Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:50, 27 January 2016

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Canada Jack

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

Request concerning Canada Jack

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Canada Jack (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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 :

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

1. Editing to restore the "original edit" which I point out is wrong.
2. The discussions at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people are largely self-explanatory. The issue is whether reliable sources should determine who should be listed on the page or some other terminology: the phrasing now is "international body that specifically deals in longevity research" but without identifying the GRG as the only actual source in play.
3. The "no one has 'verified' the age" versus newspapers alleging "reporting" the age (I don't even know anymore) arguing continues here
4. To determine which bodies are said international longevity researching specific-whatever, "We observe what news sources use" so arguing newspapers are unreliable as a source other than to parrot the GRG as a source.
5. "Nice try, Ricky. NONE of the sources outside of GRG / Guinness claim that these birthdates are "verified"... unless GRG/Guinness has verified them!" which is false.
6. "I never said they were the sole authorities, but media around the world use those two almost exclusively, so we should as well, that's all"
7. It's the oldest living people, yet Canada Jack derails the discussion by repeating arguing about the insertion of Methusalah's age knowing full well that's irrelevant, but calling it the logical consequence and the can of worms opened by the lede saying "reliable sources" alone. The section needs an outside admin to just collapse it.
8. Canada Jack has been derailing the discussion by pointing to this article in the Canada Star. While never advocating for her inclusion, (a WP:NOTFORUM problem), he's repeatedly referencing it including just to make snipes on other discussions going on.
9. " This page is for verified claims. The fact a claim was published doesn't establish its veracity."
10. As noted above, there is an argument about the birthdate for Zhou Youguang (not a claim, just that little fact). The only way Canada Jack sees this is "His claim is accepted on its face by the media. But... there is no mention of Guinness and/or GRG as having verified the claim" in regards to his birthdate. As discussed before, no one cares a cent about this until Zhou turned 110 and then there's arguments everywhere that his birthdate must be removed until it's verified by the GRG or else there exists the possibility that Misplaced Pages is claiming that a supercentenarian exists that the GRG hasn't identified which I don't know why that matters.
11. Finally, to summarize this mentality, "Are you seriously trying to claim that it is the Toronto Star which has determined that the proof is "not solid enough" instead of Guinness? That the Toronto Star, not Guinness, bestows the crown of "world's oldest person"? C'mon, Ricky, surely you can do better than that!"

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

• The talk pages each notify the editor of the discretionary sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is the typical parade of horribles and chaos caused whenever there is an ounce of push-back to even debating the language that doesn't explicitly or implicitly treat the GRG as the last word on the birth date of very old people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In response, I first note that if Canada Jack knew he was wrong, the proper thing is to restore the correct version, not to ignore it until called out here but it's been changed again which doesn't matter with the RFC ongoing. I note that this is again a single issue: is List of oldest living people going to continue to be a walled garden that expresses a particular WP:POV about who is allegedly the world's oldest people or not? Our sourcing policy is clear: we are to have a single WP:NPOV everywhere and a single standard for WP:RS. The analogous WP:MEDRS either believes a fact or strips it away entirely; it does not create separate articles with different sourcing standards. Canada Jack's refusal to accept that is precisely the type of antics that brought about the original longevity ARBCOM case. There is literally nothing in his arguments that hasn't been argued for over a decade. Either we should report on Zhou's birthdate as a fact on his biography, put him in the relevant category, and put him in the (all the) relevant articles (which admittedly the oldest living people is not) or we treat that fact as a WP:FRINGE theory and ignore it entirely. The amount of inane arguing over an article that literally no one supports or has even thought to include longevity claims shows the level of hysteria over any pushback that does nothing but drive away all but the most hardened of editors here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz, is it really robust debate to keep bringing up hypotheticals that you have no interest in actually putting down as a fact? I'm for debate but WP:BLUDGEON and WP:NOTFORUM are also relevant; we wouldn't want a page like "List of the best NBA players" or whatever filled up with navel gazing arguments about what "best" is and someone just throwing out argument after argument, none of which they actually want in the article. Is filling the talk page with comments like this about random alleged oldest people (facts that you yourself aren't arguing to be treated as true) in every single section (Canada Jack is arguing about the oldest guy in Israel in a section about the oldest Japanese man) disruptive itself? I don't see any indication that any of Canada Jack's questioning is actually in response to the RFC issue; rather it's repeated discussion after discussion with example after example (the same ones on oldest living people and at oldest people and elsewhere) regardless of relevancy of just "hi I found a single blog or a newspaper somewhere that said something so STUUUUPID, can't you see how there's some wrong newspapers out there". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Diff

