Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:58, 26 April 2016 editSTSC (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,731 edits →Statement by STSC: re← Previous edit Revision as of 14:25, 26 April 2016 edit undoThe Wordsmith (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators15,431 edits →Result concerning STSC: weighing inNext edit →
Line 910: Line 910:
*I'd be OK with putting this AE request on hold until STSC is back from his trip. A maximum of three weeks' delay could be considered. I'd collapse this AE and put 'On hold' as the result. If STSC doesn't return, then we should decide the case anyway. ] (]) 04:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC) *I'd be OK with putting this AE request on hold until STSC is back from his trip. A maximum of three weeks' delay could be considered. I'd collapse this AE and put 'On hold' as the result. If STSC doesn't return, then we should decide the case anyway. ] (]) 04:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
*TheBlueCanoe makes a good point about the many small diffs. It would be hard to illustrate STSC's annoying habit of inserting "allegedly" all over the place (See ]), or the many wikilinks to "cult", or the tag-bombing, without a lot of little diffs. I don't think those put undue strain on the attention of the reviewing admins, the way forty links to argumentative talkpage posts would. Since the need for "permission of ''a'' reviewing administrator" is invoked in the page instructions, I'll just state that I'll allow TBC's diffs. As {{U|EdJohnston}} has already reminded STSC on his page, the three weeks for which the request was put on hold have elapsed. Pinging {{U|Newyorkbrad}}, too. Time to decide on this request. ] &#124; ] 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC). *TheBlueCanoe makes a good point about the many small diffs. It would be hard to illustrate STSC's annoying habit of inserting "allegedly" all over the place (See ]), or the many wikilinks to "cult", or the tag-bombing, without a lot of little diffs. I don't think those put undue strain on the attention of the reviewing admins, the way forty links to argumentative talkpage posts would. Since the need for "permission of ''a'' reviewing administrator" is invoked in the page instructions, I'll just state that I'll allow TBC's diffs. As {{U|EdJohnston}} has already reminded STSC on his page, the three weeks for which the request was put on hold have elapsed. Pinging {{U|Newyorkbrad}}, too. Time to decide on this request. ] &#124; ] 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC).
*I find these diffs troubling. Particularly , which openly supports the "elimination" of a religious group as a good and necessary thing. To me, that seems to demonstrate an agenda that is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Misplaced Pages; therefore I believe that the best thing for this topic area is to remove the editor indefinitely. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 14:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


==MjolnirPants== ==MjolnirPants==

Revision as of 14:25, 26 April 2016

"WP:AE" redirects here. For for the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    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

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    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:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    TripWire

    Closing as no violation. --Laser brain (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning TripWire

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    TripWire (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan:
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    Edit warring and WP:GAMING to have consensus, continues to reinstate something for which he has gained no consensus. Such as:-
    reverted here:
    Reinstated reverted edit again, got reverted again, then reinstated same edit again, then reinstated once again after being reverted, and again, while sure that he was sure that his edit will be reverted.
    WP:NPA, WP:SOAP violation.
    "Like I have said many times, stop wasting time. The best you can do is to support socks and their contentious edits, unfortunately you'll fail in that too."
    "I'd suggest that you keep your Mullah Raj theory with you and act maturely."
    Use of very hostile language, WP:BATTLE.
    "I know a dear friends of yours was blocked for socking and one does get jumpy at times."
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Topic banned from all "edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts, for a period of 6 months".
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Just came off a topic ban this year.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Once he would realize that his topic ban is no more in force, he would go back to making those same kinds of edits that led to the topic ban, he would make three objectionable edits to Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965 at first, then he disrupted the article Bangladesh Liberation War by edit warring and making hostile comments on talk page, after that he would falsely accuse @Volunteer Marek: of harassment. And now he seems to be missing no chance to attack editors like @Ghatus and Kautilya3: and others. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning TripWire

    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 (TripWire)

    A highly bad-faithed report. D4iNa4 was:

    • Never in conflict with me
    • Was not involved in the edits he has quoted
    • Never interacted directly or at talk-pages.
    • Has dug out events from history/past which has no bearing on policy vio.

    One cannot but wonder what prompted him to file this report?

    Please note that edits referred by D4iNa4 were made as 3 others and myself were in conflict with MBlaze Lightning - a blocked sock. His master KnightWarrior25 was blocked for POV/edit-warring, NOT for socking. So, these edits were challenges to a blocked POV-pusher/habitual edit-warrer and were mainly done to fight a sock while following WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS. If left uncheck, MBL threatened Misplaced Pages as project. All this was done while talking it out with involved editors. At no place did I edit-war as being claimed or else I must have been reported to ANI. MBL being a sock & his master being blocked for POV-pushing/edit-warring is altogether a confirmation that I was correct in my approach.

    The policy for filing a report here says that "diffs older than one week may be declined as stale" but D4iNa4 has quoted weeks old diffs.

    Reply:

    Accusation-1:

    1

    Reply-1:

    Edit 1 was made per WP:UNDUE following WP:BRD while reasoning in the edit-summary. 2 was a revert by MBL, which led to the 'D' part and he was convinced he was wrong.

    Accusation-2:

    Reply-2:

    Note: D4iNa4 has quoted random unrelated edits and pieced them together to incorrectly show I edit-warred.
    Hence my revert was correct/justified, and complainant is manipulating facts.
    • Edit :
    - First, complainant says that edit 5 & 3 are same (i.e. I reverted twice) to prove that I edit-warred which is incorrect. As was made on 24 March whereas edit was made on 1 April. Both concerned two DIFFERENT issues which were being discussed SEPARATELY at talk.
    - Second, 5 was made to restore "sourced" content removed by MBL (sock), per consensus at talk. Check edit-summary.
    • Edit 6 was per WP:NOTTRUTH and is also not connected with either 7 or 8 as these three concerned three different issues and were made weeks apart. One being as early as 1 April and the latest one on 10 April. Complainant has just dug-up my entire history and pieced random edits together in sheer bad-faith to show that I edit-warred. BTW, none of the edits mentioned violated any policy as all were being discussed per WP:BRD, not to mention that the edits were made to challenge a blocked sock whose master was also blocked for pushing POV.

    Accusation-3:

    "Like I have said many times, stop wasting time. The best you can do is to support socks and their contentious edits, unfortunately you'll fail in that too."

    Reply-3

    Kautilya3 has a history of supporting socks. He has been pushing MBL's edits even after he was blocked and also supported Ghautus' WP:OR here. He had supported POV edits of User:Akbar the Great- User:Bazaan's sock, been in contact with User:Greek Legend- a sock of User:CosmicEmperor and now he openly owned edits of MBL. He's been exchanging emails with socks-admitted on an Admin's page.
    Moreover, I made the above reply when Kautilya3 had attacked me first:
    "Oh, good. You are dodging my question (which i did not) . That is what I thought you would do. For me to say anything on talk, you need to state an objection first, which you never did. Frankly, I don't think you have any clue what is going on here." diff.

    Accusation-4:

    "I'd suggest that you keep your Mullah Raj theory with you and act maturely."

    Reply-4:

    This was made in response to Kautilya3's following comment:
    "We are not going to have a Mullah Raj on Misplaced Pages."
    I'll leave it to the admins to decide who was attacking whom.

    Accusation-5:

    "I know a dear friends of yours was blocked for socking and one does get jumpy at times."

    Reply-5:

    Background: I removed a WP:FAKE content added by MBL, but Kautilya3 immediately reverted me in a knee-jerk reaction. Like any good editor, I opened a discussion. After talking with Kautilya3, he accepted his mistake and agreed to self-revert. As he was restoring a sock's edit and have admitted of being in contact with him, I simply pointed out that a senior editor like him should be careful before he reverts in favour of a blocked user. In short, I was correct in making that edit. Kautilya3 agreed too.

    Point scoring by D4iNa4 in Bad-Faith:

    "Just came off a topic ban this year"

    Reply:

    • First, I didn't come off topic just this year. I was banned on 3 July 2015 which ended on 4 January 2016 (3 months from now). I remained semi-active on Wiki during my topic-ban avoiding the topics I was banned from. When my ban ended, I still didnt start editing the pages I was banned from immediately, instead participated on these topics from 20 February 2016 (1 month 12 days after the ban ended). I used this 1 month to develop more understanding of polices and didnt just jump back to editing. Even then too my first edit after my topic-ban ended was reverting vandalism - MBL had POVed against longstanding consensus (see my edit-summary). I revert vandalism but still get reported by D4iNa4?

    Accusation-6:

    Edits and D4iNa4's personal opinion without proof.

    Reply-6:

    • Note:14 & 15 are same edits but quoted TWICE to add false weight to report.
    • Edit14/15 was made per WP:WEASEL on 28 Feb 2016 and has been unchallenged to-date. Why the complaint then?
    • Edit 16 was made when Kautilya3 removed content saying it was unsourced. I reverted it by citing a source, to which Kautilya3 agreed - so, which policy did I violate? Complainant has deliberately skipped this fact. The content is unchallenged to-date)!
    • Edit 17 is same as edit 10, and has already been replied at Accusation-4.
    • Edit is true as VM did indeed harass me and I took the matter to FPAS' talk-page. Self-explanatory details can be seen in the edit itself.

    To Admins: I'll ask for boomerang as this report is vindictive and D4iNa4 implied that just because I was topic banned before, he can hound me on that basis even after the ban ended.

    Reply to Capitals00

    First, hey there, havent seen you much, thankyou for waking up. How did you know about this report by the way? Coming over to your accusations:

    • Edit : Adding an image twice in the same article disrupts Misplaced Pages. Here's why:
    Image "1971 Instrument of Surrender.jpg" was already present in the article, but MBL (banned sock) added it again without removing the one already present. Dont know if you didnt see it or was it done deliberately to push POV. It was removed by someone but was then re-added by VM here. Yep, the same image twice.
    I then undid it giving full explanation in the edit-summary. But Capitals00 re-added it. Yep, the same image twice in the same article.
    When my edit-summaries couldnt make you understand that the image was a duplicate, I then opened a talk-page section for discussion 20 - the same link that now you have quoted accusing me of 'disparaging' titles, which indeed was a plus for me as I followed WP:BRD (though WP:BURDEN of consensus for adding a duplicate image was on you or MBL per WP:BRD). As you engaged in WP:DE by adding a duplicate image repeatedly without talking, thus the title "Disruptive Editing by Capitals00", especially when you not only added a duplicate image but also made a blanket revert.
    After opening the talk-page section, I undid (23) the image and explained that the image was a duplicate. But surprisingly MBL again added the image without responding at talk!
    The image was again removed and I warned you guys to stop or I will take this matter to ANI. Only then did VM removed the duplicate image and I backed-out while the already present (same) image was moved up to the infobox i.e the sock succeeded!
    Now Admins, please tell, was I wrong in asking them to remove a duplicate image and even invited them to discuss the issue? Why did Capitals00 not mention this and instead cherrypicked the 'title' (which was fine BTW)?
    Admins, none of the edits I made above violated 3RR.
    • Edit : Was made per WP:CON. We all had reached consensus on various Bangladesh talk-pages that per WP:HIST newspapers would not be taken as RS when adding content to historical topics, rather books would be preferred. Kutilya3 will back me on this. The edit was per consensus, my edit-summary made it clear too.
    • Edit : MBL and Capitals00 were adding a duplicate image, WP:BURDEN of consensus was on them, not me. But I still backed-out even when no consensus was reached.
    • Edit : Why? Did you even read my reply to Di4AN4?
    • WP:ASPERSION: Both Ghatus and Kautilya3 are Indians - even their user-page says so. So was MBL. All I said was that MBL's POV-pushing was so bad that even they agreed/supported with me against MBL at times.
    • false accusations of meat puppetry and sock puppetry: MBL is blocked for socking. Di4AN4 and I never crossed paths, neither did Capitals00. How the report then, who informed Capitals00 of this report?

