to the heart of the problem. The defining characteristic of science is that no final answers are ever given (and no deity exists to ladle them out). The assumption is always that some of what we think we know will turn out to be false. It's because scientists can sometimes get it wrong that we don't call them priests. Scientists are all too aware of how easily orthodoxy crumbles in the fact of continued questioning and investigation, and it appears that in this case at least a small number of them think they may have found a crack in the wall. Thanks to Blippy, Wikipedia is now in possession of a source making this claim. The other editors' job was to make sure the sourced material was accurately conveyed in the article. Instead they engaged in pointless chatter while brazenly triggering an edit war and, worse, blaming it on the injured party. "Edit warring," according to WP:EW, "is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus," or in this case impossible since the dissenting editors plainly refuse to rationally engage Blippy's edit. At the very least, they should receive a warning that blocking consensus is unacceptable.

No rational observer would grant this request. To rule in favor of the dissenting editors is to demonstrate contempt not only for Wikipedia policy but the scientific project. Appeals to WP:ARB/PS only serve to distract from the real issue. This isn't about pseudoscience; it's about a clique of clueless editors misrepresenting science. Discretionary sanctions, intended to "tackle misconduct," are instead applied by administrators at the behest of science-confused editors so as to preempt usual Wikipedia policy and remove editors who don't share their ignorance or tolerate their misconduct. Alfonzo Green (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blippy warred extensively at Rupert Sheldrake.

• Warring to remove reference to the Sokal hoax: [1][2][3][4][5][6]
• Warring to give Sheldrake the title of "biologist": [7][8][9][10]
• Warring to add a hearsay Dawkins quote: [11][12][13][14][15]
• Warring to add the POV tag: [16][17][18][19]

I had implored everyone to read the instructions for the POV tag[20][21], but despite the instructions saying Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article, Blippy added the tag with comment, "we should warn readers".[22]

There was a competency issue as well: syntax problems in wikitext, adding a quote that appeared in the very next section, and basically warring without understanding what is being warred.[23] Blippy had also jumbled up the timeline, introducing errors, which was very time-consuming to fix.[24]

Please consider extending this request to cover pseudoscience and fringe science. vzaak 02:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recent comment by TenOfAllTrades reminded me of my other run-in with Blippy at Mars effect, where he made a short push against the scientific consensus,[25][26] claiming "the statistical correlation exists".[27][28]

Looking back further, there is some wild warring at Arthur C. Clarke; relevant phrase is "about 50 cases that are hard to explain": [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]

And warring at Scientific skepticism: [37][38][39]

And apparent warring at Ian Stevenson too, though I haven't looked into the details.

In all cases I've seen, Blippy's warring is a push against policies such as WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL. Blippy is a time sink on editors who could be doing something more productive than fixing Blippy's policy-violating edits. As TenOfAllTrades describes, there is a long term pattern of behavior here which is unlikely to change. I might call it "push and run": cause just enough disruption to fall short of serious administrative action, then leave. Sandstein is looking for recent edits, but we should also learn from history. vzaak 17:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vzaak (talk · contribs) summarises the issues at Rupert Sheldrake above, but there appears to be a wider problem. Looking at special:contributions/Blippy it is apparent that Blippy (talk · contribs) is either unwilling or unable to understand and implement WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:MAINSTREAM, and therefore anti-Wikipedia per WP:NOTHERE, and I think a ban on all fringe and pseudoscience-related articles broadly construed is unfortunately necessary. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blippy edit-warred to keep his changes to the article. Later he edit-warred again to put a POV tag (diffs were already provided by TenOfAllTrades). If you look at his changes, he is removing negative material and introduceing promotional material. One of his removals of negative material[40] was not noticed by other editors, and the material was absent from the article during 14 days.

Note the snarky and unhelpful replies [41][42]. The assumption that editors who oppose his edits are "hostile"[43]. He broadly dismisses all arguments, saying the editors are not being intellectually honest: "(...) yet so far the responses to my NPOV concerns have included personal attacks ("POV-pusher", "credulous"), broadbrush dismissal (WP not a platform for nonsense), whimsy, and unilateral declarations of truth ("there is no neutrality problem"). How about some intellectually honest engagement with the issue?"[44]. This is a battleground mentality. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_12#Snowstorm_of_drive_by_edits_by_Blippy. Blippy provides 3 sources, and other people tell him that there are problems with his suggestion. Blippy displays WP:ICANTHEARYOU the whole section, and uses snarky and unhelpful replies near the end. Other editors give up on reasoning with him. He gets told to go to WP:RS/N, but he never does it. When challenged about it, he plays the victim [45]. Soon, the thread died down without any improvement to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a long-term problem. Back in August 2009, he gets told that his last edit has a lot of issues, and he plays the victim "I shall endeavour to ignore your hostility and provide a civil response. "[46]. When he gets told of a lot more issues, he dismisses all of them and tells the other editor that he is assuming bad faith, then makes a condescending comment that he will take the suggestions into account [47]. Later, his proposed edit keeps being rejected and he makes unconstructive comments on the other editor [48]. In the end, the other editors re-wrote the discussed paragraph.

Always attempts to give undue weight to quotes and sources that are positive towards fringe subjects. Maybe he feels they are treated unfairly in wikipedia, or something.

When told about weight and POV, he reacts badly (see diffs above). When he can't counter the other editor's arguments, he seems to resort to civil accusations of bad faith and non-neutrality. The ones I have seen were enveloped in exquisite civility, and they were baseless. They feel like a technique to avoid discussion and get his edits introduced despite the objections. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blippy is unable to discuss issues in the terms required at Wikipedia, as shown in my recent interaction at Talk:BlackLight Power#NPOV. At "00:18, 25 January 2014" (diff) my brief comment focuses on a single policy link (WP:SYNTH). After a reply by Blippy, I asked for a response to the substance of my comment. Blippy then replied "It's hard to know which of your claims you think is substantive" (diff) in a comment that again deflects from the point, namely that an article should not be padded with text that suggests there may be scientific support for the claim that the company has a new energy source. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of the moment I am writing this Blippy has made 150 edits to articles since he returned to Wikipedia in early November. Of those edits:

88 (58.6%) are POV pushes

23 (15.3%) are arbitrarily rearranging articles and rephrasing sentences

19 (12.6%) have been redacted

11 (7.3%) were actual edits

8 (5.3%) fixed errors (many of which were his own errors)

1 (0.6%) tried to fix an error, but failed.

I would also like to point out that some of his edits have rather dishonest edit summaries.

[[49]] Changed scientists to some scientists. Marked it as a copy edit.

[[50]] Changed journal to journals (implying more than one). Marked it as a copy edit.

[[51]] Called Sheldrake a “Research Fellow of the Royal Society”. Marked it as a copy edit.

[[52]] Called morphic resonance a theory. Marked it as a copy edit.

[[53]]. Changes “advocacy” into “research”. Marked it as a copy edit.

In determining Blippy’s future on Wikipedia please consider the fact that he has done more harm than good. Though he certainly doesn’t approach User:Abd in terms of magnitude or length of disruption, Bilppy’s combination of POV-pushing, incompetence, and a generally foul attitude make him a textbook WP:RANDY. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As context for why IP 76.107.171.90 would classify some the edit summaries as "rather dishonest",

• Whether or not to call "morphic resonance" a theory had been the subject of several protracted discussions on the talk page such as Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Discussion:_theory_.2F_hypothesis_.2F_concept and so swapping back in that controversial language under the edit summary merely indicating "copy edit" is misleading at best.
• likewise, the appropriateness of the Research Fellow was/had recently been a topic of editorial concern and disagreement Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_4#Sheldrake_is_not_a_Fellow_of_the_Royal_Society

the others are pretty clear in their effect to create the impression that Sheldrake's work is more highly regarded than it actually is and are not merely copyedits for grammar or clarity. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

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

In arbitration enforcement, we cannot resolve content issues, such as whether the article should be modified the way Blippy wants it to be. What we can address is editor conduct, and the complaint demonstrates that Blippy has engaged in edit-warring, in violation of WP:EW. On these grounds, I believe a ban from the article Blacklight Power and its talk page is appropriate. A broader topic ban, such as the sanctions TenOfAllTrades and Vzaak suggest, might be considered if there is evidence of recent disruptive conduct with respect to other articles. Vzaak's evidence concerning Rupert Sheldrake is from November 2013 and therefore probably too old to be actionable now.  Sandstein  09:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If one reads through Blippy's list of contributions, one does get the impression Vzaak describes: Blippy seemingly only edits a variety of fringe- or pseudoscience topics, and almost always does so by edit-warring with others over matters such as "POV" tags. It seems he is only here to make Wikipedia portray an array of fringe- or pseudoscience topics in a more positive (or less negative) light. Agenda-driven editing of any sort is not welcome on Wikipedia (see WP:NPOV, which also applies as a conduct rule). I'd welcome other admins' opinions about whether this is a basis for a ban from the whole field of fringe- and pseudoscience.  Sandstein  19:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklight Power is proposing to generate power through a mechanism that contradicts well-accepted physics. If this really happened, it would be epochal. The fact that no mainstream publications give their hypothesis credence is what should matter for Wikipedia. It's well within the domain of WP:ARBPS to issue sanctions to an editor who insists on wanting our articles to recognize a scientific hypothesis that hasn't received mainstream notice. If people working for Blacklight Power get an article accepted in the Physical Review then we should start paying attention. I support Sandstein's proposal for a ban of this editor from fringe and pseudoscience-related topics on all pages of Wikipeda, including Blacklight Power. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the request to be quite convincing, in that action is needed to prevent the disruption. Whilst I agree with Sandstein that edits from Nov 2013 aren't actionable, in this case they do from a pretty convincing pattern of behaviour. Given the long running history of disruptive edits I agree that a topic ban from fringe and pseudoscience-related topics would be appropriate, however I'd prefer it had a 6 month expiry date. After the initial 6 months, if Blippy begins disruptive editing again it won't be difficult to make a case for a longer or indefinite TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

HouseOfArtaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, imposed at [here].

