Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

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

Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

1. Revert on 25 June after my directly related talk proposal on 22 June went unanswered for three days
2. Revert on 7 June after my directly related talk proposal on 30 May went unanswered for a week
3. Revert on 22 May

In return for talk page discussion, detailed sourcing and verification, and lots of patience, Plot Spoiler responds with reverts, silence, reverts, and occasional personal attacks on talk. For the avoidance of doubt I asked Georgewilliamherbert for advice in February re dealing with such behaviour from Plot Spoiler, and have been following his advice to ensure I have crystal clean hands.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. WP:AE/Archive139#Plot_Spoiler Sep 2013 ARBPIA enforcement
2. WP:3RR/User:Greyshark09_and_User:Plot_Spoiler Jan 2014 warning re slow burn edit war

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In response to User:Sandstein below, this is a clear case of slow burn edit warring from an editor who should know better. Whilst the slow burn nature means it didn't trip the 1RR 24 hour bright line, it has had the same effect via three reverts, and should be considered as such. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Sandstein, sorry i'm being slow. I have now linked to the specific remedy above. Plot Spoiler was blocked under ARBPIA about 9 months ago, so is well aware of the sanctions. I also reminded him about them on talk between the second and third revert above [1]. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And he was notified directly re the risk of sanctions from slow burn edit warring at User_talk:Plot_Spoiler/Archive_3#Discretionary_sanctions_notification. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Plotspoiler's statement does not attempt to justify or explain their own behaviour at the article of consistently reverting without explanation and personal attacks. I am very pleased that Plotspoiler has now found the time to do some reading on the topic, because one of the points in his/her post is very constructive (and need to be brought to the article talk page). Plotspoiler has clearly been busy in real life, so my advice to him/her in future when working with me is simply to say "I don't agree with your edit, but I am busy so please give me until [x] to explain", rather than aggressive reversion and personal attacks.

Anyway, since Plotspoiler's statement was dedicated to an Ad hominem attack on my editing, I will respond below:

• The Gat 1988 article Plotspoiler links to was not in the article, and the quote is useful. I have not seen the same in Gat's 1997 book, and I don't currently have access to the 1988 article to confirm the context of the quote. This is a useful contribution and would have been a helpful response to this post from 2.5 weeks ago highlighting my inability to verify where Gat states his "belief"
• My logic for the change to the lead has always been a very simple one. All sources who cover this topic conclude that noone knows who the culprits were, but all writers present the claims against Israeli / Zionist agents first, and then present the counter arguments / alternative theories. When I say "all sources", this includes both of the authors which Plotspoiler references below, and should be the case for our article. This is simply following WP:RS. Plotspoiler is welcome to a different point of view, but cannot evade this question forever.
• Plotspoiler also questions my inclusion of (i) the views of Iraqi Jews, and (ii) the Lavon affair. Again, all the main authors in the article do exactly the same (as the 4 and 2 citations linked in this reverted edit show), including Gat, and Mendes in the article Plotspoiler links to below
• On the "calls to honor two executed Iraqi Jews", despite disagreeing with Plotspoiler's interpretation of the implication, I responded to his previous objection by removing this from my last (22 June) proposal
• I am not the first editor on the receiving end of Plot Spoiler's aggressive viewpoint on this article (see Talk:1950–51_Baghdad_bombings#Undue_weight_toward_fringe_claims) from four years ago
• I will let my edit history speak for itself on Plotspoiler's last point.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [2]

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.

Apologies, I'm unable to provide a thoughtful and detailed response until at least Tuesday, July 1. I will not be editing in the interim. Your patience is appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. Much appreciated. As I noted on the talk page, I believe it is quite clear that Oncenawhile is engaged in glaring violations of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:LEAD. Let me explain:

• Oncenawhile's proposed amendments to the lead at Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings#Revised proposal for lead clearly do not serve as a "concise overview" as a lead should, but cherrypicks information to make it appear that "Zionist agents" were responsible for the Baghdad bombings - i.e. purposely killing other Jews to cause them to flee Iraq. These are very serious charges, and the historiography shows that they are largely without merit. For example:
  • Moshe Gat:"However in light of documents which have been made available by the National Archives in Washington, the British Public Record Office, the Haganah Archive, the Israel State Archive, and documents from the private records of Mordechai Ben-Porat, who was in charge of Jewish emigration in Iraq, we shall see that not only did Israeli emissaries not place the bombs at the locations cited in the Iraqi statement, but also that there was in fact no need to take such drastic action in order to urge the Jews to leave Iraq for Israel." http://www.jstor.org/stable/4283249
  • Philip Mendes: "Gat also raises serious doubts about the guilt of the alleged Jewish bomb throwers. Firstly, a Christian officer in the Iraqi army known for his anti-Jewish views was arrested, but apparently not charged, with the offenses. A number of explosive devices similar to those used in the attack on the Jewish synagogue were found in his home. In addition, there was a long history of anti-Jewish bomb-throwing incidents in Iraq. Secondly, the prosecution was not able to produce even one eyewitness who had seen the bombs thrown. Thirdly, the Jewish defendant Shalom Salah indicated in court that he had been severely tortured in order to procure a confession. It therefore remains an open question as to who was responsible for the bombings, although Gat suggests that the most likely perpetrators were members of the anti-Jewish Istiqlal Party." Presented at the 14 Jewish Studies Conference Melbourne March 2002
  • Etc etc etc (I can go back with more)
• So Oncenawhile's claim that "I have fact checked a few more sources in this article, only to find that the support for scholars espousing the 'Iraqi culpability' theory have dwindled to zero" - is absolutely false. And given how much s/he brags about comprehensively researching, this is obviously not the case. Oncenawhile further misrepresents research by stating that Gat wrote: "There is wide consensus among Iraqi Jews that the emissaries threw the bombs in order to hasten the Jews' departure from Iraq." In fact, this is a footnote in which he is quoting archived material. It is not his assessment that that is the case. In fact, Gat believed that the perpetrators were members of the anti-Jewish Istiqlal Party.
• Then Oncenawhile wants to cherrypick information that the Lavon Affair somehow indicates that Zionist agents were responsible for the Baghdad Bombings and because there have been calls to honor two executed Iraqi Jews, Shalom Salah Shalom and Yosef Ibrahim Basri, "whose names should be remembered alongside those who gave their lives for the country", this assumes that there sacrifice was in being agent provocateurs against their own people.
• Oncenawhile is a single-issue editor that has shown a tendentious pattern of editing. One example is this glaring act of well poisoning and WP:SYNTH, which he insisted on maintaining. Clearly out of bounds. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The complaint does not make clear which if any specific remedy should be enforced and/or which if any conduct rule these reverts are deemed to violate. It is not actionable as submitted.  Sandstein  18:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even as amended, the complaint does not specify the remedy to be enforced and, if this is to be a discretionary sanctions request, does not indicate how Plot Spoiler was aware (as required) of these sanctions. Still not actionable.  Sandstein  20:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, you issued 3-month ARBPIA ban to Plot Spoiler in September 2013. This should make them sufficiently aware. Though I haven't decided who is behaving the worst at 1950–51 Baghdad bombings we should think about some admin action which is sufficient to be sure that the conduct of all parties reaches the expected quality level for ARBPIA articles. It is tempting to think that a sanction to Plot Spoiler might be what is needed. In the September 2013 case, it was found that Plot Spoiler was applying different standards to the quality of the sources on the two sides of the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm waiting for a statement by Plot Spoiler.  Sandstein  18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler now says he will be away until Tuesday July 1. How about we suspend this with no action, provided he does not edit Wikipedia in the mean time? EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK.  Sandstein  05:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler told us 'at least Tuesday, July 1' but that date has passed. So far there is no sign of his return. He has not edited Wikipedia since June 27. On July 5, I amended the banner to read 'complaint suspended until Plot Spoiler returns to editing'. We still expect to get a statement from him before action will be taken one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored this as an active request since User:Plot Spoiler resumed editing on 8 July. I hope that he will provide the detailed response that was promised. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment of Plot Spoiler's response is that it does nothing in Plot Spoiler's favor, because it consists only of

• allegations of misconduct by Onceinawhile, which even if true don't count in Plot Spoiler's favor (see WP:NOTTHEM), and which at any rate are not accompanied by actionable evidence and are therefore in and of themselves disruptive (see WP:ASPERSIONS); and
• arguments about the underlying content disagreement, with which the arbitration (enforcement) process is not concerned.

However, I think that three reverts are a somewhat thin evidentiary basis for a sanction for edit-warring, so I have no clear course action to propose at the moment.  Sandstein  09:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we should ask both of them to refrain from editing the main article for... Let's say at least 2 weeks. Talk page discussion allowed, but neither PS nor Onceinawhile should be the one implementing edits that result from discussion.
• Also, PS should be reminded to reply to the article talk pages on a more regular basis, instead of just after Onceinawhile implementing the change (especially since this shows that PS made edits during the week that Onceinawhile waited regarding the June 6 edit). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you would like to do this, go ahead, but I'm of the view that we should not use discretionary sanctions to micro-manage editors' conduct on individual pages. Rather, I see these sanctions principally as a safety valve for removing editors from a topic area altogether after it is clear that they can't get along with others. I don't have a clear opinion about whether we're at this point already here.  Sandstein  13:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm of Sandstein's mind on this one. Don't feel comfortable using DS for such a nuanced remedy, especially based on this record. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not that nuanced, page ban for 2 weeks to force them to the talk page not the article. That's the one discretionary sanction the reminder is just that, (non-DS) advice from an admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose closing this with warnings to both Plot Spoiler and Oncenawhile, that further unilateral reverts may lead to a topic ban from ARBPIA. The history of the article and the talk page at 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings indicates that Oncenawhile made a big round of changes in late May that were intended as improvements. Some of Oncenawhile's reasoning is given in Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings#Proposed amendments to lead. Plot Spoiler then made some reverts of Oncenawhile's work that appear to be a reflex action and not carefully considered. The exchange suggests to me that Plot Spoiler may not have read the sources. Typical of Plot Spoiler's response is this comment of June 7: "More grossly unbalanced editing. Try again." The way for both parties to avoid making unilateral reverts is to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution and if necessary open a WP:Request for comment. Both parties are reminded that evidence of actually reading the sources will improve your credibility. I agree with Sandstein that short topic bans (or article bans) are scarcely worth it; the minimum that I see reasonable is three months from all of ARBPIA. I don't believe we are yet at the point of a topic ban, but we should allow both parties to show they can behave better before a sanction is issued. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I find myself agreeing with Ed a lot this evening, but yes, I'd favor this over the suggested two-week individual-article ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing: The edits of both Plot Spoiler and Oncenawhile at 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings have raised concerns. Both parties are warned that further unilateral reverts may lead to a topic ban from WP:ARBPIA. If you follow the recommended steps of WP:Dispute resolution it's unlikely that you'll have any trouble at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 14 July 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

2over0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :

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

1. dismisses RexxS 07-05

1. Response: Not a dismissal – this is a detailed response about using WP’s voice to generalize a fact from a narrow set of data that is contradicted by other systematic reviews. Recent discussion on the source in question at Project Medicine supports the position I put forth here. Rexxs had been referring to his expertise in stats earlier and was talking down to me and others. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comment here.