    Reply to Kautilya3

    Out of the 1,381 edits I have made, 286 are on unique pages, but that makes me an SPA?

    Spartaz, I cannot possibly reply to 18 accusations, most of which are false/bad-faithed, in less than 500 words. I request you to un-hat my reply, please in the interest of clarity.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡   14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Kautilya3

    Some general remarks concerning TripWire. As far as I can see, they are an SPA, whose contributions are limited to Indo-Pakistan conflicts. Secondly, the majority of their contribution are to edit-war over the content that the others have contributed, very little of their own content. How much of that the project can tolerate is a big question. TripWire has barely come off a 6-moth topic ban. Whether their behaviour has improved as a result is another question. I think it has. There is less edit-warring and more participation on the talk pages, even though I would say it is still far from ideal. The over-aggressive behaviour in discussions continues.

    One factor that is currently playing out at the moment is that MBlaze Lightning has been indeffed, rightly, and the pro-Pakistan editors favour reverting all of his edits wholesale. I have objected to that approach and said that we need to discuss specific objections in an issue-based way. That has not gone down well with the pro-Pakistan editors, and they have taken to calling me a supporter, even a "meatpuppet," of MBlaze. However, ironically, TripWire has been forced to point out on this page how often I have opposed MBlaze and supported their stance instead. That is poetic justice, it seems.

    Given that TripWire's behaviour shows improvement, I don't believe any serious sanction is warranted at this stage. However some cautionary remarks to TripWire to tone down their rhetoric and be more collaborative in their approach would be welcome. A recognition that editors like me are willing to listen to all sides would also be useful.

    Statement by Freeatlast

    We can see from the get go that the entire "evidence" here is fabricated.

    1. The first claim of gaming cleverly and conveniently fails to say that in actuality Tripwire was undoing vandalism by a sockpuppet and trying his best to refrain from even touching the article. You will see that many of his reverts are to versions that are from uninvolved editors.
    2. As far as the so called "personal attacks" go we have someone who is asking for a t-ban based on an editor saying "please act maturely". I do not know whether to laugh or cry at the copious amounts of bad faith oozing from this. This is a highly volatile area and truth be told if every editor who asked another to "act maturely" was banned from topics we will have to T-ban almost 75% of editors. So this is just a "filler" used by the nom to "beef up" his accusations, and make them look big. more space=more suspicion. The reaction usually is "There are so many diffs, he MUST have done something".
    3. As far as the accusation of WP:BATTLE is concerned firstly you can see that once again it is a filler. Why not include it with NPA? no Sir! We are going to make a new accusation. Secondly it is clearly the exact opposite of what the nom claims, Tripwire is actually saying "no harm, no foul" at the end leading to quite a good faith ending to a heated discussion. Including such a diff here is mind bogglingly bad faith.

    My advice is that the nom should spend time actually improving the encyclopedia instead of filling this kind of bad faith requests. I was going to suggest boomerang but then I though why ask for a block? he only comes online once or twice a week to revert etc. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Capitals00

    While I have nothing to say about the long and non-convincing explanations of TripWire other than that he is trying to reject any fault with his editing, he is also denying that he recently came off from a topic ban.

    TripWire's discussions on talk page has been WP:BATTLEGROUND, he even prefers opening the sections with disparaging titles.

    His edit warring is too widespread that he removes what he doesn't like, not to forget that he made four reverts only for removing an infobox image that he didn't liked,, despite he had no consensus to do that and infobox image still exists on the main article.

    WP:ASPERSION is being violated on this page alone.

    • TripWire: "including Ghatus and Kautilya3 - both Indians"

    And also false accusations of meat puppetry and sock puppetry.

    • TripWire: "dragging me here to settle his personal scores on the direction of someone"

    I don't see how one can deal with such user after they create such a toxic environment. Blocks and topic bans are the only way. Capitals00 (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by SheriffIsInTown

    By looking at WP:ARBIPA, there were five decisions made in it. The number 2 decision was specifically about sock-puppetry which reads as below:

    "2) Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden."

    By reverting the edits of the sock, TripWire was actually upholding WP:ARBIPA's decision number 2 and i don't think he should be held accountable for that and when we look at this the other way around, people who are reinstating the sock's edits are actually violating WP:ARBIPA and instead they should be t-banned for doing that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    Result concerning TripWire

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • TripWire your statement is 1900 words. Reduce it to 500 or I shall cut it off at that point. Hint - spend less time casting aspertions at your opponants and just stick to explaining why you think your edits were not a vio. Spartaz 06:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    Please move all your responses to your own section, I might be willing to extend your wordcount to 750 but no way can we give you license to write as much as you like. The word count is to concentrate your responses to the key matters. Sorry but you need to amalgamate your responses and edit it down to 750. Spartaz 15:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • FreeatlastChitchat I have hatted your section as there is ample evidence that the OP has used socks - but they have done their time and you know where SPI is if there is new cause for concern. At first blush your section appears aimed at discrediting the OP rather than discussing the complaint. I'm sure you don't really mean to expose yourself by doing that do you so I must be mistaken but please don't do it again.
    • SheriffIsInTown I have removed your section entirely. Making a nationality based slur on an AE page? Really? Perhaps you could leave a short note on my talk page explaining how your participation in this area adds any value whatsoever as I'm strongly minded to impose a TBan for that edit. Please don't post to this discussion again. Spartaz 06:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • TripWire, I moved your writing into your own section as required by the instructions here. Please pare everything down ASAP. I think you'll find that if you focus on explaining why your edits were not violations and remove any text referring to the actions of others, you will rapidly be in compliance. --Laser brain (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • TripWire, I've unhatted your statement and will be reviewing it within the next one or two days to consider what action should be taken. Please ensure it reflects what you really want to say (without expanding it) in terms of why your actions are not violations, without referencing the behavior of other editors. Any such text will be disregarded. --Laser brain (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    Monochrome Monitor

    Closing as no violation. --Laser brain (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Monochrome Monitor

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Monochrome Monitor (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: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) WP:1RR at Modern Hebrew:

    1. 15:57, 15 April 2016, 16:21, 15 April 2016, 16:26, 15 April 2016, 16:32, 15 April 2016, 16:41, 15 April 2016: A group of edits removing a large amount of text and sources which were discussed at great length by various editors, including Monochrome Monitor, in June 2015 in this talk thread
    2. 19:26, 15 April 2016 Second reversion of the same set of edits, with edit comment suggesting page has been turned "into an arab-israeli battleground"

    (2) Deletion of a TfD template, just 10 days after being warned against the same behaviour by User:Fayenatic london in a similar situation

    1. 19:16, 15 April 2016 Removal of TfD template
    2. Previous behaviour recently warned against:
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    Previous blocks and warnings:

    • 15 November 2015, 1 week block (here), "Edit warring Violation of the ARBPIA WP:1RR", later "converted to two week ARBPIA topic ban"
    • 24 June 2015, 2 weeks block (here), "abusing multiple acounts" and being caught lying about the same
    • 7 June 2015, 3 month topic ban (here), "banned for three months from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards. She does not seem able or willing to obey the 1RR rule on these articles, since this is the third violation."
    • 14 May 2015, 24 hours block (here), "Violation of the ARBPIA WP:1RR at Israel, per a report at WP:AN3)"... "The advice given to this editor is well-meaning but is not having much practical effect. She has been warned for a previous 1RR violation at Israel per an AN3 report just five days ago. People who respond and clearly acknowledge the problem are usually not blocked. Her response above indicates she doesn't understand what the 1RR is, and feels that her edits are OK."
    • 11 May 2015, Warning (here), "Warned for technical violation of the ARBPIA WP:1RR at Israel. The pattern suggests this editor often gets into trouble. Did you have no idea that adding the category 'Jewish physicists' could be controversial? We don't identify people as adherents to a religion against their will. I hope this pattern doesn't continue. People seem to be cutting her some slack on grounds of being new. This can't go on forever."
    • 31 July 2014, Warning (here), "Monochrome monitor is warned that they may be blocked or banned if they continue to edit in a confrontative manner in the Arab-Israeli topic area"
    • 10 July 2014, 36 hours block (here), "Arbitration enforcement: Violating the 1 revert rule at Rachel Corrie"
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Reading this editor's previous block and AE history, the editor has historically responded to criticisms by claiming inexperience and ignorance of our rules. The editor has received the support of a more level-headed "mentor", User:Irondome, who has similar editing interests, but who by now has a similar level of editing experience with 4 years' experience and 10,000 edits, versus Monochrome's 3 years and >9,000 edits.

    In the past, I, like many others, have cut this editor significant slack, e.g. .

    However, four blocks and many warnings later, we are still dealing with the same lack of respect for Misplaced Pages norms, time and time again. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    In case there is any doubt that the topic Modern Hebrew falls under the ARBPIA definition, Monochrome's own edit comment in the 19:26, 15 April 2016 diff above refers to the article as having become "an arab-israeli battleground". This likely refers to Wexler's theory, which the editor removed in both diffs above. Wexler believes that his theory has met with hostility in the academic world "in part because of the pressure of Zionist ideological needs" (source) Oncenawhile (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Diff of the most recent ARBPIA reminder, after the four blocks above
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Monochrome Monitor

    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 Monochrome Monitor

    I know the rules, I wont make any excuses because I don't need any. Firstly, Modern Hebrew isn't under Palestine/Israel discretionary sanctions. It has as much to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict as Gaelic has to do with the Troubles. Secondly, yes I was warned of reverting your edits adding deletion templates, but you shouldn't have made them in the first place, since they fit none of the Deletion criterion (it's also a long-standing template used on many articles that many users have contributed to). That fact that you believe (falsely) that the ethnolinguistic grouping of Semitic peoples is a psuedo-scientific racist construct comparable to "Aryans", does not entitle you delete every mention of Semites from wikipedia, especially if your "source" is the article Semitic people. (I can't fully explain the ridiculousness, see here). As for modern Hebrew, you're a rogue editor on that page too, zealously promoting the minority view that Modern Hebrew isn't Semitic because it fits your view of Jews as European interlopers.