Administrator imposing the sanction

EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

I would like to appeal a six month ban I was given three months ago. The requester cites a dispute on the Shushi article. He says I was ignoring the discussion on the talk page, but I was very active in it. He also claims I was edit warring, but I had only undone two edits, the same amount as he himself, and did not violate the three per day rule or anything that directly merited punishment. I feel the request to ban me was more like a ban for having a different opinion and EdJohnson rushed to place a ban. I think this was a relatively small incident that was reacted to too harshly. Considering almost all of my edits are focused around Armenian topics, most of which aren't controversial, I think half a year is too long of a sanction and that three months is plenty. Having already spent half the time banned, I want to request it be removed now. I promise I will not do any undoing during my next talk regardless of if the other editor does it or not. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HouseOfArtaxiad has done very little editing since the closure of the original AE in November 2013 that led to his ban. So this should be viewed as though it was an immediate appeal in which he challenges the grounds presented at AE for the sanction.

• For reference, the original AE discussion was here.
• The prior ANI discussion was here. The bottom line of that ANI was summarized by User:Drmies as: "HouseOfArtaxiad, you are hereby warned that your behavior is unacceptable and blockable".

In my opinion, the appeal should be judged on whether HouseOfArtaxiad effectively refutes the points raised in the above two discussions. To save following a lot of links, here was the original argument I presented:

Regarding HoA's claim that 'EdJohnston rushed to place a ban', please note that User:Sandstein and User:Drmies also supported this action. In terms of 'rushing', the complaint was opened on 8 November and closed on 15 November. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This appeal isn't going anywhere, and may be archived, if the sanctioning administrator is not notified of the appeal by the appellant, as instructed in the template. Then we normally wait for the sanctioning admin to make a statement.  Sandstein  09:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I now see that I voiced support for the ban in the discussion about the enforcement request that led up to the ban. But this appeal does not require us to examine whether the ban was appropriate to begin with. That's because HouseOfArtaxiad does not contest this. They only want the ban to end now rather than in three months.

  In my view, this appeal should be declined. First, on procedural grounds: such a request should have been made to the sanctioning admin first. Second, because HouseOfArtaxiad's assumptions about how sanctions work are mistaken. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. They should end as soon as they are no longer needed to prevent problematic behavior, not sooner and not later. This means that one can't argue that a less serious infraction (which HouseOfArtaxiad believes this was) must automatically result in a sanction of a shorter duration.

  In order for us to be able to determine whether the ban is no longer needed at this time, HouseOfArtaxiad would need to address their misconduct that caused the ban, and explain why it will not reoccur (see, by analogy, WP:GAB). Because HouseOfArtaxiad doesn't do that here (instead, they attempt to play down the significance of their misconduct), and because their lack of an editing record since the imposition of the ban doesn't allow us to infer that they will edit non-disruptively if unbanned, I don't see an argument for why the ban should be lifted now rather than later.  Sandstein  21:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Sandstein on this one. Given that HouseOfArtaxiad has been mostly inactive there is no evidence that they would be able to edit constructively in this topic so the appeal is, in effect, that there was no evidence to ban and hence that the administrators acted outside the DS policy. I find both of these to be groundless so recommend declining the appeal until HouseOfArtaxiad can present evidence that the ban is no longer needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• If HouseOfArtaxiad had established a pattern of unproblematic editing in a different subject area over the last three months, I'd look very favourably at ending the topic ban early or perhaps replacing it with a looser restriction. As it is, HouseOfArtaxiad has hardly edited at all since the topic ban. The idea is not that a sanctioned editor simply waits out the duration of the sanction (this isn't some virtual game of chicken), but that when the sanction ends, the editor comes back with a clear idea of where they went wrong and how to avoid doing so in future (preferably informed by editing something less controversial). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IRWolfie- (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wavyinfinity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience

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

This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia WP:NOTHERE. See their userpage for their planned war on astrophysics etc. He, according to his edits, believes the big bang theory and black holes are pseudoscience [54] (29th November 2013) and he is pushing that in articles. He has made several article creations which clearly violate WP:FRINGE, and has continued to POV push despite being warned about discretionary sanctions. Fringe examples (in approximately reverse chronological order):

• Creation of article about a fringe theorist who is not notable and not putting the fringe views into any source of context: [55] (21st January 2014)
  • Also see Stephen J. Crothers
• Creation of a BLP violation listing unsourced "dissenters": List of Big Bang Cosmology Dissidents (27th January (2014))
• Water down article lead: [56](26th November) on a fringe theory which was specifically subject to an Arbitration case.
• Creation of Stellar metamorphosis, based on his fringe theory that planets are actually stars and part of the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stellar_metamorphosis, read Wavyinfinity's comments, they are illuminating) also see closing admin rationale: [57] (17 June 2013).
  • Creation of Grey dwarf, images File:Differing Matter Content of the Milky Way Galaxy.png, File:Long Hertzsprung Russell Diagram.jpg.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 26 Nov 2013 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think its quite clear that the editor has been pushing crank theories on wikipedia, despite warnings, and an indefinite topic ban is required considering the duration of the issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notification: [58]

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.

User is explicitly advocating a warfare mentality: "The War on Astrophysical Scientism: For those students who have resisted the conditioning of the thousands of astronomy professors a method for battling the dogma I have shown to be most effective is provided below. [...] We have a lot of un-brainwashing of the masses to do."[59]

Also on the user's page are statements such as "The neutrino does not exist", "The Higgs Boson is political propaganda", and "Mathematical physicists are very dangerous". The page was deleted before and should be deleted again. vzaak 18:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Considering their creation of clearly inappropriate fringe material in astrophysics topics like Stellar metamorphosis and their comments about particle physics, can this be extended to physics broadly? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• MastCell, I have no desire to continue discussion here, but why are baseless personal attacks against me allowed to stand on this forum? This is the third time that Montanabw has stalked me here and attacked me without evidence: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139#Statement_by_.28uninvolved.29_Montanabw Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#Statement_by_Montanabw and the material is allowed to stand. In this particular case he even openly speculates that I was baiting the individual despite the offending incidents happening in November, December and January, when I was not even editing wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If this doesn't demonstrate WP:POINT and WP:POVPUSH I don't know what does: [60]. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While this request seems to have merit, I would like to make sure that a sanction is for actions that fall under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Competence might be preferred, but unfortunately especially in some cases, incompetence is not a sanctionable offense. "Crank" theories are allowable if notable, so a sanction of whatever time period the sanctioning admin thinks necessary seems to be per the pushing of those theories and the battleground behaviour while trying to include those theories rather than writing about the theories themselves in an incompetent manner. This is perhaps a subtle but necessary clarification?(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Hello Wolfie: Why do you think that because you are here my comments have to do with you. They have to do with a clarification in Sandstein's statement and in fact I have commented on several arbitration/AE cases recently; this is simply another one. Perhaps you can point me to a policy that allows for sanctions based on editors who are incompetent in some area of Wikipedia as we all are at some time. I am suggesting to Sandstein that POV pushing and battleground behaviours are in fact sanctionable and I am asking for a clarification and delineation of those issues from incompetence. Perhaps you could let Sandstein deal with this. I don't need a response from him; this is simply a comment. I have no concern one way or the other with the sanction but I do most certainly intend to comment when I wish to clarify statements . I'm sorry that you've use this as an opportunity to muddy the waters and to try and bully me. (Littleolive oil (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

This is an AE which specifically asks for input from involved and uninvolved editors. I note your actions here and am on to other things.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Mastcell: Please do not mischaracterize what happened here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Sandstein. Why Are you reprimanding and threatening one editor here and not another. You allow Wolfie to make multiple uncivil comments which have nothing to do with a simple comment I originally posted here , poisoning the well of this discussion. Wolfie is an editor who edits in fringe topic areas and so is aware of the discretionary sanctions, Montana is not. Wolfie originally raised issue which have nothing to do with this AE yet that's acceptable?. Yet you pursue Monatana and ignore Wolfie when there are problems. I assume you will do what you want here, but don't pretend any of it is fair and certainly not logical. And how often will you allow another editor to poison the well of a discussion in areas you patrol.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

A read of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision indicates to me that we focus on the content first. While in this case, I happen to agree that yes, denial of the Big Bang Theory and the existence of the neutrino (etc.) IS indeed a WP:FRINGE belief, and yes WP:COMPETENCE is "required", nonetheless, caution is in order here. If someone has a blatent POV that they are pushing and it can be clearly identified as fringe, then of course that material need not be included and they just need to get over it. But sanctioning the person for their beliefs, however mistaken, may not be needed. A person's user page is evidence of a POV, but not necessarily evidence of their approach to editing, diffs of specific behavior are more at issue. The person's behavior needs to be evaluated separately and in view of their total participation on wikipedia; a simple "ban them from the topic just because they are interested in it" approach is seldom helpful and generally generates more heat than light. Obviously, a one-topic/article account is a near-automatic red flag, but this person has been around for several months and while I do not agree with his/her views, they seem to be engaging in mostly harmless-if-fringe free speech. Similarly, if the individual merely argues a non-mainstream viewpoint in an appropriate fashion but ultimately cannot express their POV without attacking others; then appropriate wiki-wide sanctions may be appropriate. (Occasional flareups of temper being understandable, particularly when WP:BAITed, though WP:ROPE applies as well) But a topic ban for having a POV is generally a poor solution and usually just leads to more people running to the teacher, crying, "I'm telling." (Offtopic content suppressed,  Sandstein  21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)). Montanabw^(talk) 17:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Further offtopic content suppressed,  Sandstein  21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

@Sandstein, I am confused; you say that I cannot make statements without evidence, but when I present evidence, it's "suppressed," along with my original concerns. Yet the actions leading to the issues that I raised regarding a different editor's comments, and that editor's responses above, are not similarly suppressed. So do clarify. If links as diffs is all you need, then I shall supply them. If you wish to rachet down the heat, then also suppress the comments of the user who I addressed. I have no desire to be banned from discussing this topic, I seek guidance. Montanabw^(talk) 02:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IR Wolfie- and Sandstein, I happen to agree that the views of Wavyinfinity are very much WP:FRINGE. Just so there is no misunderstanding of that issue. It's the tone that's my concern. And indeed, I have never been involved (to my recollection, though correct me should I err) with any of the articles that gave rise tp the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions until today. Full disclosure: Wolfie and I have spatted over animal-assisted therapy article(s), but after some debate, I have acquiesced in having his edits/views on those articles stand per MEDRS until or unless I get the motivation to do more MEDRS editing on those articles. Montanabw^(talk) 02:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mastcell, your statement is understood by me and I can accept your initial comments. That said, Sandstein's "warning" is inappropriate, as I have never edited in any of the articles I understand to have been part of the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions discussion. I still think he needs to strike his "warning" Montanabw^(talk) 02:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The request has merit. A look at the editor's relatively few edits indicate that they are only here to promote what appear to be fringe ideas in cosmology, often confrontationally and less than competently. For example, on 19 January, they inserted a rather odd and unsourced text into Nebular hypothesis ([61]). Their conduct is at odds with such policies as WP:RS and WP:UNDUE as applied to scientific topics. To the extent that fringe theories of this sort deserve coverage, that coverage should be written by people with experience in the field and who know how to cite sources and write encyclopedic content, and not by excited laypersons with an agenda. I would support a topic ban from everything related to cosmology.  Sandstein  18:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Sandstein, I believe this request has merit. In some cases we're forced to infer the motivation behind an editor's behavior, but in this case the editor himself has made clear his intent to use Wikipedia as part of his strategy to discredit and replace modern astrophysics ([62]). This is the textbook example of an editor who is here to Right Great Wrongs, to use Wikipedia as a battleground to advance his personal agenda, and to use this project as a platform to promote a fringe belief. All of those are sanctionable conduct issues in and of themselves, and all the more so in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. As such, I agree with Sandstein that an indefinite topic ban from topics related to astrophysics and cosmology is appropriate.