1. "did you not get the memo?" 07-05

2. Response: Context is important – Doc James had just recently started a new thread calling for editors to focus on content and not other editors (that is the “memo” I refer to. Rexxs started into dismissive and insulting rhetoric right after Doc James post. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comment here.

1. dismisses QuackGuru 07-01

3. Response: This is my talk page. After respectfully indulging QG by answering his questions, he repeatedly badgered me unnecessarily. My comment is justified. I make few edits beyond talk page discussions and he had the gall to criticize my few reverts of other editors, while he has reverted the majority of my attempted edits on the article itself. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comment here.

1. "Maybe if you didn't do so many hundreds of edits a day you would clearly remember all this and you wouldn't have to pester me here over this.1" 07-01

4. Response: Again, my talk page. I was being harassed by QG over something that was obvious and minor. The explanation he kept asking for was in an edit summary one edit earlier than a diff he linked to on my own page. I gave a detailed explanation even though I knew he was trolling me. More on that later. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comment here.

1. "my beef is with QG" 06-30

5. Response: Hmm, my post starts with the word “sorry”. Not sure why you picked this one? This is me making peace with Kww, who thought I was insulting him when I was referring to BR. In this post, I also admitted to previously being out of line. Not sure why you think this is a violation. There is nothing wrong with my comment here.

1. dismisses BullRangifer 06-30

6. Response: I was truly out of line on this one. Doc James pointed it out on my talk page and I immediately edited it. I was wrong on this one for sure, both because I misunderstood the policy on reverting socks, and more for the uncivil tone and undeserved assumptions about Brangifer.

1. battleground mentality 06-30

7. Response: QG makes many changes to the article (including a recent misrepresentation of Ernst 2011 that was found by several neutral editors at project medicine). The context here is that Middle8 had just done quite a few valuable edits and QG recommended reverting to a version before those edits occurred. At the time, I believed this was an attempt to eliminate another editor’s work in a sneaky way. I could have AGF’d more.

1. "Are you just randomly linking to make it look like you are making cogent points?" 06-27

8. Response: I truly did not understand what QG was getting at with all those links. See my talk page for more lists of links that seem to be intended to look like damning evidence but really just seem random. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comments here.

1. You are doing this because several of us have disagreed with your recent work and you want to sneak around us by undoing everything that has been done. That's edit warring. I have no reason to believe you are doing this in good faith." 06-27

9. Response: This again is about the massive revert QG was proposing. I still do not understand why it was necessary, just undo the SP’s edits and you don’t have to go through the trouble of restoring the more voluminous good edits that occurred since the problematic edits began. Perhaps I could have AGF’d more, but QG has in my opinion made many dubious edits.

1. edit warring 06-27

10. Response: QG was doing original research and identified the Vickers systematic review as a “fringe” and “unreliable source” and labeled its conclusions as “POV” in the article. I removed it, correctly. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my edit here.

1. "the POV summaries the QG is always cooking up" 06-26

11. Response: I fully stand behind this comment. QG often cherry picks the negatives out of mixed reviews and words the conclusions as seeming more definite and generalizable than they really are in the literature. I was pointing out the need to present the facts rather than a POV take on the facts. There is nothing wrong with my edit here.

1. edit warring 06-25

12. Response: I was restoring sourced text. Roxy had removed it because it had been supported by “fringe pushers”. Roxy’s edit summary had no merit, so I reverted it. There is nothing wrong with my edit here (read my edit summary for my reversion), though I have more recently argued for greater attribution of findings like these so it would have been better if I made the text more accurate (contextualized the finding) rather than restoring an overly-generalized statement.

1. edit warring 06-25

13. Response: Same issue as #12 above

1. "Just use the actual friggin numbers ... Sheesh" 06-24

14. Response: My suggestion here is to stick closer to the source. QG is accusing people of sock puppetry and edit warring right after coming back form a short topic ban. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my edit here.

1. "Wow you did it again" (in reference to Alexbrn) 06-16

15. Response: This was actually me PRAISING Alexbrn for introducing me to something I was unfamiliar with (the second time is a short period). Why is this included here? There is nothing wrong with my edit here.

1. characterizes an article as a "hit list", battleground/dismissive with Roxy the dog 06-16

16. Response: I was not the first to suggest that article had issues. I did not dismiss Roxy, I pointed out that Roxy referred to all the subjects on the list as “this kind of nonsense”. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my edit here. I dropped the issue after Alexbrn showed me that someone had unsuccessfully nominated the article for deletion in the past.

1. "Really, this article is just a list of things a majority of WP editors don't like or understand." 06-15

17. Response: Same as above

1. dismisses Jytdog 06-07

18. Response: That's not a dismissal – look at the whole thread. I clearly answered JYTdog‘s questions, with follow-up clarifications, and then he acted perplexed and made assumptions about me wanting to present pro-woo equally in weight to anti-woo. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my edit here.