    Extended content

    Modern Hebrew:

    This revert by No More Mr Nice Guy needs explanation please. It is not the same as the previous version, but includes the feedback. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

    Read the section. The problems are the same as the last time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

    No More Mr Nice Guy, there were two concerns raised last time. Re Rosen, the description has been cut down and a sentence has been added to summarize his point more closely. And re the overall point re "dumping ground", Kwami has already improved the section, and the comment is not specific to Bergstrasser and Rosen. Your revert also cut out some points which have nothing to do with the edit last time, including adding a number of good references to support the majority view. Unless you can provide a useful explanation as to what you would like changed, I will be adding this back. It will be easier if you provide constructive comments which can actually be actioned - let me know if that is a concept that you need me to explain further. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

    Kindly read the discussion, particularly Maunus' points. If you continue to add more weight to the minority view I will keep removing it. As I'm sure you know, the onus is on you to gain consensus for your additions. If you read the discussion and somehow thought you have consensus for adding more minority views, this might be a WP:CIR issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

    Nope. Things have changed since the previous discussion, as I describe in my post above at 17:36, 26 June 2015, so "read the discussion" and "you need consensus" are not workable arguments. If you are too lazy to consider the edit on its own merits, you will be ignored. I will wait 24 hours more, and if you continue to refuse to engage in discussion, I will add the text back. You need to learn how to contribute real value to wikipedia, as opposed to just being obnoxious for its own sake. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

    I think User:No More Mr Nice Guy is right and User:Oncenawhile should not force the text for what there is no consensus. It gives WP UNDUE weight to fringe theories that could mislead the readers regarding the mainstream view on Hebrew language.Tritomex (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

    I agree entirely. So we all agree. Except that NMMNG's revert covered a whole range of things. The "weight" topic refers to two sentences. To avoid us being here forever, with people who haven't read the edits making vacuous talk comments, I will split my edit into parts. Then I will bring here the specific sentences being added. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

    Done. Please provide actionable comments on the text added into the article: . Oncenawhile (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

    Oncenawhile, it's unclear to me why you decided to represent a balanced approach by Haim Rosen, when we know that his assertion is leaning toward one POV. It is very clear the he supports the Semitic classification but it cannot be understood by your wording. Infantom (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC) See explanation here: . I am following Olga Kapeliuk's description. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC) If you're using Kepeliuk then you should be sourcing to Kapeliuk, not deliberately showing only one part of Rosen's opinion and sourcing to him. But none of that matters since you're going against consensus in adding more minority views'. Also, loading the sentence about these minority views not being widely accepted with extra refs that add nothing is unnecessary and may give a reader the impression that this is more controversial than it actually is. Please gain consensus for that as well before adding it back. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

    You haven't read the references, have you? I will be adding the footnotes (ie the first part of my edit) back in unless you can explain why each one is not appropriate. You'll be surprised when you read them. Please stop this disruptive behaviour. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

    I think giving proper weight to fringe views demands discussion on the scope which those views should be used in text. In my opinion the most recent addition was not appropriate. This article already gave to much weight to fringe views (For example Wexler view which is almost unanimously rejected by Hebrew language experts and linguists is presented, which would be correct, however the fact that his theory is considered fringe is not ) So in my opinion any further addition on line of denial of the Semitic nature of Hebrew(a marginal position in Hebrew linguistics) should be presented here and discussed if it is needed at all in this text. This mean to discuss the sources, the date of publishing (modern scholarship would be preferred) and than decision of the scope and place where it can be eventually added to the article. By saying this I mean that marginal views, which are already mentioned in text can not take more space that they should have in accordance with their prominence in Hebrew linguisticsTritomex (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC).

    .....

    Oncenawhile, this style of editing is not likely to be a productive use of your time. If you think some of your edits are uncontroversial, you could try making just them; for the rest, it would be a good idea to present them here for discussion with your reasons for thinking they'll improve the article. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

    I've read the quotes you're trying to sneak in between the ref tags, and find that they do not support what they were ostensibly put in there to support, as I noted the first time you tried this little trick and I reverted you. Notice not a single editor has supported your edits.No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Hi Kwamikagami, I agree with you - in fact I did try just making the ones I think are uncontroversial. Unfortunately No More Mr Nice Guy appears to have a vendetta against me, so I have to hold my line pretty firm in order not to encourage him to continue his childish behaviour. Trust between him and I has broken down completely, as you can see from the terminology he uses such as "trying to sneak in" and "tried this little trick".
    All I am keen to do with the uncontroversial edit is not lose the value of the high quality sources I have found and spent the time to cite up. I genuinely don't believe it achieves anything other than that, but my friend is continually seeing ghosts.
    I am stuck for ways to move forward because NMMNG's comments haven't provided any information to consider - they are just various forms of speculation and disdain.
    My motto has always been wikt:if you can't beat them, join them, so as he has stooped to that level here and on other articles, I am happy to join him there for as long as he wants.
    Oncenawhile (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Please explain your last sentence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    You can read into it whatever you like. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    I don't want to read into it, I want to understand what you meant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    It seems clear to me that he means if you edit-war, he'll edit-war back. Once, that's only going to get you blocked. (Someone else might get blocked too, but maybe not.) — kwami (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    That is not what I mean, as edit warring is not in my nature, so I better clarify. I mean that the quality of my talk page edit comments will match the quality of NMMNG's for as long as he likes. If he refuses to show evidence of actually reading what he is reverting, or refuses to explain himself properly, then we can continue going round and round for as long as he likes until he is ready to engage in meaningful discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    There are other people who raised concerns regarding the scope of text based on fringe/minority theory intended to be inserted into this text, the need to expand this theory further (there are already mentioned) and certainly there was no consensus (which is necessary precondition) for such action. Nothing of this issues have been addressed.Tritomex (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)" (my emphasis)

    It goes on and on, others call the page a "dumping grounds for minority views", a "mess", and a "soapbox". You consistently refused to acknowledge the argument of the majority, and edits which went against your status quo were reverted because of a lack of the very consensus that you sabotaged. You staved off discussion with empty promises of diplomacy and showed no flexibility in making compromises. You follow the letter of the law but not its spirit, exploiting the inherent inertia of a lawful wikipedia, meant to protect it from radical views, not to protect the radical views themselves. You're an agenda editor, nearly all of your edits are Israel-Palestine. I have my own position on I/P but I am always willing to compromise, and I edit other topics. The way you edit on one agenda alone is more contrary to the spirit of wikipedia than my edit warring. You turn articles like Modern Hebrew into proxy wars for the Arab-Israeli conflict. I said the page had BECOME an arab-israeli battleground because YOU ARE MAKING IT ONE by politicizing it. I am not going to treat it with kid gloves as if it were an A/I article simply because you've corrupted it. I wanted to remove the source of the politicization alltogether, as others did in the excerpt I provided from the talk page.

    TL;DR The template Semitic Topics met none of the criterion for deletion, and the page Modern Hebrew does not fall under Israel/Palestine sanctions.

    Have I edit warred in the past and violated rules? Yes, usually because I was ignorant of the rules, but also because I was simply foolish and impulsive (which I take full responsibility for). But those were my past sins and I did my time then to atone for them. This time I did not violate any rules, and I stand behind the principle of my edits, which I made for a more informative, less politicized encyclopedia.

    About Irondome:

    Extended content

    Pease don't bring Simon (Irondome) into this. He did not choose to be my mentor because he had more edits than me or was on for longer, it's because I was young and overeager and he didn't want wikipedia to chew me up and spit me out. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove about us having "similar interests". "Edict of Expulsion, Jewish culture, Yiddish, The Holocaust, Auschwitz concentration camp, Nuremburg Laws, Jewish history, Yad Vashem, History of the Jews in Russia, "Polish death camp" controversy", Death of Adolf Hitler, Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)"... so basically, we're both Jews and edit stuff about Jews and Jewish history, including the Holocaust? There's some stuff about israel, itself a part of Jewish history, but not nearly as much as there is about Jews. Then there's a smattering of gems like "World War I, Cruise missile, Vladimir Putin" and my personal favorite "John Wayne". So, if you're trying to suggest that there's some sort of conspiracy between us, don't. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Kautilya3

    This is not a statement, but rather guidance to the participants, because no admin seems to be supervising this page at the moment. The rules say that each participant in the case needs to use their own section to make a statement. No threaded discussion is allowed. All statements are limited to 500 words. Longer statements may be truncated at 500 words by the supervising admin.

    (I will strike off this comment when a supervising admin takes charge.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Nishidani

    In loco parentis. MM broke 3R. Forget the block log, that relates to a flurry of woes over several months as she tried to get the hang of things. She's a young, competent and dedicated editor, we need them, because she's a hard worker, which most banned editors aren't. Apply a ban (not indefinite) on the page just where she broke 3R, and leave it at that. I'd like Oncenawhile to say whether this might be acceptable. Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    MM. It doesn't matter what Oncenawhile's POV may be in this case. It is a matter of a strict rule, which you appear to have broken (but then again, I'm a duffer re IR and 3R interpretation), If by your own lights you did, then admit it, and ask for clemency. If not, then persuade the arbs with a diff analysis. It's been a long day. And I fucked up. MM hasn't broken any rule for that page. She did remove a substantial amount of matter, and the edit summary dismissing Paul Wexler, emeritus prof of linguistics as Tel Uni as fringe, unreliable on this area, and removable, was very poor judgement. She did revert, after a note on her page, to the prior text. My apologies to MM, and the admins for being too quick in reading the diffs (and not looking at intermediate edits)Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    I checked through the diffs without looking for intermediate edits, and got the wrong impression. My apologies. Still, big changes should be preceded by a close study of the talk page, and a note of explanation. Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    What you think about Wexler is not important. You haven't read his 4 volumes either. Neil Jacobs has, and after expressing his deep appreciation for Wexler's stimulus in his Acknowledgements, and dedicated a good deal of attention to his work in his survey of Yiddish. I noted this to the page some years ago, and it's one of the things you really should have remembered, if only to remind me when I forget it.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Sir Joseph

    The section of 1RR on Modern Hebrew should be struck-out. Modern Hebrew is not under 1RR or ARBPIA sanction. The use of this just seems to be a way to sanction an editor. Decisions should be based on articles under AE jurisdiction. Just being Hebrew or Jewish doesn't make it applicable to the ARBPIA arena. Sir Joseph 19:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Monochrome Monitor

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Monochrome Monitor, your statement is not in compliance with the 500 word rule and will not be considered unless you shorten it. Oncenawhile, your filing is a mess and difficult to read. Please trim it down and format it. You can just link to the block log if you want, for example—we don't need to see a copy/paste in addition to the link. --Laser brain (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

    HughD

    Topic-ban scope expanded as per Georgewilliamherbert and extended to 1-Jan-2017. Zad68 14:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Your topic ban is expanded to include a ban on editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed, on any article. Your topic ban is extended to Jan 1, 2017. This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning HughD