  To avoid the usual lamentation about editors being sanctioned for holding "unpopular" or minoritarian views, let's be clear. The issue here is not Wavyinfinity's personal views, but rather his obvious intent to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote them at the expense of our basic content policies. Additionally, this forum is not a venue for the continuation of unrelated inter-personal disputes like that between IRWolfie, Littleoliveoil, and Montanabw. Please raise whatever concerns you have in the proper venue and stop attacking each other here. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite true. I have warned Montanabw for their personal attacks.  Sandstein  18:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Montanabw: No, I'll not remove my warning. You must not make allegations of misconduct without evidence, and you must not misuse this noticeboard to pursue your own grievances that are unrelated to the topic of this request. In addition, you link to a long thread, which isn't useful as evidence, rather to a diff. I have suppressed your offtopic contributions, and if you continue to misuse this forum, you will be prevented from doing so again.  Sandstein  21:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: Per the above discussion, Wavyinfinity is topic-banned from everything related to astrophyics or cosmology.  Sandstein  13:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NE Ent 22:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Motion_.28Mathsci.29AME#SECTION

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Request for clarification (October 2013) Sorry about that NE Ent 23:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. [63] Violation of site ban.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on [64] removed post, encouraged editor to wait prescribed six month period before appealing

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[65]

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.

Here is what I wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Banned_user_suggesting_edits

A curious situation has arisen regarding Mathsci (talk · contribs), who was banned for harassment by the Arbitration Committee in October 2013 [66]. He has apparently been sending emails to User:Rschwieb suggesting edits to the article Mutation (algebra), as reported here. He has also edited his own talk page [67] to make similar suggestions.

The suggestions (on the talk page: I have not seen any emails) do not seem unconstructive in themselves, although I would not necessarily accept them. There is of course a general position in Wikipedia:Banning policy that "Bans apply to all editing, good or bad". However I would add a personal concern. In April 2013 I had a rather unpleasant experience with Mathsci in which he displayed a surprisingly aggressive level of ownership: condescending unwillingness to engage in serious collegial discussion and lack of interest in finding consensus. I was not happy with the situation and decided to remove myself from the conflict [68] -- Mathsci's response [69] did not demonstrate any desire on his part to resolve the situation. I recently decided to resume editing (some time after Mathsci's ban). My concern is that Mathsci's comments relate to the article Mutation (algebra) which I created less than a week ago. It seems disturbingly likely that Mathsci, while banned, is in fact following my edits and is attempting to influence other editors to edit the articles that I am working on. This could be considered disturbing, although I am myself quite happy to consider any sensible and constructive suggestions he has to make, provided they are not accompanied by his previous levels of condescension.

I then added

Followup: in these edits Mathsci condescendingly emphasises that in his opinion I should not have created the article in question at all. I am sorry that his response to my posting here is to continue his entirely negative attitude towards me and my edits -- if Mathsci had been able to take a more collegial line, I would have been inclined to view this situation more positively. As a direct result of his response, I now suggest that normal banning policy be applied, that Mathsci's email and access to his talk page be revoked, and that the one-year timer on any possible ban appeal be reset to today.

It seems to me that Mathsci is intent on continuing the fight he was trying to pick with me last April. I refuse to play these games. Deltahedron (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathsci has described the comments he has been making at his talk page and by email as "very general and vague mathematical comments not related to any specific content" [70]. This is untrue. As I point out above, they were aimed specifically at an article I created only a few days ago. I find that disturbing. Deltahedron (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sandstein: as documented above, Mathsci had already been emailing another editor in an attempt to influence the editing of an article (which I had just started) before he posted similar comments at his own talk page. He has been using both forms of communication to persuade other editors to edit, or not to edit, articles, in contravention of his ban. Deltahedron (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear and obvious violation of the site ban. At a bare minimum, I would suggest that an account block (including talk page access and e-mail access) and a reset of repeals (originally six months) to the date that this request is closed is in order. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The proper link to the Clarification request from October 2013 is Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Request for clarification (October 2013). This AE is a complaint that Mathsci is improperly trying to influence article content by leaving messages on his talk page while blocked. This seems correct. It is reasonable to warn him to stop this, or his talk page may be disabled. EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EdJohnston: Given that, in reply to your comment, Mathsci has tried to excuse the edit and in so doing continued to try and influence article content would you support removing talk page access? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be in favour of removing talk page access. The rules for being site-banned re use of the talk page are pretty clear. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it seems we aren't authorized to do anything here qua AE. That's because the enforcement remedy, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Enforcement, only allows blocks in response to topic ban violations (which this isn't), or discretionary sanctions (which do not cover the topic of these edits). That is to say, this site ban violation can only be responded to using normal administrator authority. Talk page access removal appears appropriate to me.  Sandstein  07:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that we aren't permitted to do anything here the first sentence in the instruction box at the top of this page states that "enforcement requests against users may be brought if a user is likely to be acting in breach of the remedies in a closed arbitration case" which is exactly what this request is about. Likewise blocking a user banned by an arbitration decision isn't expressly permitted by the enforcement provision but is apart of the decision to site ban as is this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with User:Callanecc here. Arbcom passed a remedy site banning Mathsci, Mathsci has pretty clearly breached that ban by using his talk page to continue trying to influence content (see WP:SITEBAN, which says "Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below."). It seems pretty open and shut to me, and removing talkpage/email access seems appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
      • I don't disagree that we can and should remove talk page access for the ban violation, but perhaps we can't do it with the "special" AE authority, for lack of a remedy authorizing us to do so. What are the grounds for removing e-mail access as well?  Sandstein  14:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I totally agree that Mathsci has broken his ban and his response to Ed Johnson does not suggest he is taking the hint. I have removed his talk page access but left his email on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to emails from Mathsci he now gets it and will cease requesting proxy edits. I have therefore unlocked his talk. In the event of any evidence that he has resumed, his talk and email should be immediately turned off without discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should be closed with no further action since Mathsci now seems willing to follow the terms of his ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

• Momento (talk · contribs) / Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• I have informed The Blade of the Northern Light of this appeal.[71]

• Indefinite topic ban since November 16th 2012 from all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat for persistent battleground behaviour [72]

Correct link to the notification: [73] Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs)

Thank you.MOMENTO (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On November 15th 2012 I was indefinitely topic-banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights, for “persistent battleground behaviour” but he provides no evidence or diffs to support that charge or any other.

HISTORY In the second half of 2012 the Prem Rawat article resembled a battleground but I did not instigate it nor did I participate in it. On the contrary the main reason for that situation is the behaviour of one editor, PatW who has been warned for incivility and battleground behaviour nineteen times on his talk page and countless times on the PR talk pages.[74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91]

In the three months before I was topic banned PatW was warned twice by The Blade of the Northern Lights for his incivility. On August 25th - ‘'everyone, especially you PatW, needs to cool it. I get that each "side" here is frustrated with the other, but it's not that hard to review what you're saying and remove the invective from your post before hitting the save button”.[92] And again on September 3rd on PatW's talk page - “(Pat) you have to be more tactful in your approach. I came very close to banning you from the topic, but I've decided I should give you at least one personal note to alert you to the fact that you're on my radar screen" but to no avail.[93]

On the same day on the Prem Rawat talk page a new uninvolved editor had this to say - “I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Memento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas. Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point.[94]

And on September 9th a new uninvolved editor had this to say - “PatW's incivility and accusations are somewhat beyond the pale. What he has done in the discussion…is attack”.[95]. “Pat I don't like being attacked, don't appreciate it at all…Attacking other editors out of hand whatever the history on that article will only bring you problems”.[96] And “Lets be clear (Pat). You have insulted me from the moment I stepped on the PR page…I removed myself from the PR article , but you continue to attack me as if the article and its problems are my fault…I won't continue to work on a page where I am consistently attacked".[97]

On November 14th 2012 PatW expanded his battleground to Jimbo Wales talk page calling me an “unconscionable idiot” [98] Rather than take exception to PatW’s disgraceful attack on a very public page The Blade of the Northern Lights decided to ban me. And then, after telling Rumiton that it wouldn't be fair to topic ban him since Rumiton hadn't returned "to what got him banned” in April, TBOTNL banned him anyway despite seven months of non-battleground editing.[99] PatW described his banning as “I have managed to get myself 'blown up' by my own bomb”. Exactly, PatW has been hurling bombs for years.

Despite being Topic Banned, PatW continued his war on Jimbo Wales talk page and on November 20th 2012 he was blocked "for deliberately attempting to link a Wikipedia editor to his real life identity". [100]

SUMMARY: No evidence was presented that shows me involved in “battleground behaviour” or incivility. No evidence was presented that show me editing in a POV or inappropriate way. In fact, no evidence of any sort justifies this ban.