1. accuses Adam Cuerden of bad faith 06-07

19. Response: I did not accuse Adam of bad faith. I gave a 3-part explanation of my stance. I argue against the proposition that more accuracy (attribution) = weasel wording. I react to the common wikilawering technique of “our hands are tied, we have to do it this way because of policy”. My wording could have been nicer, but it was not uncivil.

1. accuses "most people editing" of bad faith 06-05

20. Response: Poorly worded, but this is a response on my own user talk page discussing what I perceive as a general bias in WP. I did not accuse “everyone” of bad faith, just made an assumption. Again, on my own talk page.

1. dismisses Jytdog 06-05

21. Response: That’s not a dismissal, it is an in-depth content discussion. And I am quite even-handed in this one.

1. battleground, accusation of "bullying" 05-27

22. Response: This is me pointing out what I perceive to be double standards – many editors bite me and others regularly, but QG gets away with edit warring all the time. QG did finally get topic banned for a bit, but nobody reprimanded him for misrepresenting sources in the recent project med discussion. I shouldn’t have referred to Brangifers critique as “bullying” though, so I apologize for that.

1. "Your second post doesn't make a lick of fucking sense at all." 05-27

23. Response: I shouldn’t have sworn, but the post was a non-sequiter.

1. battleground 05-24

24. Response: I clearly must have mis-read something here because Zad and QG actually engaged the suggestion rather than dismissing it. I should have AGF’d better, but I was not uncivil.

1. "quack crusaders ... You guys (particularly QG, PPdd, DV, Roxy and Tippy) are just full of blood-lust and a desire to bury any alt-med subject." 05-22

Response: My point here is just let the article state the facts. The authors I name in that post are POV pushers, three of which have found themselves topic banned in the past, and Roxy has been warned on her talk page for unhelpful attacks on other editors. Perhaps this is a failure to AGF, but I have good reasons.

1. dismisses JzG as a "religious fundamentalist" 05-14

26. Response: I characterized the stance, not the editor. Please read the whole talk page entry. I do not believe there is anything wrong with my post here.

1. "Are you just choosing to ignore all other editors on these pages?" 05-09

27. Response: He was, and he did it again at project medicine discussion about his mis-read (and misrepresentation) of Ernst 2011. How can we generate consensus if some editors don’t even listen to the opinions of impartial editors that are asked to look at it with fresh eyes? I do not believe there is anything wrong with my post here.

1. "You are just full of it ... Are you capable of thought and consideration? 05-09

28. Response: Ok I clearly lost my cool a little bit. But look at what I’m reacting to – one problematic edit and he labels it “mass MEDRS violations” and wanted to undo other, well-sourced edits by doing a mass revert – others called him on it too.

1. jeez louise yet again ... Your ownership delusion is out of control." 05-07

29. Response: Read the whole exchange. I do not believe there is anything wrong with my post here, though I should have said “behavior” rather than “delusion”.

1. "Buzz off" 04-30

30. Response: Again, my talk page, and I am being told not to revert by someone that reverts most of my edits. Completely justified, and its on my own talk page.

1. accuses Alexbrn of editing in bad faith 04-13

31. Response: We he actually did it again, jumping on board with QG and Rexxs’ incorrect reading of Ernst 2011 (see discussion “acupuncture again” at project medicine). In the previous dispute with Tippy, Alexbr eventually walked his endorsement of their misrepresentation of sources back a bit. People accuse me of POV pushing all the time, but read my response. Maybe I shouldn’t assume what Alexbrn is thinking, but like Roxy, he regularly attacks me as a COI fringe pusher. I should get to fight back a little bit, especially when they are ignoring my correct reading of a source because they consider me a POV pusher.

1. "jeez louise ... You troll much? 04-13

32. Repsonse: Read QG’s question and look at the context its in, he was clearly trolling me. I asked him if it was a sincere question, just to be sure. It wasn’t. My comment was justified.

1. dismisses Second Quantization 03-11
2. edit warring / accusation of editing in bad faith 03-08

34. Response: I accused him of misrepresenting the source, which he has done more than once. This is about accurately reflecting the cited source. I do not know if it is willful misrepresentation, or lack of ability to read a scientific paper. I did not say it was willful in this post.

1. accuses Roxy the dog of editing in bad faith 01-09

35. Response: Please read the whole thread. Roxy is off-topic and out of line, as Roxy usually is. Roxy does not believe that Roxy has a strong POV and bias, and I am trying to point out that Roxy's rhetoric is evidence of this. I did not say that Roxy is disingenuous here, only that her bias is very clear and comments were inappropriate.

1. accuses BullRangifer of editing in bad faith 12-29

36. Response: I do not see an accusation of bad faith here, or even a dismissal. This is an "in the weeds" discussion of how to read and interpret scientific evidence.

1. insinuates without evidence that QuackGuru is a meth-smoking basement troll sockmaster 12-28

37. Response: Please read what I actually wrote. I would need to quit my job and smoke meth in order to edit at the pace QG does. That is different than suggesting he is a "basement troll" who smokes meth. Yes, I suggested his behavior is very similar to editor PPdd in this and one or two other talk page posts. In contrast, QG actually opened an official sock puppet investigation into me and 2 other editors that disagree with many of his edits - so which is worse?