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Safehaven86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. April 15 edits Institute for Energy Research, which he was warned for editing in a previous AE filing because it contains content on Koch brothers.
    2. April 15 edits American Petroleum Institute, an article which contains information about conservative U.S. politics/advocacy/lobbying
    3. April 15 Edit wars against consensus on API
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Oct 11, 15 Violation of topic ban resulting in warning.
    2. Oct 29, 15 1 week block for violation of ban. Appeal of block was rejected
    3. Jan 7, 2016 1 week block for violation. Appeal of block was rejected
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • 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

    HughD currently has a broad topic ban in place that is supposed to prevent him from editing about conservative U.S. politics, 2009-present. The topic ban started out as a tea party/Koch brothers ban, but was broadened. HughD has been blocked multiple times for failure to comply with the ban. Today, he edited Institute for Energy Research, even though in a previous AE filing in October 2015, he apologized for editing that article in violation of his topic ban and got off with a warning. The diffs of complaints against and violations against HughD are too numerous to assemble. Suffice it to say, previous sanctions have clearly not worked. I think I speak for a large part of the community when I say we've lost our patience. I don't know what should be done, but I do know that the current topic ban is not working, and HughD is wasting a lot of peoples' time, and none of this is improving the encyclopedia. I even gave him a chance to self-revert today's violations, but he didn't take it. Instead, he attempted to badger me into explaining why I thought it was a topic ban violation. He'd already been warned by an admin for editing the very same article, for crying out loud. Maybe I should be posting this to ANI, I don't know, but something needs to be done. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

    The topic ban was broadened, not narrowed. When you say "The earlier issue involving the Institute for Energy Research was under a earlier, Koch topic ban, since superseded; the topic area was changed from Tea Party Movement to American Politics," understand that the Kochs and Tea Party movement are part of U.S. politics. They are encompassed within it. So since you were reprimanded for editing the IER article while under the Koch/Tea Party ban, after your ban had been broadened (made more comprehensive, not less), certainly areas previously forbidden to you would remain so. Surely you are not under the impression that when your Koch/Tea Party ban was expanded to include all of U.S. politics, that you would be allowed to once again edit Koch/Tea Party articles? That would be a reduction in scope, not an expansion. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    HughD writes that "Important context for this AE filing is that complainant is our project's leading patroller and sanitizer of articles on conservative American organizations." Is this an admission that he considers IER and API to be "conservative American organizations"? Because that seems to be an admission of violating the topic ban. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    HughD: This is an AE complaint about your editing. If you have complaints about my editing, as you seem to, I suggest you find a more appropriate venue to discuss those complaints. This isn't the place. Please don't hijack this legitimate AE complaint as a way to air your many grievances against my editing. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    Re. "It would be illegal for Institute for Energy Research to operate as an instrument of American conservative politics given its status," take a look at the IER article. It literally says "The Institute for Energy Research has a political arm, the American Energy Alliance (AEA). According to its website, the AEA engages in 'grassroots public policy advocacy and debate' regarding energy and environmental policies." The article further says it is funded by the Kochs, petitioned John Kerry, advocates for the Keystone XL, and opposes a wind energy credit. Those are all political activities. Further, a reference in our article is titled "Conservative Spotlight: Institute for Energy Research". The NPOV dispute you mentioned on the talk page says IER is "a right wing organization presenting themselves as a 'research institute'". This article on IER and its political arm, AEA, says the groups targeted politicians who supported a carbon tax and "The timing of the IER and AEA operation is designed to get energy issues on the agenda when lawmakers meet with voters in their congressional districts." That's conservative, and that's political. Bloomberg describes IEA as a "free-market think tank." The Washington Times calls IER "conservative" and "a leading critic of the Obama administration’s spending on renewable fuels and of the president’s energy policy more broadly." There's much more where that came from. If you're unable to see how your editing of this page, in light of a topic ban on conservative U.S. politics, is problematic, than your ability to ever successfully and voluntarily adhere to a topic ban is highly suspect. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notification of AE filing

    Discussion concerning HughD

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

    Statement by HughD

    No topic ban violation, no edit warring, no disruptive editing.

    The topic ban scope is "conservative US politics from 2009 to the present" under WP:ARBAP2. I understand the scope and respect it. Since the topic ban I have refocused my volunteer work on the environment and global warming. I am proud of my contributions in this area including, among others, a recent good article review of Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, a pending WP:GA nomination at Global Climate Coalition, and a WP:GA drive at ExxonMobil climate change controversy, one of the most significant environmental stories of 2015 and 2016.

    The above reported diffs have to do with environmentalism, and have nothing to do with conservative American politics, or the Kochs for that matter. The topic of the environment is not subsumed by the topic of American conservative politics. The Institute for Energy Research and the American Petroleum Institute are not in scope of the topic ban. In no sense are the above reported edits in scope, unless perhaps you agree with Thomas Mann that "Everything is politics." Neither article is tagged by WP:WikiProject Conservatism.

    Institute for Energy Research

    The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is an explicitly non-political, non-partisan, non-profit, 501(c)(3) charity that conduct research into energy issues, as stated by the lede paragraph:

    The Institute for Energy Research (IER), is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization that conducts research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that the free-market provides the most inexpensive solutions to global energy and environmental challenges.

    At no point in the lede, nor at any point in our article, is IER described as conservative. In fact, given its legal status, it would be illegal for IER to operate in any manner as an instrument of American conservative politics. No political parties or ideologies are mentioned in the article, and the only politician mentioned is John Kerry, not generally considered conservative. The specific edit of 15 April 2016 which complainant deems worthy of sanction, with changes bolded for emphasis:

    In 2009, an article in Mother Jones magazine said IER was among the most prominent organizations promulgating climate disinformation.

    ...with edit summary "WP:SAY, more accurate, neutral paraphrase of source." The edit as well as the article are unrelated to conservative American politics. Complainant argues "none of this is improving the encyclopedia." This edit is a clearly an improvement in compliance with policy and guideline in neutrality, accuracy, and completeness. The consensus at Talk:Institute for Energy Research is that our article has serious neutrality issues. Complainant reverted, without talk page discussion or alternative proposed. There was no edit war. There was no disruption to our project. Complainant argues "he attempted to badger me." This is false.

    Ownership issues may have contributed to motivating this filing WP:OWN. Complainant is the leading editor of IER, but is third in terms of adding content; most of complainant's edits are deletes. Important context for this AE filing is that complainant is our project's leading patroller and sanitizer of articles on conservative American organizations (please see for example Club for Growth, State Policy Network, her top two articles, and about a hundred articles affiliated with the State Policy Network), and seems to consider IER as part of her beat (please see for example 28 October 2014, 09:42 4 December 2015, 09:50 4 December 2015). In this noticeboard filing, complainant reports on the results of taking to the Googles with "Institute for Energy Research" and "conservative" in defense of her area of ownership, and suggesting new content and new sources for our article she believes support a fundamental characterization of the subject as a subtopic of American conservative politics, yet somehow to date this characterization and those sources are missing from our article. Ironically, bringing new content to our article which speaks to the fundamental characterization of the subject is what she is attempting to block a colleague from doing, via a noticeboard filing rather than through good faith talk page discussion of neutrality and sourcing.

    October 2015

    After reading the talk page consensus on WP:NPOV concerns at Talk:Institute for Energy Research, on 8 October 2015 I tagged 3 promotional statements in the lede sourced only to the organization's website, requesting improved sourcing from 3rd-party sources, 3 statements unrelated to the Tea Party or the Kochs. The edit was an improvement in verifiability and neutrality. Complainant reverted without discussion within minutes.

    At the time, I was topic banned from "Koch-related" topics under WP:ARBTPM, and the ban was new. Complainant noticed that the body mentioned that Politico said that the IER was partly funding by the Kochs, the owners of the world's largest privately-held fossil-fuel company, and filed at WP:AE. I apologized for the tagging. Complainant here attempts to portray the above reported diff as some kind of continuation of disruption, which it is not.

    American Petroleum Institute

    The American Petroleum Institute (API) is a similarly an explicitly non-political, non-partisan, non-profit, 501(c)(6) trade association, as stated in the lede paragraph:

    The API is the largest U.S trade association for the oil and natural gas industry. It claims to represent about 400 corporations involved in production, refinement, distribution, and many other aspects of the petroleum industry.

    API employs lobbyists who advocate on behalf of its members in opposition to environmental regulation. Although the API is permitted limited legislative activism, it would be illegal for political activity to be its focus, and it may not endorse any politicians or engage in partisan politics. API is clearly not an agent of conservative American politics.

    Complainant argues that our project's article API "contains information about conservative U.S. politics/advocacy/lobbying." No connection between the API and conservative American politics is made. Congress is mentioned, but no politicians, political parties or ideologies. No funding of the API by conservative American politics or vice versa is mentioned.

    Disruption including disruption of dispute resolution

    Involved commenter below urges uninvolved administrators to thoroughly review recent editor behavior at API. Above, "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." Before taking at face value the noticeboard claims of involved commenters of disruptive editing at API, kindly perform due diligence, and please review the edit history; see who is who is engaging at talk versus who is reverting on sight, who is laying out proposed edits supported by reliable sources and policy and guideline, who is talking about content versus editors, who is editing other's talk page comments, who is edit warring versus pursuing dispute resolution, and who is disrupting dispute resolution. Highly characteristic of involved commenter's editing is disruption of dispute resolution.

    Evidence of disruptive editing including disruption of dispute resolution
    1. 18 August 2015 HughD 1st edit to API
    2. 12 November 2015 involved commenter Springee followed HughD to API; Springee's 1st edit at American Petroleum Institute was to revert HughD after 13 hours;
    3. 9 April 2016 Springee follows HughD to WP:Third opinion to disrupt dispute resolution at Talk:Ford Pinto.
    4. 9 April 2016 Springee follows HughD to History of Ford Motor Company to post an essay evaluating HughD at article talk WP:FOC
    5. 10 April 2016 Springee campaigning.
    6. 11 April 2016 Springee campaigning, as IP, while logged out, to evade detection WP:SCRUTINY, WP:STEALTH.
    7. 11 April 2016 Springee campaigning via mail; 11 April 2016 mail notice deleted after 3 minutes WP:STEALTH.
    8. 11 April 2016 Springee vexatious topic ban violation report at AE
    9. 14:21 15 April 2016, 15:12 15 April 2016, 16 April 2016, 17 April 2016 William M. Connolley edit wars at API
    10. 16:47 17 April 2016, 16:51 17 April 2016, 17:07 17 April 2016, 17:08 17 April 2016, 17:09, 17 April 2016, 17:10 17 April 2016, 14:35 18 April 2016 William M. Connolley edits the talk page contributions of others at Talk:American Petroleum Institute WP:TPO
    11. 15:49 18 April 2016 More Springee campaigning. Hugh (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    12. 15:33 18 April 2016 Springee deletes an RfC from Talk:American Petroleum Institute
    13. 10:53 18 April 2016 Springee deletes a "please see" template from a project talk page, calling for broadening community participation in an RfC, disrupting dispute resolution, after the RfC has attracted just two new editorial voices to the discussion
    14. 19-24 April 2016 Complainant and Springee campaign coordination at User talk:Springee#Advice
    15. 20 April 2016 More Springee campaigning, more Springee disruption of dispute resolution, campaigning to close an RfC
    16. 24 April 2016 Springee posts yet another essay on an editor in the discussion section of an open active RfC at Talk:Chrysler WP:FOC
    Conclusion

    Missed the notice, sorry, no one is thumbing their nose at anyone, thanks.