@The Blade of the Northern Light comment of 17:18, 7 February 2014: Here is a link that details the edits I made, why they were made, the policy that prompted the change and the edits I made that TBOTNL didn't include that removed "positive" but superfluous material. The overall intention was to improve readability by removing the superfluous material both positive and negative that had been inserted by opposing factions in order to try and maintain POV balance. NOTE: The Prem Rawat article was being watched by 446 editors and 17 editors had edited the article in the preceding month, all of whom have the opportunity to object to edits clearly proposed in the talk page and none of them objected.[101]MOMENTO (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandfstein comment 21:50, 7 February 2014 : The desire to make the "Prem Rawat article better" is not the same as attempting to portray "Prem Rawat in a more positive light". I am what WP:SPA describes and allows as "a single-purpose account (who is a) well-intentioned editor with a niche interest". You have looked at the edits that TBOTNL provided to justify my ban and found they "are not on their face problematic and valid editorial reasons are imaginable for them". The very evidence that TBOTNL presented to show I am engaging in "battleground behaviour" shows the exact opposite. I am "editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area" and my editing is, in fact, "compatible with the goals of this project". Given that you "wouldn't have imposed the topic ban based on the evidence presented here by the sanctioning admin" it's hard to imagine your logic in extending the ban. Wikipedia needs experts and experts should be encouraged to edit Wikipedia, not banned because their expertise is limited to a niche area.MOMENTO (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven Zhang comment of 02:07, 8 February 2014: Would like to respond to Steven Zhang but, as per TBOTNL, no diffs are presented to support his POV.MOMENTO (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@. EdJohnston comment of 9 February 2014: It's easy to be blocked seven times when editors are too lazy to examine the facts that disagree with their prejudices. Perhaps you can supply my with the diffs you found that support your opinion? Here's one from me.[102]MOMENTO (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Little Olive Oil comment 9 February 2014: Yes, it is incredible to see the whole process of arbitration turned on its head to further people's personal agenda. Ironically I can't think of a Wiki policy or guideline that hasn't been trashed in this AE.MOMENTO (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DAY 3 ROUND UP: Having failed to provide any evidence or diffs to justify the original sanction or deny this appeal, the focus has been shifted to ban me as an SPA despite no evidence of improper editing and clear evidence to the contrary..MOMENTO (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DAY 4 ROUND UP: We now have four editors who have decided to ignore the fact that we are at WP:AE to judge my appeal of a specific sanction (Indefinitely topic-banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights, for “persistent battleground behaviour”). Rather than accept the fact that no evidence or diffs have been provided to justify the original sanction and the ban should therefore be lifted these four editors have side tracked the appeal and turned it into an evidence free witch hunt. Two reasons for extending the ban are given, one that I was sanction in 2010 and therefore should be sanctioned again and the other is that I'm an SPA which means I should be sanctioned. No evidence is given for either.MOMENTO (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CONCLUSION: Since TBOTNL has not been able to present any evidence to justify “an indefinite topic ban for persistent battleground behaviour” my appeal is successful and my ban must now be lifted. If any editors would like to open their own AE against me, go right ahead but this AE is over.MOMENTO (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My wiki-syntax is a little rusty right now, so I apologize in advance if my diffs are a little tough to navigate. When ArbCom looked at the bans I implemented in the days immediately afterward, in my statement there I pointed to a series of edits made in the days immediately before the topic ban; they're linked at said talkpage, I'll put them here for convenience. I'm not especially familiar with Rawat, but it's extremely obvious that these edits were removing criticism from reliable sources and slanting the article in a very pro-Rawat direction. The first several threads of Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 50 contain the discussion on the talkpage, and it makes it yet more obvious that this was the intent. If you click a few diffs ahead, you'll see DeCausa (talk · contribs) wholesale reverted said changes here and, later that day, Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) re-added some more criticism which Momento et al. had moved and removed. In his capacity as an editor Jimbo has spent some time handling the Prem Rawat article, which is an extremely long-running problem area, and the day that I implemented all the topic bans there was a fairly brief thread at Jimbo's talkpage wherein he expressed serious concerns about the state of the article as it was at the time.

As with Rumiton's ban, I discussed this with @Steven Zhang:, who has years of experience mediating at this article. He and I saw pretty much eye to eye on the intractability of the problem, and he too agreed the edits referenced above were obviously not neutral. And just as a quick note to any admins unfamiliar with the situation, the article at the time was under article probation and not the standard AE sanctions. When ArbCom looked at the situation they explicitly noted that what I did was in keeping with the sanctions in place, and several of them expressed their own concerns about the editing which was occurring before implementing the topic bans. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can pull everything apart in my big diff above; note that I'm not giving my own point of view on the truth or validity of any additions or removals. This is a removal of a well-sourced point of view that Rawat's movement was only to line his pockets. This is an edit which Momento agreed to on the talkpage, which obfuscates factual information regarding some customs issue Rawat got caught up in. Here is another removal of concerns people have expressed about Rawat being a cult leader, which is a widely discussed matter on the topic. And in addition, I have much the same concerns that MastCell below does—namely that WP:OWB#9 is applicable—and after reading Momento's statement I see nothing which indicates that he has any intention of changing his editing if allowed to edit Rawat articles again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue here -asking that the sanction be reviewed or lifting the sanction? We should not use past sanctions to muddy the water on what the issue is here, but should deal with behaviour since the last sanction unless WP is indeed punitive.

Disclaimer: I had very little prior knowledg of Prem Rawat or his organization but saw a comment on a talk page which led me to the article talk page where I then thought an uninvolved voice might be useful. These were my observations. My experience although short was that Momento was making good attempts to work collaboratively on the talk page. The battle ground sensibility and tone was not created by him but by two other editors. Blade's sanction was sweeping and did not delineate specific behaviours per specific editors. Jimbo Wale's addition was and should have been considered controversial, but he made that edit immediately editors were sanctioned so they could not discuss it with him, and he made the edit with out any discussion on the talk page, as I remember. What is happening here seems to me is that the lack of discrimination then, is necessary now. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Diffs of attempts to edit neutrality.

Momento consolidated positive content, reducing positive weight, [103][104], the same way he trims and consolidates here. Much of what he removes here is positive to Rawat. [105].. Why is this being used to show he removes negative to Rawat content rather than that his editing has become more neutral in how he deals with both pejorative and positive to Rawat content.

• Mastcell:

I remember clearly your support of Will Beback in the past. Given Will's position in reference to Momento I don't see you input here as being unbiased

I think you have a very good idea in asking Momento what he plans to do if the ban is lifted, and perhaps even better to suggest what he could be doing.

I would contest these comments made by Mastcell:

But so far this exercise seems to be simply another complaint about the technical and legalistic aspects of the original topic ban,

This editor was sanctioned with out a diff. With out diffs editors do not know exactly what they done to deserve a sanction nor what they can do to improve. With out asking for diffs how does an editor get a review. No editor should be criticized for asking for a review and for asking for diffs showing wrong doing. And no admin should first neglect to use diffs, but if they do, they should willingly be able to show them when asked. Wikipedia is not punishment based, apparently. People need to know what they can do to improve.

coupled with a continuation of combative battleground behavior

In my time on the page battleground and abusive behaviour was demonstrated by other editors. How Momento remained as collected as he did in that environment is hard to understand. Further, asking for a review of a sanction is not battleground behaviour. Wikipedia extends this right to editors. So, suggesting there is continued battle ground behaviour when there was no proof of battle ground behaviour to begin with is a circular argument and unfair.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• We cannot fairly sanction an editor because he has sanctioned before, or by comparing him to another editor who wasn't sanctioned, and why would an editor not be upset here when there is no evidence of battleground behaviour which is what he was sanctioned for. I feel sorry about this and ashamed. Diffs don't show what is said they do, no diffs of battleground beahviour, an editor improving, and still excuses raised right and left to make sure the sanction holds.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

A little history: I am also a SPA and joined .enWP solely for the reason of protecting the Rawat articles from the doings of a small, but vociferous group of Rawat-“critics“, who have succeeded in creating a sustained false balance in the articels, that was cleverly designed to appear as innocent neutrality to in this regard uneducated editors and admins. Especially after that notorious Cade Metz attack there seemed to be a proneness to avoid any positive statement on Prem Rawat in WP, enforced by admins like Will Beback or Maelefique, who displayed a considerable bias toward a „critical“ view of the subject, as they perhaps innocently understood their stance. These editors systematically looked the other way, when Rawat-supporters were attacked by members of that group, who frequently boasted about their feats on their forum. Of course admins can not be expected to keep track of such goings and their dubious background, as that requires special proficiency that is acquired only through special interest, like Momento, Rumiton and I have, after observing very closely the subject's history. The frequent impunity, with which detractors were able to ride their innuendos and attacks in the face of those admins has created a tricky climate of wild-west lawlessness and self-defence that was certainly one condition for the development of a bad style in the interaction of involved editors, namely a "battleground" situation. It got better, after TBotNL had announced strict enforcement of WP rules, but then that „nuclear solution“ brought everything to a dead stop. It's like the gunfight at the O.K. Corral had been decided by dropping a bomb on the whole scene indisciminately. I am convinced that under a more conscientious supervision Momento would not have given reason to consider such drastic measures as an infinite topic ban, and I believe that in a future setting with strict and neutral enforcement of WP-rules Momento can make valuable contributions to the article, without tripping over the pitfalls of weak leadership. Putting the article under DS seems to be a step into that direction. He should be given a new chance. He may not be the only one who needs a chance to learn.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not censored". Maybe this high principle is sometimes hard to live up to. I feel it is being subtly eroded, when an editor gets banned, although he can not be convicted of misconduct. No person should be sacrificed on the altars of mediocrity.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on this briefly as I was pinged by Blade. I think it's a really simple case here - Momento's editing over the last nine years has almost solely been regarding Prem Rawat. In my experience from my time mediating the Prem Rawat articles, I found some of the editors used tactics like stonewalling to prevent change, often being very unwilling to negotiate at all. Momento I believe has been one of these editors. He's had poor conduct in the past, and has been blocked several times due to this conduct. If he had an otherwise stellar record with edits to other articles then I'd recommend considering his topic ban. Looking at his editing since the topic ban being imposed, there's practically nothing other than talking about his topic ban, and has been keeping track of changes made to Rawat articles. In absence of redeeming conduct and past poor conduct, I recommend the topic ban remain in place, with it possible to be reconsidered if quality work is done elsewhere. Regards, Steven Zhang (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here because of Momento's wholly inappropriate canvassing on ANI (which, by the way, really just shows how out-of-touch they are).