1. "do you need some ether to wake up from your swoon Betty? ... Again with the over-the-top drama-Queen rhetoric." 12-28

38. Response: Bullrangifer actually had just accused A1candidate of malpractice and being a charlatan, and made assumptions about that editor's understanding of scientific literature. It was off-topic and uncalled for. I called him on it. My rhetoric was over the top, but was a fitting retort given the atmosphere BR had just created.

1. "for fuck's sake" 12-27

39: Response: Rude use of words but a heavy emphasis was needed for the misunderstanding that was being used to justify a weight problem in relation to Ernst as the "only" reliable expert on the field of acupuncture.

1. describes the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry as racist 12-24

40. Response: No, I characterized their report as racist. Perhaps "inappropriately ethnocentric" would have been more accurate. Read the whole thread for the explanation. At least one other editor read it the same way.

1. battleground 12-23

41. Response: I do not believe this should be characterized as "battleground", especially when I start with: " I agree that as an encyclopedia we must include multiple sources of information from multiple points of view, and appreciate your acknowledgment of a lack of acceptance of what "mainstream" means." Yes, I do go on to suggest that skeptics have a POV and favorite sources, but this is in the context of people making the argument that Ernst and Quackwatch are the ONLY reliable sources in alt med articles. In my post I draw a connection between this and "special pleading" - which is what many editors have labeled my arguments that there are multiple ways to view any phenomenon.

1. frustrated 12-14

42: My comment here is totally on-point and accurate. BR has taken shreds of evidence and generalized them into universal truths to discredit a whole system of medicine. I may be frustrated, but for good reason.

1. accuses fellow editors of bad faith 12-12

43: Response: How in the world is this an accusation of editing in bad faith? This is me basically saying "lets agree on what kind of sources are acceptable" instead of shifting the rules whenever its convenient. The systematic review by Vickers was under attack by skeptic editors because Ernst disagreed with its findings. Its not WP's job to say "well Ernst doesn't like that systematic review published in a respected peer reviewed journal, therefore it must not be reliable and we shouldn't use it" - I stand behind this post 100%.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Herbxue is a single purpose tendentious account who edits solely to promote Traditional Chinese Medicine, a system they practice, and is frequently frustrated with many different editors and with the collegiality requirements of editing here. This is a long-existing problem that shows no signs of resolving; a talkpage requirement would not be effective at curbing this behavior, though it would at least stop the revert-warring. Nearly every day that Herbxue is active provides a new example. There appears not to have been a formally logged notification of the sanctions, but Hipocrite (talk · contribs) gave notice here and Herbxue is well aware of the toxic editing environment on alternative medicine topics. Please note that while I am not involved in this particular dispute, I hold myself WP:INVOLVED on all pseudoscience topics. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein below - I do not want to mess with Herbxue's responses above, so I am not sure the best way to reformat this. Sorry about the excess of links - either the 20 link limit is newish or I just never paid attention to it when I was working this board. "Dismisses Second Quantization" is an example of Herbxue being dismissive toward their fellow editors, a recurrent problem. The edit warring links are part of a pattern of instigating and participating in edit wars per WP:EW, not the nice easy classic 3RR problem; context is important. There are certainly other problems surrounding this family of articles, and if someone wants to step in and take a look that would be good. As noted in my opening statement, Herbxue is aware of the sanctions but has never been formally notified or added to the log. That is probably all that is necessary at this juncture, though if the behaviors continue a topic ban of some length would be in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

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.

First of all, there is no excuse for the swearing and some of the rude comments and I take full responsibility for those and have apologized or agreed to edit myself on most occasions.

However, I believe my edit history has been largely mischaracterized above. I will respond in greater detail later. For an example, look at the way my accuser words the "meth" comment above, then read my actual talk page entry.

Almost all of my contributions are talk page comments and almost all are civil, in good faith, and are sincere attempts to inform the discussion on sources and context.

The very few article mainspace edit conflicts I have engaged in have been about serious content issues, and my reading on the sources in question has been validated by impartial editors and has lead to article improvements (or at least avoiding unethical misuse of sources) on multiple occasions. When a compromise is offered, I always take it and settle.

I will write more detailed responses later, but I urge anyone passing judgements to view my posts in the full context of the talk page discussions and sources they were prompted by. Also, read my talk page to see how my initial good faith attempts to satisfy questions or concerns often get ignored or misunderstood.Herbxue (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added some comments on individual diffs above. I did not have time to go through all of them, but could at a later time. Again, please read the context each talk page comment comes out of. Also note, many are my own talk page.Herbxue (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the remaining diffs presented as evidence of my tendentious editing. In summary, I have been rude and/or used swear words in several article talk page posts and a couple edit summaries. I have previously apologized for that clearly inappropriate behavior in my first response to this arbitration enforcement request above. The lesson of this is not lost on me - I realize that the collegial atmosphere is essential to getting anything done here, and I have no intention on being known as someone who swears and gets mad all the time.