    No topic ban violation, boundary testing, or other disruptive editing is reported here. The above reported edits are clearly good faith efforts at improving our project's coverage of environmental issues and wholly respect the topic ban. Sincerely, I have no intention of boundary testing, and I respectfully requested that my edits be viewed in good faith in the context of a demonstrated, months-long productive editorial involvement with environmental topics.

    Refining arguments is not disruptive, it is the editorial process; requests for comment are not disruptive, they are dispute resolution. Attempts to broaden community discussion beyond a local consensus of one or two should not be feared or reported to noticeboards as disruptive. I should not be sanctioned for disagreeing with a local consensus by civilly pursuing legitimate dispute resolution steps. I have respected the community, I have been civil, I have pursued dispute resolution where necessary, I have justified every edit with policy and guideline and sourcing; I am part of the solution.

    Complainant claims "I speak for a large part of the community"; I think this is false, she speaks for herself and a very few, who view noticeboards as a backstop for content disputes; I would respectfully recommend we move this to a case to assess this claim and to more thoroughly examine the behavior of involved commenters. Responding uninvolved administrators are respectfully requested to comment on any potentially actionable editor behavior of commenters to this filing they may or may not have encountered during the investigation phase of their due diligence in their evaluation of this filing. I would prefer that sanctions not be expanded or extended. Respectfully request clarification of the boundary if any between WP:ARBAP2 and WP:ARBCC and a warning; I respectfully offer to self-revert the above reported edits if a consensus of colleagues agree they are in scope. Hugh (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Springee

    Because of my long and disagreeable history with HughD I'm not going to offer an opinion but I will note that HughD continues to edit American Petroleum Institute and the associated talk page including 4 reverts in 27 hours and continued abuse of the RfC postings by revising old arguments which didn't go his way. . Springee (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Hugh, as I understand it, Ricky81682 expanded the Koch related ban into the current ban. Springee (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by William M. Connolley

    HD claims The above reported diffs have to do with environmentalism, and have nothing to do with conservative American politics. That is not true. HD's edits, such as , are to do with climate change denial and promulgating climate disinformation. These are solidly political concepts that are strongly associated with conservative American politics. They are also connected to environmentalism, and to global warming, but they cannot escape being political, let alone the implausible nothing to do with conservative American politics.

    As a more minor matter, I think HD's The American Petroleum Institute is a similarly an explicitly non-political, non-partisan is also false. Certainly, our article makes no such explicit claims. Nor do I find the API explicitly making such claims William M. Connolley (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning HughD

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • HughD, your statement thus far is unsatisfactory as you've spent very little time explaining how you didn't violate your topic ban (compared with excessive time pointing to the behavior of other editors, which is irrelevant to this filing). I'm willing to support the proposal of a month block and extended topic ban. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Seems very clear that he violated the ban, knew at least the one article was off limits based on the outcome of a previous AE. In fact, he continues to edit Talk:American Petroleum Institute instead of make any type of statement here. These aren't obvious articles, as far as the scope goes, but when I look at his edits (part of a 3rd revert war, it seems) and , I see a problem. That problem is that the edit's aren't focused on the core of the article, but instead, the political ramifications of the topic. That makes it pretty clear (when you consider the bias in the edits) that he is violating the topic ban, willingly, knowingly and as we speak. I would recommend extending the topic ban for up to 6 months and up to a 30 day block, with the hope that would get the point across and serve to prevent future disruption. If one doesn't like the sanction, there is a system in place to appeal it (and I think it was already appealed unsuccessfully). That isn't a license to thumb your nose at the sanction itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Support Dennis Brown's block and topic ban extension suggestion. As the admin behind the escalating topic bans, this is clearly part of the long-standing pattern of a refusal to clearly object and respond to any sanction (which do not succeed) and instead to play around the edges of each sanction as a way of protest. Again, the topics themselves are not related to conservative politics but the nature of HughD's edits are within them related to conservative politics (Mother Jones categorizations at the very are conservative politics even if you don't consider climate change issues per se related). Note that I came here due to Springee's ping so feel free to move me if I'm not considered uninvolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      • HughD, what is the point of further adding this kind of evidence? Springee didn't make this report, the report doesn't discuss Chrysler at all and it seems like you are completely ignoring the concerns expressed here (in particular whether or not you actually care about the length or scope of any topic ban on you) in favor of just extending your arguments about the same issues. I'm not certain how an RFC on the inclusion of vehicle recall information is related to this subject. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I am enacting Dennis Brown's topic ban extension, and explicitly expanding it to include addressing conservative politics on non-conservative-politics articles. I am not convinced a block is necessary but going to leave the formal close open to let another admin make the call on that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
      I can see the logic in not blocking, as he is engaging now and in good faith. While he disagrees, he has every right to as long as he isn't being disagreeable. and the behavior is reasonable. Blocking might actually be a bad thing at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I endorse GWH's extension of the topic ban to Jan 1 2017 and recommend quite prompt enforcement with blocks if there are any more violations. HughD, please note specially that the ban from "conservative US politics from 2009 to the present" is (still) broadly construed. The kind of playing round the edges of the previous ban (which was for the same area, but shorter) that led to this AE filing won't be tolerated. If you're in doubt whether the ban allows you a particular edit, please ask an admin before making it. There's a kind of logic in not blocking now, yes, but it also means the user has got away with a lot. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC).
    • These statements go WAY over the 500 words and 20 diffs limit required for this page. Unless there is a swift resolution here, you both should cut down your statements way down to meet this requirement. Liz 17:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

    FreeatlastChitchat

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

    Request concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 4/18/2016 A comment which compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers". Obviously WP:BATTLEGROUND, obviously personal attack. A quite odious personal attack at that.
    2. 4/18/2016 Response to request to strike the above mentioned PA. Some kind of unbacked accusation of meat puppetry or something. Even putting WP:ASPERSIONS aside, this speaks to the fact that the user has a battleground mentality and is WP:NOTHERE.
    3. 4/18/2016 Doubles down on the personal attacks with further personal attacks and further accusations that other editors are equivalent to "Holocaust deniers"

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

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

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Blocked for a week for similar. Note closing admin's admonishment: "Imposition will depend on behaviour after return from block. Patience levels noticeably low so recommend keeping nose clean."
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

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

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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

    Statement by FreeatlastChitchat

    I freely accept my comments. Any person denying a genocide should be compared with denying holocaust and he should not have any trouble with that, rather he/she should be topic banned from the said article immediately. I specifically targeted the comment that During the atrocities thousands of Biharis were just "killed in the process" and that it was not a genocide. The internet is rife with sources which point to atrocities committed against Biharis and term it genocide so it's not a content dispute. This is 100% clear pov editing. Furthermore it is highly biased to sanction someone who denies holocaust but anyone can deny Bihari genocide and walk away scot free. We cannot even compare them to holocaust deniers because ofc biharis were just "killed in the process". To be frank if someone bans me , he should be kind enough to tell me how hundreds of thousands of people killed and raped just "get killed in the process" FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    @Drmies I have already said that I stand by my comment and accept any enforcement resulting from it. I commented on the fact that VM and ghatus were denying Bihari Genocide. You can peruse the TP and the article to find ample evidence of their repeated attempts to simply delete any reference to Bihari genocide from this article by claiming that it is coatrack and the article should deal with bangla genocide only and the Bihari Genocide did not even occur. This editing pattern of Ghatus and VM is a fact, not some conspiracy theory I am sprouting, you can check the TP to confirm, they both are denying that Biharis were killed in genocide, and Ghatus has gone as far as to say that they were just "killed in the process". With this in view I gave my opinion that wikipedia should not be biased and any person who denies a genocide should be sanctioned and T-banned from the said topic. I compared their "denial" of which there is ample evidence, to holocaust denial. It is a simple comparison, some deny holocaust and are sanctioned on wikipedia, these guys deny Bihari genocide and are therefore comparable to the aforementioned people and should be sanctioned as such. Saying that it is all right to deny Bihari Genocide is highly biased to be frank.(I have yet to see any sanctions for denying Bihari genocide, If there have been any do link the DS logs here and I will remove this part of my comment). It is quite true that calling a person a holocaust denier is an attack, but when a person is denying a genocide it is within an editors rights to tell him/her that what he/she is doing is comparable to holocaust denial, for is it not? Is denying one genocide not the same an denying another? I fail to see the logic behind this report, so I will just accept the enforcement, I am not going to strike my comments, I stand by what I said. Any person who denies as genocide should be sanctioned and t-banned immediately from the said topic, not the other way round, that he comes to AE asking for T-bans on others. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by SheriffIsInTown

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

    • @Drmies: If you see comment by Freeatlast, he did not call Marek a "holocaust denier", he just mentioned in the context that if someone denies holocaust then they are banned for that then why it is so that if someone denies genocide against Biharis then they are not banned? I don't see any accusation or blame towards another editor and i do not see him calling another editor a "holocaust denier". Marek is taking it "out of context" here! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Volunteer Marek: Ghatus did say that "in that process some Biharis were killed". I am sure Freeatlast did not mean that you said it when he mentioned that. Please don't think that all replies are directed towards you, especially when multiple people are participating in a discussion. I think Freeatlast made a general statement about the whole discussion after seeing Ghatus's comment. You clearly don't think before you make an accusation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Sir Joseph

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


    Statement by TripWire

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

    • Accuses editors commenting on a RfC of tag-teaming despite the fact that OP invited editors on this RfC at "Notice board for Pakistan-related topics" diff
    "And so far I don't see any un-involved editors (except perhaps myself), just the usual WP:TAGTEAM"
    • Again call editors commenting against him at the RfC of being 'friends', implying that they are tag-teaming:
    "That's why your and your friends' attempts at hijacking this article"
    • Even casting aspersions right here at the AE board on editors for tag-teaming, even though all the editors are the same who were already involved in the RfC which caused this report:
    "I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM"
    • And this really has to end. VM is continuously, despite being reminded and cautioned is casting aspersions and accusing everybody of everything that comes into his mind. It seems he is so sure that he'll get away with it that he consider himself immune to sanctions. I think he should be told that he isnt.