A typical AE removal of restrictions request requires that the appelant a) show proof of positive editing since, and b) provide a suggestion of their "way forward" if future disputes arise. None of these exist in this appeal.

What the appelant does seem to be suggestion is that 1.25+ years later, the original topic ban should not have been applied anyway. It's FAR to late to make that arguement - especially considering past attempts at appeal. The appelant appears to be hoping a) we forget things and b) those involved in the original topic ban are absent.

From what I can see, the topic ban was in lieu of an obvious site ban/indef block due to their behaviour. They're FORTUNATE to have only recieved a topic ban.

Because it's way to late to appeal the original topic ban, we have to revert to the "appeal on time served/good behaviour" which is wholly absent. As such, I find the original topic ban to be valid, and no need to accept an appeal at this time. I would however suggest that Momento be topic-banned from further appeals for AT LEAST 6 months. ES&L 14:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the message with which they imposed the ban, The Blade of the Northern Light did not link to evidence of misconduct by Momento that would justify the ban. I would ask them to submit such evidence now in order to allow us to review this appeal. As concerns the rest of Momento's statement, what other editors may or may not have done is entirely irrelevant here because editors are sanctioned based only on their own conduct, not because of the conduct of others (see, by analogy, WP:NOTTHEM). The conduct of others should therefore not be discussed further here.  Sandstein  06:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot understand the situation at Prem Rawat without discussing the actions of the editors.MOMENTO (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Momento, your presentation of the case above makes it sound as if the conflict with PatW was some very recent situation. In reality, PatW was apparently blocked in November 2012, a few days after your topic ban. Can you please (a) reword your exposition so as to make the timeline more clear for the newcomer; (b) say something about how you expect your renewed involvement will play out in the present situation on that article; and (c) add some documentation of previous blocks, sanctions and attempted appeals in this matter? There seems to have been a quite extensive backstory of previous sanctions and blocks. Is it true that when you were topic-banned in Nov 2012, you had just previously come back from an earlier one-year topic ban imposed in Nov 2011, during which year you were repeatedly blocked for ban evasion, and that you had even earlier Arb sanctions on Prem Rawat in 2008 and 2010? Also, since your text above sounds as if you originally composed it shortly after the 2012 ban, did you in fact file this as an appeal previously? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would you like me to format my replies?MOMENTO (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a) Done. Thank you for that suggestion.

b) I think the most pressing issue is to open a discussion about the 50+ undiscussed edits made by FrancisSchonken in July 2013 that undid months of painstakingly discussed collaborative editing, introduced bad grammar and removed important material from an expert source.[106]

c) I have not appealed this sanction previously but have asked TBOTNL to un block me immediately after I was banned and at six months and after one year but he didm't reply..[107][108][109]

d) My previous topic banned was for a year on February 4th 2011 by Sandstein on the application of WillBeBack. It expired February 2012 and I was not "repeatedly blocked for ban evasion" during this period.[110] I have been given numerous undeserved sanctions at the instigation of the now disgraced WillBeBack and his cronies and I have ample evidence to prove it. This appeal was compiled in the last month.MOMENTO (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your current statement appears to focus on the idea that you want to appeal the original sanction. As in, you are attempting to argue the sanction should never have been applied. Given the previous failed appeals, this is unlikely. I suggest you reword this as a request to repeal the sanction. As in, you wish for the indefinate period of the sanction to end. To do that, stop focusing on why you think the sanction was invalid and focus on why you think the sanction is no longer necessary. Proof of non-disruptive edit hat ting would help. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm arguing the sanction should never have been applied and that is why I am arguing that it should be lifted.MOMENTO (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your sole argument, then it's quite obviously wrong - from what I see, the topic ban was quite the neccessity and was done instead of a site ban based on your history of behaviour. You were lucky to get away with a topic ban. ES&L 12:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If its so obvious to you perhaps you can provide the diffs that justify the topic ban.MOMENTO (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation I'm seeing a consensus to not lift the topic ban based on the evidence (in addition to the behavior) presented by Momento in their appeal. The statue of limitations for challenging the validity of the sanction applied has already expired (in my mind) so the majority of this appeal is rendered moot. To see statement of 09:03, 10 February 2014 seems to suggest in my mind that the topic ban is still reasonable to prevent further disruption of the topic area by this single minded user. Hasteur (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another "single minded" editor banned at the same time appealed their ban last month stating "No evidence was presented that shows me involved in “battleground behaviour” or incivility" and was successful.MOMENTO (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This series of topic bans was already examined by the Arbitration Committee in December 2012 at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2. Momento advanced their arguments in favor of lifting the ban(s) at that time, and the Arbitration Committee chose not to act on these arguments or on the appeal by another similarly banned editor. I think that this (non-)action by the Arbitration Committee prevents a review of the ban(s) at the community level, because this would amount to a community review of Arbitration Committee actions, which is not allowed. The appeal should therefore be procedurally declined, with a note that it may be submitted to the Arbitration Committee instead.  Sandstein  16:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein: Per the motion at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2, the committee has decided to let the editors they originally sanctioned appeal their bans at AE. So they have allowed us to address the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true, thanks. In their statement, The Blade of the Northern Lights refers to an earlier statement in which they say that they imposed the ban because of "edits [that] clearly gave the article a very pro-Rawat slant". While violating WP:NPOV is among the grounds for imposing discretionary sanctions, The Blade of the Northern Lights refers only to one consolidated diff which is not at a glance recognizable as non-neutral. I think that The Blade of the Northern Lights should explain more precisely how this diff violates the neutrality policy to such an extent as to constitute sanctionable misconduct.  Sandstein  19:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a question for @Momento: you have made nearly 9,000 edits to Wikipedia over 9 years. As best I can tell, virtually all of those edits involve either Prem Rawat or wiki-litigation related to Prem Rawat. You have accrued multiple blocks and other sanctions for edit-warring and disruption. The overall picture I'm left with is that of a single-purpose agenda account whose actions strongly suggest an inability to edit neutrally or productively in the area of focus. Do you have any other interest in this project besides our coverage of Prem Rawat? If your topic ban is lifted, why should we believe that your conduct will be better in the future than it has been in the past? MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm receptive to hearing positive reasons why we should expect productive editing from Momento. But so far this exercise seems to be simply another complaint about the technical and legalistic aspects of the original topic ban, coupled with a continuation of combative battleground behavior. The topic ban in question has already been reviewed and heavily scrutinized, and it's unlikely that simply repeating the same complaints of unfairness at six-month intervals is going to help. I'm opposed to granting this appeal as framed, although I remain open to hearing arguments based on actual likelihood of productive future contributions rather than continued demands for shrubberies. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't have imposed the topic ban based on the evidence presented here by the sanctioning admin. The diffs they provide are not on their face problematic, and valid editorial reasons are imaginable for them. But on the other hand, Momento is essentially a single purpose account apparently dedicated only to presenting Prem Rawat in a more positive light, as seen in their mainspace contributions. One-sided single-purpose editing is incompatible with the expectation, as set down in WP:NPOV and elsewhere, that editors are here to build a neutral encyclopedia, rather than to promote a particular agenda (see Wikipedia:ARBAB#Single purpose accounts). On this basis, I would maintain the ban and decline the appeal.  Sandstein  21:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Momento is doing nothing to improve our confidence in his future editing with his statements here. Although the committee's most recent decision (December 2012) did not investigate the behavior of all the sanctioned editors in detail, they showed the most sympathy to User:Rainer P. who in fact has been unbanned recently at AE. Rainer was not the subject of sanctions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2 while Momento was. Rainer P. has never been blocked, while Momento has been blocked seven times. We can certainly rely on the committee's past findings of fact regarding Momento. Since Momento had such a prominent role in the past Arbcom cases, I think he had an affirmative duty when coming here to show that he is now going to be part of the solution and not the problem. User:Steven Zhang in his comment above states "In absence of redeeming conduct and past poor conduct, I recommend the topic ban remain in place, with it possible to be reconsidered if quality work is done elsewhere". I share this view, but would be open to a new appeal in 6-12 months if Momento can point to good work elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline A compelling reason to overturn this topic ban has yet to be given. (While Bobrayner's Law is for unbanning users, I would like to see a similar positive outcome to the formula for topic banned editors) --Guerillero | My Talk 05:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Prmct (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Tag-team_editing

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

1. [111] Makes the same revert another editor made 7 hours earlier
2. [112] Makes the same revert again
3. See also edits to the human intelligence template: [113] [114]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 7 April 2013: [115]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

ArtifexMayhem is tag-teaming with Volunteer Marek to replace the article Nations and intelligence with a redirect to another article. I have tried to resolve the issues with this article on the talk page, but both of them are reverting without participating in the discussion. At present there is no consensus to turn the article into a redirect, and I would like to improve the article's sourcing, but their restoring the redirect in rapid succession makes it impossible for me to edit the article.

I've looked through the edit histories of Nations and Intelligence and the Human Intelligence template, and ArtifexMayhem has never participated in either before his reverts today. I'm reporting ArtifexMayhem because his conduct is the worse problem, but be aware Volunteer Marek has been warned of the discretionary sanctions also: [116]

This evidence presented against ArtifexMayhem in an arbitration case last year suggests that almost all of his edits to articles related to race have been blanking or reverts, and he usually does not discuss them on the talk pages. One example given there is that on the article that Nations and Intelligence now redirects to, all of ArtifexMayhem's edits have been reverts. [117] What he's doing now seems to be a continuation of the same behavior, and seems to be exactly what the tag-teaming ruling in the race and intelligence case was intended to prevent.

Before someone asks, please be aware that I'm not a new user. I suggest admins read the discussion here if they wish to understand why I do not believe it's necessary to disclose my former account. I also encourage admins to examine the textbook I have been citing at Google books, if they wish to examine ArtifexMayhem's claims about WP:FRINGE in his edit summaries.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[118]

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.