I do take issue, however, with the characterization that I am a tendentious and POV-pushing editor who is here to only "promote" traditional Chinese medicine. Yes, I am a TCM practitioner and I regularly butt heads with those that seek to discredit it (by over generalizing or otherwise misrepresenting sources, or using inappropriate sources). I do not believe that I have a COI any more than Doc James has a COI in various medicine related articles. The assumption that my situation is different than his is insulting, and holding that assumption requires believing that I am a charlatan or someone who intends to deceive. I teach hundreds of individuals every week who are sincerely seeking to help other people by tapping into a different way of looking at physiology and treatment options. They have zero interest in deceiving people, and if they did, they wouldn't choose TCM as it is simply not a very lucrative profession. They go to school for 4 years to earn a masters degree, knowing full-well that their practices are not fully accepted by mainstream medicine. Why? Perhaps we are all naive, or overly enamored with cosmological or esoteric ideas. That is very possible. But even Ernst pointed out that the majority of recent systematic reviews seem to indicate that acupuncture is an effective and safe form of therapy.

Edit warring has some specific definitions, and I do not believe I have run afoul of them. The only times I have maintained an argument for a significant time, they have been legitimate content issues, and while it has taken some time, impartial editors have come in and read the source the way I understood it. When those on the other side of the argument proposed compromise wording (usually attributing the text within the paragraph) I have accepted the compromise. As noted above in response to the diffs, I stand behind my positions on content and source issues.

If a warning about civility were the outcome of this arbitration enforcement request, I would take that warning very seriously. I did not realize just how much I had made rude comments in the past.

I have just read Lord Roem's suggestion of a 3-6 month topic ban below. Honestly, I do not believe such a severe ban is warranted. For context, when skeptic editor Quack Guru was found to be edit warring, he was given a much shorter topic ban, and after returning argued to keep an edit that clearly misrepresented the source it was attributed to. Is swearing at people a more serious offense than misrepresenting sources? Certainly incivility is a serious issue and I take full responsibility for it, but to characterize my behavior as edit warring is a reach, and in my opinion borders on censorship of a minority opinion. I would urge you to look more narrowly at article edits rather than talk page edits. In terms of talk page edits, the most egregious one, pointed out by 2over0 and highlighted by Lord Roem, was quickly edited by me when the civility issue was raised by Doc James. As Lord Roem points out, the atmosphere at these articles is tense, brought on by strong opinions on all sides. I again appeal to you to view each comment in the context it comes from.Herbxue (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: About your question to 2/0, user:Second Quantization is an editor. 2/0 wasn't accusing Herbxue of dismissing the theory of Second quantization.  ;) Cardamon (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2/0 was referring to this diff in his list: [122], (previously IRWolfie-) Second Quantization (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Awaiting a response from Herbxue, though a cursory look through the statement above demonstrates this is a serious issue. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 2over0, can you please edit your request to make it more concise and understandable? For instance, you should limit yourself to about 20 diffs, and explain better what it is you think is bad about them. For example, "dismisses Second Quantization" is not a useful description because even if I knew what Second Quantization is, this does not make me understand how this amounts to a violation of Wikipedia's rules of conduct. Also, evidence of edit-warring should consist of multiple diffs that explain how the edit war happened (e.g., first revert on "Acupuncture", second revert 2 h later, third revert 4 h later), but individual diffs with the text "edit warring" are, to me, pretty much useless as evidence. Finally, you must cite the specific remedy you wish us to enforce, and if you request discretionary sanctions, you must show how Herbxue was previously aware of them, as described in WP:AC/DS.  Sandstein  06:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @2over0: If you do not amend your request as requested above within 24 hours, I will close it without action.  Sandstein  13:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• After a more in-depth review of the evidence above, I'm convinced that Herbxue's behavior on Pseudoscience topics is disruptive enough to merit a short topic ban. As early as December of last year, there's evidence of their uncivil behavior on these pages. Herbxue explains a point they make in the midst of conversation but then finishes their comment with completely unnecessary cursing. ([123]) This isn't to say saying 'fuck' is the issue, but seen against the broader pattern of behavior, Herbxue appears easily brought to frustration and personal attacks. For example, in April, "You have got to be kidding me! I think you need a break. Your ownership delusion is out of control." ([124]) ([125]) In one edit summary, they write, "wow, do you need some ether to wake up from your swoon Betty?" which Herbxue defends above as a "fitting retort." Looking at the context of most of these discussions, it's clear the environment Herbxue's editing in is far from calm and civil on all sides (see context of this edit). But, that doesn't excuse these disruptive comments. They were notified of DS in May, with clearly no change in behavior (see this edit last month). I propose a 3-6 month topic ban. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally agreed, but I'm not sure that these edits on their own warrant a sanction of this scope. But imposing it would be within admin discretion, so I'm not opposing the sanction.  Sandstein  11:22, 14 July 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

Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Khabboos (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, imposed at [[126]] and [[127]]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notified here

It has been three and a half months since I was topic banned (please see the link provided above). I am appealing that my TBan be lifted again now after a month based on the advice given to appeal again in a month when I appealed the last time here. If you admins see my contributions, you can observe that I have first discussed my edits on the Talk Page everytime, before editing the article. I therefore request you admins to lift my Topic Ban.

TenOfAllTrades, a discussion on the Talk page of an unrelated topic shouldn't be brought up here (we're discussing my TBan with respect to religion and ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan)!—Khabboos (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last unsuccessful appeal was a month ago, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive151#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Khabboos. Because this appeal does not address the reason for the ban, and does not explain in any detail what has changed since the last appeal, and also in view of the concerns voiced in the statement below, I am not confident that problems with original research, misuse of sources and non-neutral editing will not reoccur if the ban is lifted. I therefore recommend that the appeal is declined and that the frequency of future appeals is restricted.  Sandstein  18:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm 'involved' in the weighty, Wikipedia-specific way or not, but I'll add my remarks in this section to avoid any distracting debate. I have had no interactions with Khabboos on articles related to India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, and I can confidently say that I have no idea what his past disputes were about, or which 'side' he happened to be on. To my recollection I've never made any significant contributions in the area covered by his current topic ban.