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

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

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

    He further says:

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

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

    Comment by My very best wishes

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

    Comment by Rhoark

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

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

    Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Ah, FreeatlastChitchat--one of my favorite battleground editors. Marek, 0R was suggested but not imposed, it seems from the DS log. I think I already blocked FreeatlastChitchat once and I really don't want to do it again, but you can't go around calling someone a Holocaust denier; FreeatlastChitchat, you have been skating on thin ice for a while, and you shouldn't be surprised if you fall through it this time, though I for one will be sad to see it. But calling someone a Holocaust denier does no service to the victims of another genocide. Sheriff, if you want to bring Marek up on charges you will have to do so in a separate section--I doubt that this will go very far, though. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
      • It's pretty clear that Freeatlast was suggesting that VM was to be included among the supposed collection of Holocaust deniers--and that comment itself, pace Tripwire's simple dismissal, is battleground editing. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    ArghyaIndian

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

    Request concerning ArghyaIndian

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

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 00:50, 19 April 2016 Left a highly nationalistic slur at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Bangladesh using a proxied IP, This was also a bad faith message as well accusing a bunch of editors as Pakistani POV pushers. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits use of Misplaced Pages for political propaganda on nationalistic lines and instructs to display good faith to fellow editors while editing Pakistan/India topics. (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox)
    2. 12:59, 19 April 2016 Votes in the RfC signed in as ArghyaIndian using exactly the same nationalistic slur and bad faith message as was done using proxied IP at WP Bangladesh (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox)
    3. 04:54, 20 April 2016 Left the same message using the same proxied IP with exactly same text as was used in above two edits, difference is this message was left after he was alerted about WP:ARBIPA so this is a clear violation of WP:ARBIPA after him being alerted about that. (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox)
    4. 10:34, 21 April 2016 Continues making highly controversial edits to a highly controversial topic 1971 Bangladesh genocide even though an RfC is going on at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide to which he participated. Instead of waiting for conclusion, he goes in and removes a huge chuck of text along national lines
    5. 16:30, 21 April 2016 Does it again after being told that "Please refrain from major changes while the discussion is ongoing.", gets reverted again by an unrelated editor, Please note that this edit has an evidence of meatpuppetry in it as Arghya included the instructions issued to him by another editors in the edit. Meatpuppetry is sockpuppetry and sockpuppery was another decision covered by WP:ARBIPA#Sockpuppets.
    6. 16:56, 21 April 2016 But does it again! (Remember others are waiting for talk and RfC but he keeps editing along nationalistic lines
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14:51, 19 April 2016
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Diff of notification to the editor

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


    Discussion concerning ArghyaIndian

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

    Statement by ArghyaIndian

    It's an clear cut case of WP:BITE. This user is continuously harassing me. they also tried to spam my talk page. Infact, this is his latest attempt, reporting me for some vague reasons and connecting me with unknown IP's. Apparently he is leaving no chance to attack users who are opposing him on talk page . One should go and check revision history of the talk page and count the number of personal attacks he did to those users who are opposing (by their votes on RFC) him on the talk page. {{u|SheriffIsInTown}­} is calling others and me nationalist because I don't share his POV I will also like to ask him to enlighten me of what kind of nationalist am i? A quick look at revision history of the page and other related pages will show that this user has a strong Pro-Pakistan Army bias and ba­ttleground mentality (as also noted by other users on article's talk page).

    • Now let me reply to all his accusations one by one. He is presenting me as a edit warrior and as a nationalist user here in a sheer bad faith.
    1. Administrators please note that this IP is not myn. I just copy and pasted his comment at talk page because the IP was apparently correct and a patrolling user Sminthopsis84 also agreed with the IP. They also suggested a topic ban for {{u|SheriffIsInTown}­}. Again

    this IP is not myn as i already explained above.

    1. SheriffIsInTown­ is actually distorting and mispresenting edits and diffs. Let me reply to all his accusations.
    2. 04:03, 20 April 2016 I created a new section regarding misleading

    figures in the lead that was recently added without any discussion whatsoever at talk page . Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes agreed with me and Infact VM also asked me that which older version I have in my mind. Since the editors agreed with my objections, I tried to find out an older stable NPOV version. I waited for a day and finally restored an old version 10:30, 21 April 2016, but by mistake I restored the wrong version and then I asked for the help on the article's talk page can be seen here. And I think User:Kautilya3 was aware of it and that is why he/she reverted me. I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead (as discussed and agreed on talk page) so that is why I made this edit (13:25 21 April 2016) but after realising that I did a mistake, I quickly self reverted this time within a minute (13:36, 21 April 2016). But as I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead, I made this edit again () but unfortunately I again made a major mistake while editing but before I could self revert myself, an patrolling user already reverted me (). This time I made this edit correctly () and I was correct too (, ).

    1. Administrators please note the

    , MASS REMOVAL OF CONTENT by this user (that he doesn't like), large scale POV pushing and edit warring on all Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He is doing this all from a long time now.

    1. Administrators also please note that this user was trying to harass other users including me with 3RR templates when they hardly made two reverts but he is edit warring on these pages from many months, as noted by other users (, ). Note to forget he will go and remove mass contents from Mukti Bahini and then edit war against multiple users, same is the case here.
    2. This user clearly violated 3RR on Mukti Bahini page just to remove mass contents from lead (that he doesn't like), which is still there.
    1. He was told by atleast two users in edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced

    , and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead. He was warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here .

    1. In 1971 Bangladesh Genocide page alone, First this user along with his fellow users will try to hijack and

    convert an NPOV article into a POV COATRACK article, promoting fringe and preposterous theories (All uninvolved and experienced editors pointed out this , , & ) please see the revision history of the page to get a better understanding. Then he will go and start an premature RFC (as noted by other users including User:My very best wishes, User:Volunteer Marek, User:Kautilya3 and many more) after he see that other uninvolved editors are opposing him on talk page. He also did not refrain from doing personal attacks directed towards uninvolved users who are opposing him on talk page (like this).

    • So this case is pretty much clear, the filing user is trying to present me as a nationalist edit warrior (which I am not) by distorting edit diffs. As the rules mentioned right top at the AE noticeboard.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. based on this, I highly recommend a topic ban for this user (as reasons and evidences provided above). This user has a clear ba­ttleground

    mentality with a strong nationalist bias. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by Administrator Spartaz Spartaz also said that they are strongly minded to impose a T-ban for {{u|SheriffIsInTown}­} for making nationalist based slur.

    Replying since the user extended their list of false accusations. (I request administrator to extend my word count to 750, accordingly).
    1. Yes, I know WP:BITE (that's what you are repeatedly doing) and WP:BATTLEGROUND (your behaviour)! Many uninvolved users called you a battleground warrior on talk page (citing these policies).
    2. That IP is not myn. You have all the rights to report me and clear your suspicions. Then why you are not reporting me and instead hurling accusations at me?
    3. This user further tried to harass me by calling me a meatpuppet at ANI (but not reporting me at its relevant noticeboard, as I pointed out), clear personal attack, quite odious personal attack at that. Note that he called me a meatpuppet but is asking me how do I know about meatpuppet noticeboard (even though I gave him the meatpuppet noticeboard link through a Google search). What do you think that you can make anyone fool here? #This user doubles down on the personal attacks with further personal attack and with further accusations by calling me a meatpuppet again here, when I have replied him in clear words on ANI.
    4. Further personal attacks by calling me a duck. I have already said him in clear words and again saying, If this user has guts then why don't he report me at its relevant noticeboard? Or not reporting me just because you will force to apology for these personal attacks?
    5. The user is saying that they had not edit warred. But a quick look at revision history of these Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh Genocide, Mukti Bahini, Bangladesh Liberation War, Rape During the Bangladesh Liberation War, etc) shows that they are edit warring, pushing over the top POV, fringe theories from many months (as almost all the uninvolved user pointed out at article's talk page). Note that this user recently did around 6-7 reverts within 1½ day on Mukti Bahini (4 reverts well within 24 hours) just to remove mass contents from lead (which was absolutely sourced in text) and which is still there. All edit diffs/evidences I provided in my above statement. Also note that, right after I commented here, this user intentionally removed all those warnings from their talk page but it can be still seen here.
    6. If no administrator take actions against this user, then it is clear that users like him have a free license to harass inexperienced users. Most importantly, this user is edit warring, pushing his nationalistic point of view (in an global source of knowledge-- Misplaced Pages) from half a decade atleast.ArghyaIndian (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by My very best wishes

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

    Statement by Rhoark

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning ArghyaIndian

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

    TeeVeeed

    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 TeeVeeed

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    MjolnirPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    TeeVeeed (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:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 17:37, April 14, 2016 User announced their intent to "...keep trolling this topic just because you are being so unreasonable."
    2. 08:14, April 14, 2016
    3. 08:35, April 14, 2016 Both this and the above dif show him both pushing a POV and disguising false claims as being properly sourced.
    4. 11:21, April 14, 2016 Reinserting false, unsourced claim to a sourced sentence.
    5. 14:05, April 14, 2016‎ Further revert to reinsert false claims.
    6. 10:00, April 21, 2016‎Misrepresenting talk page consensus to further push his POV.
    7. 11:17, April 21, 2016‎ Reverting instead of discussing.
    8. 11:57, April 21, 2016 Continuing to revert while claiming I said things I explicitly disavowed saying.
    9. 12:00, April 21, 2016‎ Responding at talk page with provocative edit summary of "i know you are but what am i".
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    none

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


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This editor doesn't seem to have any real familiarity with the subject, but seems to be stumbling through, intentionally tryign to step on as many toes as possible in order to fight against what they perceive as an unnecessarily skeptical POV, but which no other editor at the page sees.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    15:21, April 21, 2016‎ Given notice by me.


    Discussion concerning TeeVeeed

    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 TeeVeeed

    I am sorry that I ever got involved at the article, because I don't like being drawn into edit-wars. And I really did try to understand the mostly good points involved with FRINGE tropics, and I appreciate what I learned with that. But there remains a problem in that article with WP:OWNERSHIP issues where a certain cabal refuse to understand anyone else's points. I have been harassed and accused of all kinds-of nonsense since a very minor GF edit made there. The very day that I 1st edited and then questioned on the TP, a "warning" was posted on the FRINGE noticeboard calling for editors to help brigade against "anti-vaxxers"--which was NEVER my point and which I did not do. My point was to edit in service to WP and the readers, as it always is. Now this drama after I decided that enough was enough on the TP and I requested comments on the RS board regarding a contentious source. Yeah I could have stayed-off the topic, but I'm feeling like this is a bully situation and have seen other editors with my same questions about why this film article was "different" being blocked, and drama-boarded and basically not playing nice with other editors who have tried to edit this article. And TY-to the uninvolved editor Rhoark , yeah rv me for the consensus that MjolnirPants (seemingly?) agreed-to, is just crazy-making. This should be a Boomerang, just for that imo. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

    edited to add

    Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)

    MjolnirPants seems to be edit warring against the wording that MjolnirPants themselves suggested, exactly as TV said. Also, why is it so important to cite the opinion of a non-RS blog about a movie the blogger admits to not having watched? He's an expert in oncology, not a clairvoyant. WP:BUTITSTRUE Rhoark (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

    Another Statement about why this should Boomerang and editor frustrations by TeeVeeed

    Also, this is not the 1st time that a GF editor has been brought here. Please See https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Conzar#Arbitration_enforcement from the TP archive. Also, in trying to reach understanding and consensus, one editor/admin? apparently uses two different names, which is confusing, and I am trying to AGF, so I am not accusing them of anything since they are obviously doing it in an open-fashion, but it has the effect of a SP-(appears like two different accounts in agreement when it is one), on myself at least.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

    Result concerning TeeVeeed

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Topic banned. TeeVeeed says they're sorry they ever got involved at Vaxxed, where they have been an unequivocal negative and have wasted the time of experienced editors who could be doing something more useful. The simple solution is to topic ban them from Vaxxed and vaccination-related pages. Done. Teeveeed's comments about article ownership and bullying are without merit AFAICS. Best of luck editing the rest of Misplaced Pages, TeeVeeed. Bishonen | talk 07:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC).