Discussion concerning Canada Jack

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

Statement by Canada Jack

My reading of the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" is that it was determined that verified super-centenarian lists from the GRG were considered a "reliable source," and that the non-yet verified lists (Table EE from GRG) were not a "reliable source." However, what we are talking about here is not whether GRG or Table EE is or isn't a RS, it's whether news media reports on longevity claims of those over 110 years old can be used on the "oldest living people" page, if these "reliable sources" suffice to be being included with claims which have been verified by GRG etc., the particular discussion on what the lede should say. The contention here from me and others is the only a recognized authority on verifying these claims should be used in considering these claims "verified," and that news organizations, while "reliable sources," are not able to properly assess these claims, no more than a newspaper, even the New York Times, would publish, say, the latest cancer claims without consulting oncology experts who could better assess and put into context such claims. As Guinness World Records oft stated: "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity," hence the need for a rigorous, more scientific approach in assessing claims. Many news organizations recognize the expertise Guinness and the GRG have on this subject as they are cited, from publications around the world, as having "verified" particular claims. I could supply literally hundreds of examples from around the world of them being cited as authorities.

In attempting to change the lede to allow "verification" from news sources, thus removing the need for sole GRG/Guinness verification, a can of worms is opened, which is what the thrust of the discussion here was. I pointed out that by their own criteria of "reliable sources," dubious claims like that of a woman in Canada who will soon turn 120, would warrant inclusion on this page, thus destroying the credibility of Misplaced Pages. She would be the oldest person in the world. (News sources, citing Guinness/GRG, routinely identify a woman in New York, at 116, as the world's oldest.) I was never seriously proposing to include her on the page, I was using their own criteria to point out that a highly dubious claim would be admissible, and therefore their changes would be detrimental. This approach from Ricky and others are nakedly anti-GRG, those who argue as I do are routinely painted as shills for GRG, a tone I personally find perplexing - it's as if the approach here is to "get back" at GRG, for some undefined reason.

In sum: There should be no sanction/remedy as I have not engaged in discussion on the subjects for which a sanction/remedy is warranted. And, therefore, discussions on whether non-GRG sources should be considered for inclusion is a topic for which there are no restrictions.

As for his DIFFs...

1 was a good-faith edit, I reverted an edit to what I thought was the original edit as a discussion (the one I refer to) was on-going. He pointed out the error, and I made no further edit. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

2 discussions are on the subject Ricky (I believe it was him) initiated. If I am violating something for engaging in discussion, then surely Ricky, who initiated it, is too. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

3 Debating verification is not prohibited - the original decision was the one mentioned above - I'm not challenging GRG as a reliable source; I'm not arguing that GRG's Table EE is a reliable source.

4 He has made a what I consider to be an invalid line of reasoning, making a strawman argument by dismissing an argument I never made. Specifically, that if newspapers are "unreliable" as he claims I am suggesting, then how we can rely on them when they cite GRG/Guinness? But I've never argued the newspapers are "unreliable," just that they are not experts on the subject. Using his logic, if the New York Times cites a cancer expert, we can't say that that person, no matter his/her credentials, is an "expert" as the New York Times is not expert in the subject. I don't buy that line of reasoning, and that was not what I was saying. And, I never suggested we can only verify if cited by a paper, just that newspapers routinely cite GRG/Guinness, therefore they are considered (by media outlets around the world) to be experts on the subject. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

5 He says it is "false" that media outlets don't say a claim is "verified" without quoting GRG/Guinness. But he's never supplied an example of a claim being called "verified" without a mention of GRG/Guinness. I don't think he understood the point I was making. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

6 The quote simply states the obvious - they are considered by media world-wide as experts, so should we. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

7 As I pointed out repeatedly to Ricky, the section in question asked "Who is the world's oldest ever person?" I simply applied the "reliable source" argument - which is at the heart of the discussion here - to that case. It was a Reductio ad absurdum argument directly related to the "verification" and "reliable sources" issues. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

8 Again, as I earlier pointed out that, given the very criteria Ricky and others are proposing, this woman - Canadian Emma Laurent - would appear on this page even though she is three years older than who Guinness recognizes as the world's oldest. The point was to underline the consequences of the actions proposed - destroying the credibility of the page. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

9 Again, this is not debating what was resolved and for which there is sanction for discussing - that GRG is a reliable source; that GRG's Table EE is not a reliable source.