Where I have encountered Khabboos is in the area of homeopathy, chiropractic, and other fringe medical therapies. As near as I can tell, within a few days of being topic banned from one contentious area – India et al. – Khabboos jumped in with both feet to another. His very first substantive edits after the close of his last topic-ban discussion were to begin posting long lists of dozens of references onto Talk:Homeopathy: [128], [129], [130], [131] (There are more consecutive diffs; I just got tired of copying at that point). It was obvious that he had not read the references he named, and that they were simply copy-pasted from other websites (which he did without attribution to the original sources). He proposed no specific edits, just made repeated, poorly-argued demands that negative, well-sourced descriptions of homeopathy be removed from the article.

Efforts were made to return him to the straight and narrow, but the lists of unread, contextless references were back again a couple of weeks later: [132]. The discussion at Talk:Homeopathy#WP:MEDRS (and elsewhere on that page) pretty clearly illustrates the issue. I officially notified Khabboos that discretionary sanctions applied to homeopathy and related articles on June 4 ([133]), and he received a final warning on July 8: [134].

He has noted that his primary purpose in editing these articles was to build up a track record to support this topic ban appeal: [135]. If this is what he does when he's on his best behavior, I have grave doubts about what would happen if his editing restrictions were relaxed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these edits, posted a few minutes ago while I was writing the above comment, capture an essential problem with Khabboos' attitude:

"A discussion on a Talk Page doesn't break any rules, does it? I haven't even indulged in an edit war here!—Khabboos (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

At this point, I really can't tell whether he's just being disingenuous, or if he truly can't grasp the notion that it's possible for conduct on a talk page to be disruptive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Based on the evidence in the statements above, I would decline this appeal and limit their ability to file further appeals for some period, perhaps six months or longer (based on other topic-ban timeframes). --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Less than a month has gone by since Khaboos's last appeal at AE. I agree that this appeal should be declined and that Khabboos should not be allowed to file further appeals more often than once every six months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with decline per my comments on their user talk. Zad68 21:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that this request doesn't adequately address the requirements listed in WP:GAB which is what I said Khabboos needed to show. That is, the reason the sanction was necessary and imposed (a reflection on their behaviour), and why with evidence it isn't required any more. I would also support a restriction that they not appeal again for at least six months. Also, for disclosure, I've filed an SPI on Khabboos (re User:Saharadess); I'm not convinced it's Khabboos but the evidence is too much to ignore. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 14 July 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

Calypsomusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBIPA :

Wikipedia:ARBIPA#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

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

1. 19:34, 8 July 2014 What Darkness Shines reverted was a POV edit (strong POV arguably, but no case of vandalism).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Wikipedia:ARBIPA#Log_of_blocks_and_bans 15 May 2014 Topic Ban of Darkness Shines
2. Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Final_warnings 14 June 2014 Final warning for Darkness Shines

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

1. Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Final_warnings 14 June 2014 Final warning for Darkness Shines

1. Wikipedia:ARBIPA#Log_of_blocks_and_bans 15 May 2014 Topic Ban of Darkness Shines

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on IPA articles (for example, see above and block log )
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see above.

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see above

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADarkness+Shines

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I first submitted this report here: User_talk:Callanecc#Topic_ban_violation.

Darkness Shines first dishonestly claimed that he "was reverting vandalism, section blanking & introducing deliberate factual errors".

This is dishonest, because the section blanking he linked to was actually not reverted by him, but by another user.

And what Darkness Shines reverted was not "vandalism" or "factual errors", but only (arguably strong) POV.

He reverted the edit that changed the sentence from

Saffron terror are acts of violence that have been described as being motivated by Hindu Nationalism. However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been clearly determined

to

Saffron terror is a propaganda launched by enemies of india to malign hindus

@Vanamonde93: I disagree that the edit under discussion was "flagrant vandalism". It was certainly POV, unhelpful and in an unencyclopedic tone, but it was not "flagrant vandalism". In any case, topic banned users should not be editing articles falling under the topic ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=616888053&oldid=616717781

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 am well acquainted with this particular article, as well as with both editors involved here; and in my opinion, the edit that was reverted was flagrant vandalism. The fact that the added content was vaguely topic related does not change that. The article prior to the reverted edit described actual acts of "Saffron terror." Therefore, insertion of "propaganda by enemies of India" cannot be described as anything but vandalism.