    Sailor Haumea

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

    Request concerning Sailor Haumea

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Clpo13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Sailor Haumea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion: Longevity (August 2015) :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 14:55, April 12, 2016 First removal of entries not sourced to the Gerontology Research Group (GRG)
    2. 15:23, April 18, 2016 After a discussion, announces rejection of consensus and intent to revert to their preferred version
    3. 15:28, April 18, 2016 Removes all entries not sourced to GRG
    4. 15:40, April 18, 2016‎ Same as above, despite warning that there is consensus to include other reliable sources
    5. 15:59, April 18, 2016 Third revert, as above
    6. 09:50, April 23, 2016 "us vs. them" mentality indicated by claim that article has been "hijacked"
    7. 09:55, April 23, 2016 Another removal of non-GRG sources, self-reverted
    8. 10:04, April 23, 2016 Clearly states that they do not accept non-GRG sources
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above and diff
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This is a long-running issue on longevity articles. Basically, there are some editors who believe that Misplaced Pages should only list supercentenarians that are verified by the GRG. However, a recent RfC resulted in the consensus that any reliable source is fine. Sailor Haumea showed up on List of oldest living people and removed all non-GRG sourced entries. They were reverted and engaged in talk page discussion (Talk:List of oldest living people#Reverted back to GRG-associated) where it was explained that all reliable sources are accepted. They rejected this and edit warred to their preferred version, reaching, but not breaking, WP:3RR. However, they have continued to state their rejection of consensus and reverted again, though they self-reverted immediately after. This pattern of behavior is clearly disruptive. Editors with similar attitudes have been blocked or topic-banned under these discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#930310, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#GreatGreen, not to mention those blocked or topic-banned under the original ruling. Given the behavior here and the fact that they appear to be a single-purpose account focused on longevity articles, I recommend a topic ban until such time as they can work with consensus instead of against it. clpo13(talk) 17:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Sailor Haumea

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

    Statement by Sailor Haumea

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

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

    Statement by EEng

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

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Sailor Haumea

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

    STSC

    Request concerning STSC

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    TheBlueCanoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    STSC (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/Falun Gong 2 :

    User:STSC is essentially a nuisance editor with a consistent, pro-Chinese government point of view. He is involved in regular conflict with other contributors, edit wars frequently, and personalizes talk page discussions to needle and provoke his opponents. Although most of his actual edits are relatively minor, they are also consistently counter-productive, thereby creating problems that other editors have to resolve.

    Evidence of the user’s POV editing and adversarial conduct spans a variety of topics related to China (including Sino-Japanese relations, Hong Kong, Tibet etc.), but unfortunately this complaint is limited to the user’s conduct on Falun Gong articles per the relevant discretionary sanctions.

    For more context, there was an ANI complaint about the editor recently here. The complaints there are pretty illuminating.

    Evidence of POV editing

    • – claiming that something attributed to a third party is actually just from “Falun Gong sources”. (A Chinese human rights lawyer who has represented Falun Gong practitioners is not a "Falun Gong source"; civil rights lawyers were clearly interviewed by the media outlet for their familiarity with the subject, rather than as spokespersons for Falun Gong)
    • - Torture deaths as reported by the New York Times are merely “alleged” (Misplaced Pages's manual of style recommends against using expressions of doubt such as "alleged". There are exceptions where "alleged" is appropriate—e.g. in a pending criminal case against an accused individual—but this doesn't seem to fit the bill).
    • - Changes the caption on an image of Gao Rongrong – a Falun Gong practitioner who, according to multiple reliable sources, was tortured to death in custody in 2005. STSC edits the caption to remove mention of the fact that she died, and adds the qualifier that she was only “allegedly” tortured. He used misleading edit summaries, calling these copyedits or “resizing”.
    • - Obsessively wikilinking the word “cult”
    • -Repeatedly adds Falun Gong to the page Governmental lists of cults and sects, even though Falun Gong is not on any government’s list of cults and sects (the Chinese state does often accuse FLG of being a “cult”, but this is a separate question from whether it is on the government’s official list of such groups, which it apparently is not). To get around this problem, he edited the article to say “cults and sects identified by governments are not necessarily put on a designated list.” Also worth noting that he uses clearly biased sources, and introduces errors of fact (e.g. claiming falsely that the National People's Congress outlawed Falun Gong—it didn't).
    • For insight into why STSC seems so compulsive about the “cult” thing, see his comments here. These are precisely the arguments used by the Chinese government to defend its treatment of Falun Gong. In essence: the mass imprisonment, torture, and killing of Falun Gong devotees is ok because it is not a religion, but instead a "cult" that imperils social stability (charges that are easily refuted, if only one bothers to read reliable secondary sources on the topic). In a chilling admission, STSC suggests that the “elimination” of this religious creed should not be viewed as “undesirable,” and calls for greater deference to be given to the Chinese government.
    • - Removing perfectly fine photos, often for being “irrelevant,” and edit warring to keep them gone
    • - Tendentious tag-bombing, mostly to the lead section, even though information contained therein is fully referenced in body of the article
    • – an interesting replacement

    Evidence of prior warnings about Falun Gong discretionary sanctions:

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Response

    Ah, I did overlook the 20 diff limit. In that case, would the reviewing administrators allow an exception? Most of the diffs do not show complicated edits—most of these are small, simple edits made repeatedly. The number of them is evidence simply of the user's tendency to edit war to enforce his point; I'm not sure how else to illustrate this type of conduct.

    As to STSC's contention that "any editor could have informed me on my talk page" about problems with his editing, this is not my experience. I attempted to do this, letting the user know that his edit summaries and caption changes were misleading. He responded by accusing me of harassment and intimidation, informed me that I was unwelcome on his talk page, and called my suggestion that he remedy the problem "a nonsense."TheBlueCanoe 15:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


    Discussion concerning STSC

    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 STSC

    This is a brief response as I'm in the middle of my long holiday and will be unlikely to respond in the next 2-3 weeks.

    • There're 40 diffs in the accuser's statement, far more than the 20 diffs limit.
    • My edits in the articles have been normal and reasonable, and usually within the Misplaced Pages's guideline.
    • My participation in the discussions has been normal and in civil manner, and usually within the Misplaced Pages's guideline.
    • Some of my edit summaries may not have included a comprehensive explanation due to my laziness, any editor could have informed me on my talk page if they required any further explanation.
    • TheBlueCanoe accuses other editors "POV editing"; from other fair-minded editors' viewpoint, his edits are actually very much pro-Falun Gong POV editing. This is just a classic case of WP:BOOMERANG.

    Further statement: I and some other fair-minded editors have tried to correct the unbalance in many Falun Gong related-articles which have been religiously guarded by some diehard editors (user TheBlueCanoe included). My edits were justifiable according to Misplaced Pages policies so there's nothing much I need to add here.

    @TheBlueCanoe: You did not ask me for explanation about my edit, you just told me to self-revert my edit as if you owned the article? That's the way you have been operating on Misplaced Pages - for you any edit that is not favourable to Falun Gong must go. STSC (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    @EdJohnston: I agree to your temporary arrangement for this case. Thanks. STSC (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Bishonen: I found it incredible that you just jumped the gun to echo all the accusations without looking into the evidence, the background and the original sources of those edits. STSC (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Rhoark: I would be putting more effort to write a better edit summary. STSC (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by TheBlueCanoe

    Over three weeks have elapsed. I am resurfacing this case so that a decision can be rendered.TheBlueCanoe 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Rhoark

    It is not policy to sanction an editor for having a POV, and I don't see any clear content or behavior violations in the diffs. The one thing that deserves censure is STSC's prickly response to other editors asking for better edit summaries. Given the staleness of diffs, and that AE actions should be preventative rather than punitive, I suggest only a warning at this time. Rhoark (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

    Result concerning STSC

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Awaiting a response from STSC (who hasn't edited since March 21). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd be OK with putting this AE request on hold until STSC is back from his trip. A maximum of three weeks' delay could be considered. I'd collapse this AE and put 'On hold' as the result. If STSC doesn't return, then we should decide the case anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • TheBlueCanoe makes a good point about the many small diffs. It would be hard to illustrate STSC's annoying habit of inserting "allegedly" all over the place (See WP:ALLEGED), or the many wikilinks to "cult", or the tag-bombing, without a lot of little diffs. I don't think those put undue strain on the attention of the reviewing admins, the way forty links to argumentative talkpage posts would. Since the need for "permission of a reviewing administrator" is invoked in the page instructions, I'll just state that I'll allow TBC's diffs. As EdJohnston has already reminded STSC on his page, the three weeks for which the request was put on hold have elapsed. Pinging Newyorkbrad, too. Time to decide on this request. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC).
    • I find these diffs troubling. Particularly this one, which openly supports the "elimination" of a religious group as a good and necessary thing. To me, that seems to demonstrate an agenda that is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of Misplaced Pages; therefore I believe that the best thing for this topic area is to remove the editor indefinitely. The Wordsmith 14:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    MjolnirPants

    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 MjolnirPants

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Rhoark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    MjolnirPants (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:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Casting aspersions Everything you've argued is based on a very biased interpretation of policy, and your POV is not more important than factual accuracy.
    2. Reverts to re-include a BLP violation: calling a living person a "scientific fraud" using a self-published source.
    3. Implies agreement with removing the questionable source. I don't much care which notable source says something like "this is an anti-vax film by a guy who lost his medical license," so long as it's said. My only interest is in making sure the lead accurately summarizes the article, and that no anti-skeptic/anti-science/anti-vaccine POV is being pushed on the article. (These conditions are still met by the article after removing the BLP violation.)
    4. Asserts demanding reliable sources on Misplaced Pages is equivalent to 9/11 trutherism
    5. Casting aspersions Your arguments (both of you) are straight up wikilawyering to cover your own attempts to whitewash the subject.
    6. Restores the BLP violation again.
    7. Casting aspersions Your might want to cover up, because your bias is showing.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I first encountered this topic through the above enforcement request against TeeVeeed, and then examined the related Talk discussions and RS/N filing. As I commented in that case, MjolnirPants edit warred and filed against TeeVeeed based partly on an edit MjolnirPants themselves had endorsed on the talk page. I further noted an air of ownership in the warnings given to TeeVeeed and disproportionate hostility to TeeVeeed's having noted the fact that a blog by David Gorski is self-published. TeeVeeed responded to these provocations with an unfortunate turn of phrase, and did show some degree of credulity for pseudoscience, leading to a topic ban.