10 Ricky misrepresents the discussion at hand. The point was not whether Zhou was verified or not by GRG, the point was the only difference between the Laurent case and the Zhou case in terms of "verified" by "reliable sources" is that Zhou's article doesn't mention GRG/Guinness while Laurent's does - in saying Guinness doesn't accept the claim. He insists that this mere mention disqualifies Laurent for inclusion on the page and that the "non-mention" of GRG/Guinness in Zhou means it warrants inclusion. That makes no sense, as if Zhou doesn't appear on the Guinness/GRG lists, then they've not verified him either - so Ricky and others are employing a double-standard. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

11 Ricky made numerous false statements on the Laurent article (that Canada copied Haiti's verification of the case - there is no mention of that in the article; that Canada issued a passport on the strength of Haiti's information - there is nothing in the article which says that, indeed the word "passport" doesn't even appear; that the Toronto Star believes the claims is "not proven" when that was the description of Guinness's evaluation of the claim). The final claim is what the quote discusses - his contention that "not proven" means the Star has determined that and, by implication (given the out-of-context quote he used) The Star awards the crown of "world's oldest person," an obvious absurdity. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source. Canada Jack (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Canadian Paul

I'm a little concerned with individuals being brought to Arbitration Enforcement simply because they disagree with the way longevity articles should be handled. As noted below, only one of the diffs is actually an edit to the article and thus I do not see Canada Jack engaging the type of contentious, single-agenda editing that these sanctions were enacted to prevent (and I agree fully that there is so much of it that it easy to get frustrated/be sensitive about it). I understand Canada Jack's reasoning (even if I don't agree with it) and I don't see it as disrupting the project because the article itself is not being affected by it and if he can accept his views as not being the consensus, then that will be all there is to it. Bringing dissenting voices to AE (see also the failed AE request for Lugnuts) only serves to transform an already contentious topic into more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND than it already is. Canadian Paul 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Canada Jack

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

• Robustly defending your position on an article talk page is not disruptive unless the user is refusing to be bound by the eventual consensus or disruptively edit warring to advance their position. I'm really not seeing enough disruption in Canada Jack's edits to merit any action unless there is a clear indication that they will behave disruptively in future. @Canada Jack: please can you put these concerns to rest by confirming that you will respect the consensus that emerges on verifiability and that you will not take part in further edit wars? Spartaz 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ollie231213

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

Ollie231213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ollie231213 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Topic Ban from Longevity broadly construed, imposed at

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213, logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#Longevity

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Statement by Ollie231213

The reason that I was topic banned was because, in the admins' words, I am "clearly here to advocate for a specific position on longevity articles rather than following our long standing policies and guidelines" and that I am "consistently editing articles, and voting in AfDs, to favor the position of the Gerontology Research Group is incompatible with the goals of Misplaced Pages."

These are accusations which I strongly deny. The implications here are that I am not following Misplaced Pages policy and am affiliated with the Gerontology Research Group, both of which are false. I explained very clearly in my statement why I believed I was following Misplaced Pages policy, but these arguments appear to have been ignored.

Let me use an example here: we can probably all agree that an organisation like the New York Times is, generally speaking, considered a reliable source for many things on Misplaced Pages. However, what if we're dealing with a specialist topic area - astronomy, for example? Are you going to argue that the NYT is an equally reliable source on that topic as NASA is? What normally happens is that, for stories about astronomy, news organisations simply report what NASA has said. They don't do the research themselves. If the NYT published a story claiming that a new star had been discovered, but no authoritative bodies such as NASA had verified the claims, would we just add that to Misplaced Pages without even a footnote?

Well, the GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy. Just look at how many times you see news organisations say "...according to the Gerontology Research Group" in stories about the world's oldest people - these are just a few: . Lots of other sources clearly consider the GRG to be an authority in the topic area. All I am saying is that Misplaced Pages should reflect this and base its articles on longevity primarily on this source and not on other less-reliable ones.