Also, if you look at the edit history of the article, you can see instances where the editor reverted by DS indulged in section blanking, among other things. Finally, this report was made 6 days after the edit in question, which makes me think that this was not made in response to disruption, but is an attempt to get a topic ban extended on an editor Calypso has not had a cordial history with. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is here because their prior request at Calanecc's user talk page was not acted upon - but the defence od reverting "vandalism" remains sound. The case at hand is so far removed from a collegial edit in any way attempting to improve an article that it was revertible on sight, IMO. If the claim is made that only "inserting obscenities" qualifies as "vandalism" then that sentence in WP:BANEX needs redrafting for sure. Collect (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• In my view, changing the introduction of an article to "... is a propaganda launched by enemies of india to malign hindus" is obvious vandalism because it is difficult to imagine an editor making this edit in good faith with the objective of improving Wikipedia as a neutral reference work. Darkness Shines therefore did not violate any applicable topic ban or rules pertaining to rollback by rolling back the edit (see WP:BANEX). I would close this request without action.  Sandstein  10:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. Additionally, no action need be taken against the filer at this time in my view. NW (Talk) 13:01, 14 July 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

Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sue Rangell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. 11:37, 5 July 2014 Breaks Conduct during arbitration cases. (Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all.)
2. 11:45, 5 July 2014 Breaks Conduct during arbitration cases. (Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all.)
3. 12:41, 12 July 2014 Breaks Making allegations against other editors
4. 13:05, 12 July 2014 Breaks Purpose of Wikipedia, Neutral point of view, Battleground conduct, and Seeking community input. (Among other edits, two whole sections, that had been in the article for months, were removed. That content added WP:BALASPS to the article and answered to questions a Wikipedia might ask: Why was this law passed? And was it ever challenged in court?)
5. 13:16, 12 July 2014] Breaks Neutral point of view, and, although the edit summary includes "Let's discuss," the content "Replaced" has been discussed in the recent past - without consensus to keep. In fact, the "Germany" section is part of what started the long war that lead to the ArbCom case that left multiple pro-gun editors being topic banned, some other editors warned (though neither Sue nor I were involved parties), and discretionary sanctions being placed on articles related to gun control!
6. 13;40, 12 July 2014 Breaks Making allegations against other editors (backhanded), Battleground conduct, and is contrary to Avoid inappropriate summaries.
7. 13:46, 12 July 2014 Breaks Neutral point of view, Seeking community input, and is contrary to Avoid inappropriate summaries.
8. 13:47, 12 July 2014 Breaks Neutral point of view, Seeking community input, and is contrary to Avoid vagueness.
9. 18:55, 12 July 2014 Breaks Conduct during arbitration cases. (Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all.)
10. 19:34, 12 July 2014 There are a couple of things said in this request that concern me, and I will expand upon that in my statement below. But note that the timing of the article edits above and this (Sue's) request to have rollback rights restored coincide with the date (12 July 2014) that talk here at ARE about topic banning me was stepped up.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 15:08, 20 January 2013 Rollback rights removed for failure to properly understand the meaning of "vandalism". Also, 5 January 2014, account creator rights removed - only for one day, but I will expand upon that in my statement below, too.

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

• Participated in recent ArbCom with comments, statements. Has participated in a previous ARE here. Has recently edited articles that have a discretionary sanctions notice at the top of their talk pages.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to the specific diffs above, I want to share a few things that make me suspicious of what's going on in the editing and administration of gun-control related topics. First, Sue didn't start editing GC articles until I sought her help [136] to calm down about 10 editors who tag-teamed me on a GC article last Aug. when I was a newbie editor.[137] (At the time I started this RFC I'd been an active editor less than three weeks. Two of the 14 other people who participated were topic-banned this April. Another, who started it all by accusing me of "scrubbing" the article, has since apologized.[138]-third graf) At some point, I contacted her by email, so she had my email address, which (unfortunately) was not unique to my WP username at the time. Also, quite early on, she sided with the guys and started aggressively reverting most of my edits and calling me a SPA to everyone in our discussions. (After being tag-teamed, I started an ANI,[139] which nearly boomeranged on me. Sue called me a SPA eight times in that discussion, YELLING about it at least twice,[140][141] almost frantically.) At some point, she even said to me in one of our many discussions something like "you and I both know what you're up to" and "you don't fool me."

The both of us nearly got IBANned or topic banned, but we worked out an arrangement, and then there was peace for a while, though she did start editing GC articles again before the ArbCom came down at the end of April. (She has stayed away from GC articles since then, until it was proposed here in the Scalhotrod ARE that he and I both be topic banned.)

Anyway, in May, while I was on vacation, a comment was posted on an article talk page by an IP user who made it clear he/she knows my physical-world identity. I brought it to an admin's attention and it was removed.[142] Then, after I started the ARE against Scal, I got a tweet that made it clear that whomever sent it knows my identity. (They also closed the account they sent from, obviously a "one-off.") I am working with a functionary on that problem.

Perhaps one of the topic-banned pro-gun editors is harassing me. Perhaps someone who's not been involved in these disputes. But I want to ask, what personal information does an editor with account creator rights have access to? I will be happy to provide diffs in addition to the ones I gave above, and I'll spend the rest of the day getting a few to support the comments that I just made. Thanks, as always, for your time.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here: [143]

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.

Perhaps one of the topic-banned pro-gun editors is harassing me. Perhaps someone who's not been involved in these disputes. But I want to ask, what personal information does an editor with account creator rights have access to? I will be happy to provide diffs in addition to the ones I gave above, and I'll spend the rest of the day getting a few to support the comments that I just made. Thanks, as always, for your time.

Looks more like a fishing expedition than anything else. LB has a quite significant proportion of her total edits on the Gun articles, AFAICT well over 40% of total edits, with another 10% in user space mainly on the same topic, not even counting project space edits on the same topic. SR has about 5% of her edits on that topic.

Thus the implication that SR is a SPA in any sense on the gun issue, or that she is behind a mysterious IP threat is not gonna get a particularly strong response here, and the fact is the OP has, to put it charitably, misstated his "case" if one looks at the offending diffs she has posted. Collect (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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