I've supported redirecting that article for more than a year[119] due to its WP:FRINGE nature. So it's not really surprising that I agree with Aprock[120] and Volunteer Marek[121] (especially considering so of Prmct's pov pushing edits[122]).

I do find The Devil's Advocate behavior in the topic area disruptive—disingenuous sourcing suggestions[123], support for obvious sock/meat puppets(e.g., Zeromus1 (talk · contribs)[124], Akuri (talk · contribs)[125][126], and Mors Martell (talk · contribs)[127]), his off-wiki complaint that I "edited the white privilege article in a manner consistent with [my] usual dysfunction", and his off-wiki discussions with Captain Occam concerning my editing in the topic area.

— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow off wiki behavior, so I wasn't aware that Captain Occam had been discussing the topic area with The Devil's Advocate. If that is in fact true, it may be that The Devil's Advocate's disruptive edits are a case of proxy editing for a site banned user. aprock (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel NuclearWarfare's action here is premature. Concerns about previous accounts should be given more consideration and not be met with an "editing generally favors bad POV so bad editor" argument. From what I have seen, this editor has not even been pushing a POV, but simply objecting to the POV-pushing by other editors. The content dispute noted here, over the Nations and Intelligence article, is one where the editing by Prmct was geared towards accommodating concerns about the article not sufficiently representing more mainstream scholarship on the subject. One of the only editors to give a cogent reason essentially argued that there is sufficient basis for an article but that it should incorporate more mainstream views. Wanting to improve an article on a noteworthy subject and objecting to it being repeatedly blanked while you are in the process of doing that is not problematic in itself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NW If that block was an AE block, you need to specify that it was. Presuming it was not, it would still be helpful to say so since the block originated from the AE page. Someone reviewing the block may think it was an AE action. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Filer blocked indefinitely. NW (Talk) 19:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not seeing any argument against NW's block of User:Prmct. After reading Talk:Nations and intelligence#Suggestion to merge I don't see any special considerations that would justify giving more WP:ROPE to User:Prmct. It might affect the analysis a bit if he would reveal what his previous account was. The thesis which Prcmt was trying to make room for seems to reflect the opinions of Richard Lynn. In Lynn's article it's noted that he believes that "some races are inherently more psychopathic than others". We are comfortably in the domain of WP:FRINGE here. In any case this was opened as a complaint against User:ArtifexMayhem. Since he has never been notified under the R&I sanctions no action could be taken against him here. EdJohnston (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  There's the warning noted in the complaint, here, but that probably doesn't count. There's some edit warring at Nations and intelligence about whether to redirect and at Template:Human intelligence topics, which I think is problematic. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I support NW's block as editors must have a very good reason to use alternative accounts in any area where there's an active sanction. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• NW has discussed his block rationale more fully at User talk:Prmct#Experience. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything to do here per Boomerang --Guerillero | My Talk 05:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made an arbitration request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hinduism_in_Pakistan and have been directed here. Please rule that that sentence I inserted can be in that article (or tell me where to appeal).—Khabboos (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this doesn't give us enough information. Please click here and follow the instructions. But note that we can't make content decisions, such as what should or should not be in an article. We can only determine if editors have violated any conduct rules, and prevent them from doing so again.  Sandstein  17:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Khabboos (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

AcidSnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

English wikipedia Ban Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Hinduism_in_Pakistan#Persecution, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hinduism_in_Pakistan

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

1. 2 February 2014 The sentence I added says the exact same thing as the newspaper article and so it was wrong to revert my edit
2. Date Explanation
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation
5. Date Explanation

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 30 January 2014 by Khabboos (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on 2 February 2014 by SMS (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on 9 February 2014 by Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs)
4. Warned on 2 February 2014 by MediationBot (talk · contribs)
5. Warned on 9 February 2014 by Khabboos (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:AcidSnow has also been stalking me and reverting my edits and was warned about it - please see User_talk:AcidSnow#Stalking

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AcidSnow&diff=595323435&oldid=595153557

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.

You have got to be kidding me. You realize that I am not the only one reverting your edits, as several other users have already done so? The ones I have reverted were either Original research, POV, misrepresenting of sources, using non reliable sources, lying about "sources", etc. Many of these were also more than one! Not just those, but this "dispute' you keep forumshoping about is a waste of time. I am not the only one that has told you that you are misrepresenting the sources provide nor was I "wrong" for doing so! As for the "stalking" (which I am not exactly doing exactly) I am justified as you wont stop your disruptive editing. I am not the only one that agrees as does Joshua Jonathan. As for people you have listed me to stop, NONE of them have said such a thing! If anyone of the admin want to see the ones I have reverted and the "discussion"please see the original discussion at ANI that he has refused to discuss his continues inappropriate behavior. As you can all see he would decided rather to see me banned than discuss anything! AcidSnow (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Did you read anything I and other editors told you? It looks like you didn't as I and other editors have told you it has NOTHING to do with persecution/hate crime! Also, why wont you discuss anything? AcidSnow (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 2: Wow, now instead of answering the questions I have just asked, you have gone out and bashed my English. As for my spelling of "stalking" it was an accident I made only once. You should use the word "spelled" or "spelt" and not "spells" since this only happened once not numerous times. AcidSnow (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I tried to discuss this with him and so have other editors, but he does not bother with it and denies the existence of the discussion. AcidSnow (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that, 'In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera' and added this reference: "Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". http://www.dawn.com/news/145745/mob-ransacks-temple-in-nowshera. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 29 January 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help), but you reverted it. Reverting a properly referenced sentence is wrong! User:AcidSnow's english is also poor and so, editing the english wikipedia may not be the best thing to allow him to do - he doesn't even know the spelling of stalking, he spells it as stacking (he had typed that on the request for mediation page, but that page is deleted now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khabboos (talk • contribs)

I am not engaged in an edit war. I had a look at the article on Hinduism in Pakistan as a result of complaints at ANI by AcidSnow that Khabboos was posting fake citations (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#User:Khabboos.) Where there are issues I have explained them on the article talk page. I also raised the issue of the lack of citations for claims about the Taliban on User talk:Khabboos#Taliban and alleged persecution of Hindus in Pakistan.

When parties to a dispute (AcidSnow and Khabboos) discuss issues in places like ANI, and various other forums (Khabboos has raised this in quite a few), then they should expect uninvolved editors to take a look at what they are doing. I am one of those uninvolved editors taking a fresh look.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

That said, the history of Hinduism in Pakistan does reflect an edit war between AcidSnow and Khabboos. I think that we can close this with a discretionary sanctions warning to both, and advice to read up on policies such as WP:EW and WP:DR.  Sandstein  18:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not actionable at the moment (and doesn't look like it will be given what I've had a look at). I also agree that we should close with a DS notice and advice on edit warring to AcidSnow, Khabboos and Toddy1 as they have also engaged in the edit war. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Callanecc#Toddy1's edits at Hinduism in Pakistan. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I think there is some edit warring at Hinduism in Pakistan, as I noted earlier, which wasn't too awful yet is still problematic. Since these editors haven't been formally notified of discretionary sanctions, as far as I'm aware, I don't think discretionary sanctions can be applied, nor am I convinced they ought to be applied anyway. In any case, hopefully notices per Sandstein's suggestion will remind everyone to resolve these disputes in a less disruptive manner in the future. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

walkee^talkee 12:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

• Volunteer Marek is subject to those sanctions and is placed officially on them by Thatcher (talk · contribs).

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

1. 12 February 2014 "in your usual slimy way", "Stop being daft."
2. 12 February 2014 "Luke, you seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension and a propensity to respond to figments of your imagination rather than the actual situation. At the same time you appear to be easy to influence, apparently because you're lazy and not particularly... astute." "You are imagining things or you're deliberately misrepresenting things." "crying "notcensored!" like some twelve year old who doesn't get his way and calls his mommy a fascist, want to enable the harassment and humiliation"
3. 12 February 2014 "your little agitation games" "behaving like the stereotype of an immature adolescent internet bully who revels in humiliating others for the fun of it and gets their kicks by exercising petty power in petty fashion. Oh, wait a minute, you don't even have any power, you're not even an admin, just another drama board groupie wasting people's time. Find better places to hang out than ANI"
4. 12 February 2014 "an anonymous IP coward with obvious mental problems"
5. 12 February 2014 "Look you moron" "I really hope you're just sitting there lying because it's hard to believe that anyone would be that stupid."
6. 12 February 2014 "Worse you have a twisted sense of morality" "Do you have some special dispensation from God, the United Nations, or your local knitting club which says that "it's okay for Lukeno94 to act like an asshole on Wikipedia but no one is ever allowed to criticize him for it, because gosh darn it that's "harassment""? No? Then quit it with the double standards" "so stupid it hurts" "Again, you're full of shit and you're lying."
7. 12 February 2014 "Is it really too much to ask that people actually bother thinking and checking before they come here and talk nonsense?"
8. 12 February 2014 "you're making yourself look more and more ridiculous" "Calling your behavior "slimy" is putting it very very very mildly. I have never outed, abused, harassed ANYONE you little twerp!"

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on AE, 12 May 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) for incivility
2. Admonished on 7 June 2012 Kudpung (talk · contribs) for incivility
3. Blocked on 19 July 2012 by DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) for personal attacks/harassment
4. Warned on 11 December 2013 by Estlandia (talk · contribs) for personal attacks

Note: This list is very incomplete: it is hard to find warnings against him because he deletes them immediately.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user was with the EEML so this thread will be spammed by supporters and attacks against the messenger as always. These insults comes in response to a strongly founded but not uncontroversial diatribe that kept appearing on my watchlist [128]. The essay laid out how Volunteer Marek was almost enjoying a carte blanche in the Eastern European topic area, mentioning over a dozen cases of reports where Piotrus tried to save him from consequences, against which Volunteer Marek now lashes out fiercely, unsurprisingly. I know that in this topic area you can't criticize without the messengers being attacked in defense. Recently that a user got topic-banned for 6 uncivil or personal attacks with less history in that regard than Volunteer Marek fills me with the hope that this can be ended better very late than never.