For example: Yasutaro Koide, recognised by the GRG and Guinness World Records as the world's oldest man, died recently aged 112. However, the previous day, a man named Andrew Hatch died at the claimed age of 117, according to this source (which might generally be considered reliable). However, he was not able to prove his age so was not recognised by Guinness and the GRG. So what happens here? Do we treat both sources as equally reliable and say that both were the oldest man?!? No, Guinness and the GRG are clearly more reputable and widely-recognised as authorities in this topic area than the Contra Consta Times. I'm not saying don't include Andrew Hatch at all on Misplaced Pages, but include him as a "longevity claim" and not as if his age is definitely true.

So, just to summarise: I made it very clear in my statement in the initial request that I am following Misplaced Pages's policies. I just want Misplaced Pages's articles on longevity to based on the best sources, and don't want unverified information to be included as if it is fact. My edits in the past have been in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:NOR, and WP:RSCONTEXT. I don't see how I can be justifiably topic-banned when I've clearly explained why I am following policy and am acting in good faith. And, should the ban be repealed, I promise to act in a more civil manner in the future. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

Statement by Legacypac

Ollie demonstrates a lack of understanding of wikipolicy in his appeal. If, as he say,s "GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy" we can safely treat GRG as just one of many RS. Our Astronomy article does not even mention NASA (that I can see) and the lead says "Astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role" NASA is definitely a great authority but hardly the primary or final authority in astronomy.

If someone wants to write up Andrew Hatch (super old guy) we have good sources and would report he claimed to be 117, has lots of id that verifies that, but did not have a birth certificate because birth certificates were not issued in his region (just as the contracosta times did), they should write it. For completeness, they should also note that GRG would not validate his age. But Hatch is a total red herring as no editor has tried to include him in any table or assert he was the world's oldest man (that I'm aware of).

Ollie's assertion that we should "base its (Misplaced Pages) articles on longevity primarily on this (GRG) source and not on other less-reliable ones." goes right to the heart of why he must stay topic banned. GRG is not a super source of absolute WP:TRUTH that must be used to the general exclusion of all other RS. (I commented on the AE request that led to the topic ban, not sure if that makes me involved or uninvolved) Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ollie231213

Result of the appeal by Ollie231213

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

Prokaryotes

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

Request concerning Prokaryotes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Prokaryotes (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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#1RR imposed :

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

1. January 25, 2016. Revert of January 25, 2016.
2. January 25, 2016. Revert of January 23, 2016.

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

• There is an edit notice that displays when editing the page, notifying users of the ArbCom sanctions.
• User was a party to the ArbCom case: .
• Received a "final warning" about GMO editing from MastCell: .

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think that this is a self-explanatory violation of 1RR by a user who has been extensively warned before. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes has now replied, and ironically presents this link: as indicating that I am "ignoring" editor consensus. However, the discussion is actually me reaching out to other editors with a compromise, and even saying that I "fully support" an edit that Prokaryotes had made. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes has now said that the two reverts here are his only recent GMO-related edits, a statement that can be seen as patently false simply by looking at the recent edit history at Genetically modified crops. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In any case, the central issue here is 1RR (as opposed to having an argument over content – and indeed arguments over whether the reverts were justified display a failure to understand the central issue here). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm very happy that the two administrators who have commented as of this time very clearly understand what is going on. Given Prokaryotes' demonstrated lack of understanding of why the 1RR violation is wrong, administrators may want to consider how likely it is that a block will really prevent anything, in that the behavior is likely to continue after the block is lifted. Perhaps a topic ban, something that was explicitly pointed out in MastCell's warning, is really what is needed. And the defenses from other editors illustrate how extensive the problem is. Albino Ferret is even saying that I don't understand NOR, or some such nonsense. There seems to be a belief that if editors on the POV-pusher "side" don't get what they want, then it's OK to violate 1RR to get the content that they want. The initial flurry of AE complaints just after the GMO case has passed, and editors should by now understand what ArbCom meant. AE needs to be firm about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes has self-reverted, which is obviously a good thing. I wonder if he can convince the rest of us that he understands why this self-reversion was needed, as opposed to doing it in hopes of avoiding sanctions? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