    This left a poorly-sourced claim still on the page, and the justifiability of MjolnirPants' filing unsettled to my mind, so I set about to test the waters. I brought essentially three objections: that statements about the movie rather than science are not in David Gorski's area of expertise, that his notability does not warrant naming him separately in the lede from all the other sources calling the movie propaganda, and that a self-published expert cannot be used for BLP claims per WP:BLOGS. These are all correct judgements, but the last in particular has force of ironclad policy behind it. My suspicions of battleground mentality and ownership were immediately confirmed, with several editors leaping to conclusions that removing any pro-science viewpoint, no matter how improperly sourced, is indicative of pro-fringe POV pushing. To their credit, most editors eventually recognized either that I was acting in good faith, or that local consensus cannot override WP:V.

    MjolnirPants, however, persists. Consensus is moving towards excluding the BLP violation, but MjolnirPants' potential for disruption remains. I do not wish to remove any anti-fringe editor from Pseudoscience topics in the long term, but without administrator intervention I do not think MjolnirPants will undertake the necessary introspection to separate sourcing that is pro-science from sourcing that is actually scientific and verifiable, nor separate editors that are pro-fringe from those with policy and evidence-based disagreement about fringe topics.

    @MjolnirPants: It would be pointy to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point, but it is not against policy to improve articles to make a point. My edit was endorsed by policy and improved the article by making it more trustworthy. Nor did I edit with the specific aim of eliciting sanctionable behavior. I suspected one or more editors might respond uncivilly, but had no clear expectation of who. I did not rush to file, instead at the point behavior became sanctionable, recapping arguments and allowing two days for the summary to be digested. Rhoark (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    @MjolnirPants: The purpose of sanctions is to prevent disruption, and I would not file if I did not think the effect would tend towards the prevention of disruption. That is why I did not file against anyone who seemed possibly unaware that the material was removed for BLP reasons (or anyone possibly following me to the topic.) I do however agree you are a good faith contributor, and most want from this situation for you to see that I (and Wnt, and TeeVeeed, and whoever may come along next) are good faith contributors. Rhoark (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning MjolnirPants

    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 MjolnirPants

    Oh lord. For starters, contrary to what is stated above, I have only reverted edits removing this content twice. Once here and once here. There have been 5 other reverts of Rhoark and one other editor's attempts to excise the material in question, by 4 other editors. There is broad agreement on the article talk page and at an RSN thread about this that the quote is appropriate and useful. I've explained my rationale, and even offered a compromise which was completely ignored. As for the rest of the diffs, I don't have space to respond to them all. Suffice it to say, his characterization of me is very biased. I will respond in detail if necessary, but honestly, I feel like it's pretty clear that Rhoark doesn't understand what exactly is going on here.

    To that end, there is this diff in which Rhoark describes his goal in pushing this. My primary aim is to prompt introspection that will make you a better advocate for science in the long term. I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to be editing to teach other users a lesson. It's also worth pointing out that Rhoark has racked up three reverts in the past 24 hours, (here, here and here), and brought this up after another editor reverted them most recently. It's worth noting that the other editor removed the specific words Rhoark objected to with no response from myself. In addition, Rhoark virtually admits to engaging in this whole crusade in order to teach me some kind of lesson, even though he seems to have missed the fact that I've shown already that I care about NPOV in this article, as well as in other fringe articles. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

    @Rhoark: Do you really think edit warring and filing AE notices against good-faith editors isn't disruptive? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Rhoark: You seem to think you know quite a lot about my intentions and character for someone who's only ever read what I had to say about encyclopedia articles. I think the simple fact that you admit you're trying to teach me a lesson should be a red flag that you're overstepping, but then at this point, it's for an uninvolved admin to decide. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    @The Wordsmith: Aside from PeterTheFourth's list of Rhoark's reverts and Rhoark's admission to getting involved only to teach me a lesson above, there's not much else I could put up to support a boomerang. Personally, I find it very worrying that someone would take this tactic on an subject under discretionary sanctions, but I can see how you could conclude that one worrying event isn't worth sanctioning someone over. Perhaps a warning to focus on constructive editing and not to focus on other editors would be enough. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Staszek Lem: My remarks concerning Loose Change were made to contextualize what Gorski knows, not what I know: in effect, I was analogizing what you said at the RSN. My point was that Gorski knows enough about the contents of the film that he doesn't need to know the exact narrative to make the statement he did. If I didn't make that clear enough, that's my fault, but I wasn't suggesting that Gorski is acceptable because I know he's right, I was suggesting that Gorski knew enough that his statement couldn't be discredited with the argument that he hasn't watched the film. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Staszek Lem: I understand what you're saying, but your criticism seems based on the assumption that I was making the argument that Gorski's inclusion was acceptable because I knew he was right. At least, that's what you statement But we are wikipedians, and our knowledge is not an argument: it is a a guide in search of arguments published in WP:RS. strongly suggests. I'm trying to parse this statement in the context of you understanding that I was not presenting my own knowledge as an argument, and coming up with nothing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by PeterTheFourth

    Given that MjolnirPants was dealing with an editor whose misconduct has now gotten them indefinitely topic banned from the area, and from a position of quite a large consensus, I find the assertion that he was "edit warring" against them with a total of 2 reverts a bit hard to swallow. Indeed, I'll note that Rhoark themselves has reverted more than Mjolnir- .

    @Gongwool: The editor I'm referring to when I say 'indefinitely topic banned' is TeeVeeed, not Rhoark. I could have made this clearer- my bad. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Gongwool

    I believe this is a frivolous complaint and I haven't the time to investigate diffs etc. I agree with PeterTheFourth above. But from what I know MjolnirPants has been trying to restrict WP:FRINGE breaches to such topics. I suggest close this complaint. Gongwool (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Wnt

    After seeing TeeVeed's protest at Jimbo Wales' talk page, I looked at the article and decided that the Gorski blog was not suitable, per policy, for calling someone a "scientific fraud". (I'm OK with using it to call the film "propaganda") The importance of this was muted since reliable sources in the article were making similar statements, but technically, it was a violation of a core policy. In my talk page back-and-forth, MjolnirPants seemed too focused on, well, truth rather than verifiability. I think it is more important here that we establish clarity about what the BLP policy demands than that anyone be sanctioned. I would be much more interested in seeing MjolnirPants' stubbornness credited as a mitigating factor for TeeVeed to have a chance to get rehabilitated and to have a real way out of the usual downward spiral of sanctions than in seeing any action taken against MjolnirPants. The really fundamental problem at that article was a lack of editors and neutral voices to settle policy issues, and harsh administrative actions don't make that any better. Still I should note that it is important even for rationalists to understand that we're here to make a comprehensive and demonstrably neutral encyclopedia, so gathering and featuring the reliable secondary sources most prominently is something of an goal in itself. Extra note: In regard to the above comment, Rhoark's comments on BLP were essentially identical to my own, so I don't regard it as "fringe POV pushing." Fairness and open-mindedness should not be viewed as problems requiring administrator intervention! Wnt (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Staszek Lem

    <sigh> I believe everybody deserves a trout slap in this drama including myself. I came to page from WP:RS noticeboard where it was asked whether Gorski's blog is a WP:RS. I have a firm opinion that in context of this article Gorski does have expertise. And therefore noticing his quotation removed with edit summary being a link to a talk thread which was tl;dr I jumped in with revert. (trout in my face) I was reverted with edit summary "WP:BLOGS prohibits this use regardless of expertise". . A little better, but still confusing, so I asked it the talk page and finally got a convincing explanation. Here is a troutpiece to Rhoark: Had he put this one short phrase that directly pointed to the problem, I would not have run my face into a trout.

    That said, both sides are obviously smart persons, but their eloquence serves them bad. We all speak out of some context sitting in our head and some of our premises we forget to mention, taken for granted. While your opponent may just the same neglect to mention some other premises. Here goes a trout to the other side of the dispute: MjolnirPants wrote: " What you're saying is akin to saying that I have to watch Loose Change in order to know it's full of truther bullshit." - in reply to some philosophical remark of Rhoark. If you look at this phrase in isolation, M-Pants appears to be right: yes, one may know that Loose Change is full of it without actually watching it. But we are wikipedians, and our knowledge is not an argument: it is a a guide in search of arguments published in WP:RS. We (including experts cited) often "know" things by mistake, by hearsay, by a preconceived notion, etc. Therefore MjolnirPants' objection, while being smart, is a non-argument in the context of wikipedia.

    The problem with eloquence in wikipedia is that a long rant may contain both valid and dubious claims. And your opponent, unless of extremely disciplined mind, will reject your position basing on arbitrarily picked pieces of your rant. This is exemplified by the following statement from talk page: "have all explicitly or implicitly endorsed the inclusion and refuted arguments against including it". I have no idea what the arguments were' "tl;dr", but I accepted that my position was countered by a single irrefutable argument. I don't know whether it was buried somewhere in that talk page above. Moreover, the contested edit was easily remedied by removal of only two words from the contested piece rather than by full-metal revert.

    Therefore we have to learn to chop our arguments into digestible pieces and stick them to the corresponding pieces of the disputed text.

    So, once again, peace and trout to y'all. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    @Gongwool: I would like to remind you that one of the lessons with Gamergate controversy in wikipiedia, please avoid personal accusations, such as "POV pushing" stickers, without solid proof, otherwise the boomerang may fly in a completely unexpected direction. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    @MjolnirPants: I did understand your intention, but only because I saw the whole enchilada and only because I happen to partly agree with what I think you wanted to say (but, IMO, failed to deliver unambiguously). In fact, I provided this example not because you were wrong, but as an example where discussion may readily go awry because of sloppy communication. That's my point: speak short and clear, not smart. The goal is not to defeat or deride the opponent, but to (a) understand him, (b) convince him, (c) find a common ground, and in fastest possible time, too; unless your whole life is wikipedia, socializing. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for the educational threat Staszek Lem, I'll take that as WP:HA and WP:BITEing. I have changed my comment above to suit your demands. I was asked to come here and make a comment, and for doing so I get threatened. I now have no opinions as is required of Newbies. I will no longer make comments on ANI pages and such. I have no idea what Gamergate is, and really don't care about the lessons you're trying to lecture me about. Don't comment to me here or on my talk page Staszek Lem, I request that you no longer try to make contact with me in any way. End of discussion with you. Bye Gongwool (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    I hope you will change your attitude about lessons after being here on wikpedia for a while, especially the ones about our core policies and rules of engagement. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    I looked up WP:LESSONS but the policy has been deleted. So some alledged expert lecturing me "I hope you will change your attitude about lessons" has no basis as I can see. As requested maam, DON'T TALK TO ME AGAIN! Bye bye. Gongwool (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

    Result concerning MjolnirPants

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'm still in the process of reviewing the Talk page and archive, but based on the 20 diffs that were presented I don't see anything actionable. I'm on the fence as to whether or not this should boomerang. Unless someone can provide more compelling diffs either way, tomorrow I'll close this as no action taken. The Wordsmith 00:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)