This case is completely and directly related to the Rfa statement over which additionally Volunteer Marek edit-warred three times. This Rfa statement is almost completely about the Eastern European topic and the Eastern European mailing list. On a scale of 1-10 of relatedness, it would score an 11. I have disregarded the topic area for several months but I remember another warning for Volunteer Marek, although I found the closing admin's decision (Sandstein) regarding him too weak.[129] A little later I discovered how Volunteer's treatment was standardized in the EE topic area, for example in regards to User:Skäpperöd, who then seems to have left Wikipedia in reaction: "you seem to be trying to obfuscate and confuse the issue on purpose" or "No, these are just pretext you've invented to remove a source you don't like." "just to watch you come up with yet another sneaky way of dodging that question" "based on nothing but your own personal feelings" "you sneaked that in" "that pretty much suggests that you are not engaging this discussion in good faith", "bullshit ... stop twisting words and trying to manipulate the conversation", "him manipulating the wording" "to skew the reader to his POV" "attempt to allow him to invent even more irrelevant excuses" "he's basically relying on your ignorance of this chunk of history to get away with it" "is just making up bullshit excuses per IDONTLIKEIT". The preceding Diffs are from last year where I was paying greater attention but someone with more time than me can look for more and they will find that accusations of bad intentions, personal attacks and incivility was and is a must for him. The current charges are completely related to the Eastern European topic are.--walkee^talkee 14:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Volunteer Marek notified: [130]

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.

And this has nothing to do with the DIGWUREN case. It's just another battleground account, filing another spurious request on a flimsy pretext.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise, these comments were made in response to completely unfounded accusations (only "implied" at first, then made explicit) by another user that I was planning or actually capable or possibly engaged in writing Encyclopedia Dramatica attack pieces on other users. Someone accuses you of that, you'd get mad too. Either way, they were made in response to these particular accusations, and not in relation with anything to do with DIGWUREN (and please take a look at filer's editing history. Shows up out of nowhere, knows all the ins and outs, etc.) Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst there is little doubt that Marek should've been blocked for his actions in that thread, I'm not seeing how they fall under the ARBEE case, and thus, by extension, how AE is the place to request the block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm certainly not going to argue against a block for Marek, but, as is evidenced by a reasonable post on my talkpage, I don't think you need to place an interaction between Marek and myself (regardless of if it was 1-way or 2-way), Sandstein, so please don't. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• FPaS is making things up yet again. Marek's first comment was a personal attack on the IP, so no, I didn't start anything (although it does look like Marek's initial comment is not present in the ANI thread, or has moved so it looks like I'm commenting on absolutely nothing.) Nor did I state that another person had mental problems. I'd hoped to leave this be to finish on its own, but if I should be blocked for questioning Marek's character, then FPaS should be blocked for doing exactly the same thing about multiple editors... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely and happily uninvolved with the EEML and any of its members. However, they have been under a lot of provocation lately. Piotrus had a perfect right to attempt to become an admin again; I'm less sure that an anon IP had the right to influence that attempt. That this has led to resentment and anger is understandable. I don't see Marek being totally abusive - I see some understandable anger and resentment. I don't see the point in penalising Marek, exasperation is not a crime in anyone's book. Blocking Marek for this will just lead to more festering resentment and animosity - who will that help? It's hardly an occurrence that's likely to be repeated.  Giano  15:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems that this matter falls within the scope of the discretionary sanctions. It is not as though this was some random dispute about some random people with some sort of connection to the Eastern European topic area. At the center of the ANI case was the repeated removal of evidence compiled against Piotrus showing that editor's misconduct with regards to Eastern European topics. Marek was apparently one of the people engaged in such removal and was connected to some of the misconduct in question. How Marek behaved during a noticeboard discussion about misconduct directly concerning the Eastern European topic area seems to fall within the bounds of the discretionary sanctions. Even if one were to argue that the link is too tenuous it does not mean that no action can be taken as any conduct issue raised here can be acted upon even if not through the discretionary sanctions. It would just be a normal administrative action subject to normal administrative review procedures.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am torn here. On one hand, I've always argued for enforcing civility and NPA; and I usually agree with Sandstein. On the other, to issue sanctions only because of an argument that C/E Europe arbitration sanctions apply here seems rather ridiculous, or an exercise in advanced wikilawyering; those sanctions apply to content namespace, not RfA or ANI. I wouldn't have a problem with enforcing CIV/NPA or such, but to do so using a next-to-nonexistent connection to content-area arbitration ruling as an excuse is simply not right. What I do have a problem is a logic that seemingly creates two groups of editors: once editing in content areas with ArbCom sanctions (C/E Europe, presumably few others) and the rest. In other words, if VM was not editing C/E articles, but another controversial but without discretionary sanctions area, such as, let's say, abortion, he could have said exactly the same things and there would be no reason to act? That's putting some twisted letter of the law so beyond any spirit that I am simply amazed.

Then there's also the usually forgotten argument that sanctions should be preventative, not punitive (yeah, I know, dead letter). Plus an issue of WP:BOOMERANG (it takes two to tango...). And perhaps someone would be so kind as to consider whether referencing to an Encyclopedia Dramatica article, where information such as real life names, personal addresses and death threats have been posted, is not a more serious issue to consider (I am not saying this as a general snide at ED, I am saying this as mine and Marek's real life info was posted there, accompanied by the said death threats... Anyway, I'd suggest issuing a bunch of civility warnings, and/or "next time, interaction ban will be considered" warnings, for a number of parties, and moving on.

On a closing note, it is not the first time that RfA has seen major and likely nonpunishable violations of CIV/NPA and such. Perhaps we should consider issuing a set of discretionary sanctions to RfAs in general, subjecting comments of editors in that forum to above-average scrutiny, and violations of NPA and such there, subject to serious sanctions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No view whatsoever on the facts, just a comment on the underlying principle, posted not as a party but as an individual arbitrator. It has never, to my knowledge, been the intention of the committee that DS attaching to topic morph into DS for any individual who has ever edited within it.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take admin action here myself, but I'd like to point out that if V.M. were to be sanctioned here, then User:Lukeno94 would certainly have to be sanctioned too. It was Lukeno's attacks on V.M. that provoked much of his outbursts, and the underhanded way Lukeno was implying V.M. was inolved, or likely to be involved, in real-life harassment of opponents, was odious indeed. Quote: "… the abuse they would get from the likes of Marek, and, given the various underhanded tactics that this group of editors have engaged in, if their account easily leads to the finding of their real name, they may well be very nervous of real-life repercussions" – it may not be as overtly intemperate in its wording as V.M.'s responses, but it is no less serious as a defamatory personal attack. Indeed, it is nothing short of character assassination. One might say it deserved every bit of the heat it got in response. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Walkee: How does this relate to Eastern Europe - which is the area the sanctions are authorised for? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link between the thread in question and the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions is very tenuous bordering on non-existent so I don't see that AE can do anything here. Given this it looks like the issue has been dealt with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also strongly disagree with Sandstein on this one. My opinion is that if the Committee intended the discretionary sanctions to apply to all editors who edit that topic area (or who were involved in the case) they would have said that rather than restricting it to articles. Having re-read it I can see where you're coming from but I disagree with your interpretation. On sanctioning, given this and this I don't feel that blocking would be appropriate anymore however if another admin believes an interaction ban is necessary then AN (sort of a case request) would be the place to go. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the connection to Eastern European articles is practically non-existent, but while we're at it, I would support any form of censure for any editors who had reduced that discussion to a level this unseemly. This is toxic and it's only a matter of time before it does spill over to areas that we're allowed to police under the harsher decorum regime. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that AE has jurisdiction here. The ANI thread in which these edits were made is a result of long-term feuds and animosities dating back to the WP:EEML arbitration case. This is a sufficient link to the Eastern Europe topic area. Discretionary sanctions were introduced in that case, in part, precisely to allow administrators to stop this kind of long-term battleground conduct. In addition, the relevant remedy, WP:ARBEE#Standard discretionary sanctions, says that "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." The wording of this remedy suggests that it is important that the editor at issue is actively editing in this topic area (which applies to Volunteer Marek, see their article contributions), and that the degree to which the misconduct is related to Eastern Europe is not a principal concern. WP:AC/DS#Authorization says something similar.

  On the merits, this report contains evidence of inexcusable repeated and severe violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, which are important policies. Volunteer Marek's confrontative response to this complaint illustrates that only a substantial sanction is likely to have any preventative effect. It must also be taken into account that Volunteer Marek has a lengthy block record for similar misconduct. I am of a mind to impose a one-month block and an interaction ban with respect to the users attacked by Volunteer Marek in this case.  Sandstein  18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly disagree with Sandstein; it would be improper to extend the DS for the topic area of Eastern Europe to the RfA of an editor who happens to edit there. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the different opinions among admins here, I have suggested that the Committee clarify this issue in the upcoming rules review. See WT:AC/DSR#What relation between the misconduct and the area of conflict is needed?.  Sandstein  15:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do what you wish, but I still feel that any move, like the one above, to broaden DS beyond its normal scope, via unilateral action, is beyond the pale. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I'm with Callanecc et al. The connection to the intended scope of discretionary sanctions is tenuous at best, and ANI is adequately equipped to deal with misconduct when it takes place on that board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Dmcq (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

1. Revision as of 17:34, 5 February 2014 Warnings and threats to others who have answered them, a repeat to focus on content and an attempt to divert the discussion from the topic of secondary sources.
2. Revision as of 18:35, 31 January 2014 Gives a list of policies without being specific and says they have explained their position in the past. Will not give any specifics and threatens AE.
3. Revision as of 18:10, 3 February 2014 Attempt to divert the discussion so no agreement is evident to something that they are already discussing elsewhere on the talk page.
4. Revision as of 22:57, 12 February 2014 Yet again asking for sources when sources were provided in the first response with a diff pointing to the discussion.
5. Revision as of 19:00, 14 February 2014 Unreasonable warning and accusation.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on Revision as of 17:25, 12 February 2014 by Dmcq (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Latest revision as of 19:21, 14 February 2014 by NewsAndEventsGuy about summarizes the situation. Minor variations of objections keep being brought up and they require the whole business to be gone through without referring to the same thing before even with accurate pointers. And yet they will not give any accurate indication of their own objections just lists of whole policies without sections and not saying where they have explained themselves. They keep warning others to concentrate on the topic and warn about bringing them to here, yet they keep trying to divert discussions.