...Considering, for example, this? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Still a problem. Inasmuch as the self-revert was helpful, it seems to have come without any real self-awareness, more like a last-minute effort to avoid trouble here. This comment just made at the article talk page, , following a series of similar comments, is completely objectionable in context, and clearly demonstrates that the conduct is continuing unabated, self-revert or no. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Prokaryotes

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

Statement by Prokaryotes

The second reference is in response to an ongoing OR investigation, which was triggered when an edit from January 23, 2016 readded content previously considered settled, was changed back to a WP:Synthesis/WP:OR. My edit summary, "per talk page, no consensus, dont readd without conclusion of current discussion, see also OR noticebaord discussion"

The OR discussion involves Tryptofish, i had to report him after fruitless attempts to sort this out @talk page, OR noticeboard report. Tryptofish is ignoring any editor arguments in this matter, or alternatives, and it seems he tries to use this request here to remove me from further participating.

I believe that in light of the ongoing OR discussion my second reported ref above should not be treated as a revert. Additionally, i suggest to use this request here as a chance to settle the current ongoing disputes, which would involve Tryptofish and a couple more editors. I state that i thought 24 hrs had past (look at my edit history, hundreds of edits in the past 24h, well it has now almost past).prokaryotes (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@KingOfAces, he is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in the current discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe. You be the judge Arb. prokaryotes (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional i want to state that these two actually four (see aboves Tryptofish response, though all related to the same single content) edits described below as edit warring are my only GMO related edits in a long time. While Tryptofish and KingofAces make GMO edits on a daily routine. prokaryotes (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@MastCell, your warnings were not related to 1RR, and given how easy it is to break 1RR, and given this situation a topic ban seems very drastic. Also to my knowledge a final warning should come from Arbcom not as a quick single admin decision, at least that is my impression when lurking around here. prokaryotes (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Aircorn, i have self reverted naw. Thanks prokaryotes (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

Was about to request this myself. First, I should point out there was also a previous revert 16:18, January 23 that technically doesn't cross the bright line of 1RR, but gaming of 1RR to keep edit warring has been specifically called by arbs as behavior to deal with by DS.. A common problem can be seen in their edit summaries like, "per talk page, no consensus, dont readd without conclusion of current discussion, see also OR noticebaord discussion" where they try to edit war in their preferred content change that did not have consensus on the talk page (yet citing it as if they did) in order to replace the longer standing consensus version. It's like a reverse WP:BRD where someone tries to claim the status quo cannot remain and their preferred addition must remain even when the new edit does not have consensus.

Prokaryotes' edit warring was also brought up in a separate case they brought forward here that was closed without much comment on them because Prokaryotes withdrew the complaint. Prokaryotes' edit warring had quite a bit of coverage at the ArbCom case too. They narrowly avoided a topic ban by one vote. . Opposing arbs generally said the behavior was a problem, but didn't quite reach the point of action at that time. Their edit warring and battleground behavior was the largely last straw on the camel's back that triggered the ArbCom case. Considering their behavior issues have continued even after the warning MastCell gave (mentioned in Tryptofish's request) that they were precariously close to enforcing DS after the case, it doesn't look like there's any other options left. I'd suggest 0RR at a bare minimum, but Prokaryotes has received sufficient warning on impending topic bans due to other things mentioned at the case such as casting aspersions, battleground mentality, a nearly passed ban, that a topic ban would better help prevent disruption at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Prokaryotes is doubling down on the battleground behavior they were warned about in this very board. For those not involved, I was referring to the real-world issues outlined in sources with general "anti-science" sentiment when it comes to scientific consensus on topics like vaccines, climate change, GMOs, etc and the common themes we see in fringe sources. My comments were mostly referring to subject matter (e.g., tactics). I wasn't addressing editors excluding the bit where I mentioned that some editors were misunderstanding the subject matter. That Prokaryotes takes those comments and tries to paint a very different picture about my comments such as painting everyone as a climate change denier is a huge stretch and continuation of the battleground behavior that almost got them topic banned. I shouldn't need to clarify that further at this point, though it is an ongoing problem in the topic that some editors try to manufacture drama like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by David Tornheim

The problem is not Prokaryotes. The problem is that Tryptofish, KingofAces43 and likely also Aircorn want to change language that was already settled upon and had been stable since last August 2015-early September 2015. That language used the term "scientific agreement" to replace "scientific consensus". The stable language was the result of a compromise created and executed here by Jytdog and agreed to by Prokaryotes at this end of this lengthy discussion that I was also involved in. Others like myself saw the change as a slight improvement and allowed it to stand. That language was incorporated in the lead of the Genetically modified crops article here on September 4, 2015. Prokaryotes inadvertently had not revised the language in the body during that edit. That was the status quo ante consensus position on the language in the lead during this dispute. Now the three editors I named want to go back to the disputed "scientific consensus" language, despite significant opposition to the change here, and to the fact that the term "scientific consensus" is little more than WP:OR and WP:SYN explained here.

I will note that this all started when I tried to correct the portion of the body of the article that still had the "scientific consensus" language in it and had not yet been corrected to the agreed upon language with all the other articles back in September 2015. Shortly after I made the correction here, Aircorn put the word "consensus" back in here and in his edit notes suggested the need for yet another RfC. I explained here why I thought that was needlessly causing new problems and was against the former agreement decided months ago at Genetically modified food I explained again the how the agreement came into being again at WP:NOR here.

In summary, the problem is not Prokaryotes, but the other three editors who are working against the agreed upon language and creating drama by so doing. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Aircorn wrote: "I was (and still am) unaware of any wikipedia consensus for changing scientific consensus to scientific agreement. I believe the most recent discussion on the issue...was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Scientific consensus?." The first post in that section by Johnfos says: "Most GMF articles on WP, like this one , contain the statement that: there is "general scientific agreement that food on the market ...."." This shows that Aircorn was aware that the status quo on the articles had the language "scientific agreement", not "scientific consensus". It is my understand that per WP:PAG (please correct me if I am wrong), stable language in the article is assumed to have consensus by default, even if the previous talk page discussion(s) did not clearly achieve it. Per the essay WP:STATUSQUO, "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." Also in WP:BRD, it says "BRD will fail if...There is a preexisting dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus." That is exactly where things stood when the above three editors tried to change the "scientific agreement" language (the WP:STATUSQUO) to "scientific consensus". --David Tornheim (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret

I also have concerns that Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 are using AE to win a content dispute. Tryptofish has an opinion that Core policies like WP:OR/synthesis can be overcome with a local consensus. in a dispute over a synthesis claim. In fact both editors are arguing to include WP:SYNTHESIS in the GMO articles. Removal of those who wish to follow WP policy would aid in this quest to retain OR. AlbinoFerret 02:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, excuse me? POV pushers following a comment about me? That is an asperation to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a POV pusher. The only POV I have is that WP policies and guidelines be followed. If you think otherwise you best have some diffs. AlbinoFerret 19:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears Prokaryotes followed Aircorn's very good advice and has self reverted the 1RR violation. AlbinoFerret 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn

I was (and still am) unaware of any wikipedia consensus for changing scientific consensus to scientific agreement. I believe the most recent discussion on the issue before I partially reverted David was at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Scientific consensus?. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@David. It shows nothing except that Misplaced Pages is inconsistent. The wording "scientific consensus" has been in the controversies section since October 2013. You made an edit in good faith, I partially reverted in good faith because I did not think there was any consensus. Now we are having this discussion in multiple places. WP:BRD was followed and WP:STATUSQUO would have been too if Prokaryotes had not broken 1rr. AIRcorn (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So I went back through the edit history again and see I made a mistake. I meant to change Davids edit to scientific consensus, but ended up changing the lead one instead. That was a mistake on my part and added to my confusion and possibly to others. Apologies to all. AIRcorn (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes. You still have time to self revert. AIRcorn (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Prokaryotes

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

• This looks like an unambiguous 1RR violation. Insofar as I can parse Prokaryotes' response, it doesn't seem that either revert meets the criteria for 1RR/3RR exemptions. I already did the final-final-warning thing with Prokaryotes awhile back. Given that, and the fact that there's no evidence of any insight in Prokaryotes' response, I feel a block would be appropriate, but I will leave this open for other admins to comment. MastCell  01:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• This is a plain 1RR violation. The talk-page consensus may be unclear, but that doesn't give anyone a license to break 1RR. If admins decide that a block is needed, then something between two days and one week would be appropriate. If people keep on reverting the lead of Genetically modified crops then more admin action is likely. Anything that looks like edit warring on GMO pages ought to receive a strong response. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)