@Sandstein: I guess I'm missing something. I thought the discretionary sanctions on those pages were supposed to be to stop disruptive conduct on them. What is the appropriate forum please to bring a complaint about someone who continually brings up the same sort of thing again and again in different discussion, quotes long lists of policies without explanation, threatens people, diverts discussion to things that are other discussion, doesn't acknowledge that they have read an acknowledged stuff very recently and asks for it again? Basically disruptive behaviour as NewsAndEventsGuy says? Or is there no such place and this is normal behaviour one must accept? I'm not expecting much to be done besides a formal warning from an administrator so they know they have been properly warned and something more can be done in the future if they continue on with it. Dmcq (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: The 6th AfD on the topic ended just last month and Ronz contributed to that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination). I don't think it would be reasonable to renominate so soon. You can see his main contribution and reply to my enquiry about it at [131]]. Dmcq (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE Notice

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.

I'm having trouble identifying how the descriptions of the diffs actually describe what was going on, much less how addressing them is beneficial to Wikipedia.

I disagree with Dmcq's interpretations of key areas of dispute with the article, and have found that trying to discuss them only brings out battleground responses (User_talk:Dmcq#CONLEVEL, User_talk:Dmcq#IDIDNTHEARTHAT). It seems that these disagreements are what are being brought here, just without the proper context. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

As submitted, this complaint seems to have no merit, and borders on the frivolous. The submitter doesn't explain how exactly these talk page messages are supposed to violate any conduct policy or guideline, and it is not apparent from looking at them how they might do so. Also, there's no diff of a warning meeting the requirements of WP:AC/DS#Warnings.  Sandstein  21:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Dmcq's second explanation, I have to agree with Sandstein. You still have not posted diffs or an explanation or justification for how what Ronz is doing is abusive, or violating our policies, or insulting people. He's perhaps obliquely threatening that the arbitration enforcement penalties are out there on the articles and can be used on troublemakers, but not to me evidently to abuse someone.

In what way do you feel he has been abusive here? What, precisely, did he do wrong? Please explain. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, including the discussions linked in this comment by NewsAndEventsGuy, suggests that conversations on this talk page go round in circles. My suggestion would be that if Ronz doesn't believe that the list is notable then an AFD or an RFC is order, once that's done everyone can drop the stick and move on. As to what we should do at AE, given that neither Ronz or Dmcq have been officially notified of discretionary sanctions that seems to be an appropriate thing to do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no other comments in the next 24 hours or so I'll close with a discretionary sanctions notice to Ronz and Dmcq. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IRISZOOM (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Yossiea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

1. 06:37, 17 February 2014 This is her first revert after removing the Gaza Strip as one of the territories being under occupation. Yossiea got reverted by Sepsis II and she responded with this revert. While this revert is little after the 24 hour period, it may still be seen as a revert but either way, the two reverts after is enough.
2. 02:33, 18 February 2014 First revert in a 24 hour period.
3. 06:56, 18 February 2014 Second revert in a 24 hour period.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am astonished by Yossiea's actions. This is not what I would expect from a user who has edited so long, even less by someone who has rollback and reviewer rights.

She removed the Gaza Strip from the list of territories being occupied. This was sourced with this by UN. While it is acceptable to make changes, it is not acceptable to trying to enforce your own view, and keep in mind she is not offering any sources and has been informed that many still see it as occupied, as she has done by constantly removing the Gaza Strip from the list and demanding that we discuss it. She wrote this in her first edit summary about this: "Removing Gaza Strip, regardless of what the UN says, there is no Israeli military occupation of the Strip, it could be stated that Hamas is occupying Gaza, but I guess we can't go there". In her second edit, she wrote this "No matter what, there is no military occupation of Gaza". Then she reverted another time. I reverted her saying "You need sources for that. Presenting your own opinion is not enough". She responded by saying "Please see Talk Page and discuss first. Evidence? Are you saying Israel didn't withdraw from Gaza????". This was already discussed in the talk page, including by me who had wrote there and offered a soloution. She wrote this in the talk page after her last revert: "It's not disputed, the Israeli military withdrew from Gaza". Is it this she mean with discuss? On 02:34, 18 February 2014, she went to Sepsis II's talk page and warned him for "disruptive editing".

I am not 100% sure if this is covered by ARBIA. She was warned on 02:53, 18 February 2014 by Sepsis II on the article's talk page that "The section is also under 1RR which you have broken and may be blocked for, please revert per BRD rather than edit war". She wrote to him there two hours later so she must have seen it in that small section and Sepsis had put up an ARBIA header. She should not have reverted again on 06:56, 18 February 2014 and had the time to self-revert.

Yossiea did also canvass by writing "At List of military occupations Gaza Strip is being inserted under the "current" section of military occupations even though Israel withdrew. You might want to take a look and add your comments" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean it is a violaton by Sepsis II? One revert was 03:14, 16 February 2014‎ and the other one 14:04, 17 February 2014‎.

I do not think Sepsis II meant Yossiea was "clueless" but that he was for getting a warning by her for "disruptive editing". I was also clueless when I saw that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Yes.

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.

I'll try to use words like astounded and flabbergasted when I think of the baseless attacks by editors like Yossiea and Magog. Sepsis II (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I've blocked Yossiea (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for breaching 1RR (3RR as well in fact so no excuses). I've also notified them of discretionary sanctions so we can't do much about anything else at the moment expect maybe the possibility of a compromised account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try that again: Given this edit summary in which Sepsis II (talk · contribs) called Yossiea clueless and the sanction imposed by Magog the Ogre three months ago regarding personal attacks we may want to look at sanctions, possibly a warning. That'll depend on what Sepsis was referring to; a direct personal attack or as IRISZOOM describes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yosseia was clueless. He WP:TEMPLARed Sepsis, and he warned him for "vandalism" (see this essay I wrote up just for situations like this for why that's wrong). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That edit summary wasn't really egregious; the warning was silly, and a reasonable person might have struggled to show restraint in reverting the edit. The best thing (for everyone) to do is to let it go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy with that so I'm closing this request now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shokatz (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ivan Štambuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

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

1. 16:35, 17 February 2014 He blatantly labels me a "nationalist" without any provocation for the first time.
2. 01:22, 18 February 2014 Again labeling me a "Croatian nationalsit" after I warned him not to WP:CANVASS other users.
3. 20:19, 17 February 2014 Yet again indirectly accusing me (and everyone else in that discussion) as "nationalists".
4. 10:14, 19 February 2014 Even starts a new thread on WP:ANI again stating: I am getting overrun on this article by several Croatian nationalists.
5. 19:20, 19 February 2014 And yet again, blatant ad hominem on WP:ANI. He states: But you are Croatian nationalists.
6. 19:24, 19 February 2014 He claims to be a victim of coordinated attacks by nationalists who try to outnumber dissenters and yet again goes for a blatant ad hominem: You're a POV pusher that needs to be forbidden from editing this article.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user in question was an instigator of a couple of content disputes, most notably on Ivan Gundulić. Now I wouldn't usually mind it nor the long tirades on the talk page but this user has shown such a blatant incivility and made so many ad hominem personal attacks towards me (and other users) that I no longer can ignore this. He crossed the line as far as I am concerned. He was warned for this before [132]. I would also point out that he did a blatant attempt of WP:CANVASS here to a user recently topic-banned from Balkan related articles per WP:ARBMAC. Do note that I have also started a SPI as I believe he openly admitted to be a known sock-puppeteer PaxEquilibrium.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

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.

If you are insulted by being called a nationalist (it's not an insult) you should have said so. Though I personally find it very hard to believe. I didn't canvass anybody - the message I left at User:Slovenski Volk's talkpage was related to an entirely different topic. Sockpuppet investigation is a joke, I'm not PaxEquilibrium or PravdaRuss. These reports that you keep making against me are nothing but harassment. You're the one that should have ARBMAC enforced for POV-pushing in Balkans-related topics. My edits were all done with NPOV in mind, while you were the one who removed NPOV notice from [[Ivan Gundulić]], and removed Serbian writer/language from the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever you may think, calling someone a "nationalist" is WP:PA and a violation of WP:CIVIL and since it is on Balkan-related articles, also under WP:ARBMAC. You have been warned by others not to do so as well [133]. Now I find it hard to believe that your reply to User:Slovenski Volk was related "to a completely different topic" when you explicitly asked for help starting with: I keep running into conflicts with Croatian nationalists... while looking at your contrib page and seeing your main focus at that time was the article where you were discussing with me and other users. As for your accusations, you can see that my only edit during that whole incident was this. If you refer to my edit prior to asking for the lockdown of the page, I reverted both you and other users who were about to start an edit war with you...the page was restored to the version prior the conflict and locked by an admin. Shokatz (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have another power trip by Sandstein, who took it upon himself to be God, Judge and Executor in AE matters. Blocking an experienced user for 7 days because he labeled another user 'nationalist' (which is a mere personal attack) using WP:ARBMAC as excuse is yet another misuse of powers. I think it is high time for the ARBCOM to thank Sandstein for his long-term abuse under the guise AE, preferrably by revoking his administrator privileges for good.

Let me state that I don't have a beef in this dispute, and that I had my run-ins with Štambuk, who can be a pain in the ass and is quick to label others as nationalists and assume bad faith. Maybe he even deserved a short-term block. But that would be a block for personal attacks, not because he has done anything nearly approaching ARBMAC criteria. Except, of course, in interpretation, where "broadly construed" = "whatever springs Sandstein's mind at the moment". No such user (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No such user, I think you are mistaken. WP:ARBMAC is under discretionary sanctions so an uninvolved admin can block and close an AE report. "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Sean.hoyland - talk 14:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Quick note to save others from looking, both users have been notified of discretionary sanctions. Shokatz in October 2013 and Ivan Štambuk in October 2010. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While calling others "nationalists" is not an insult, it is a derogatory statement about the person of another editor, in violation of WP:NPA's instruction to "comment on content, not on the contributor." Editors must at all times focus their discussion on the content of articles, not on the persons of others. Per WP:WIAPA, personal attacks do include "national ... epithets ... directed against another contributor" or "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". The request has merit. Because Ivan Štambuk's reply fails to reflect an understanding of this, I am blocking him for a week to prevent the recurrence of this conduct.  Sandstein  12:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]