Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:28, 19 January 2015

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

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

GodBlessYou2

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 GodBlessYou2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

GodBlessYou2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPSCI#Discretionary sanctions :

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

1. Jan 11 Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism (reinserting preferred content after reverting).
2. Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism (reinserting preferred content after an RfC on the talkpage went badly see previous attempt on Dec 28
3. Jan 9 Jan 9 Edit-warring on a usertalk page to argue about his POV-pushing.

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 Dec 30

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Subject of a WP:FTN thread started by the initiator of this request that contains additional discussion: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#GodBlessYou2. He was notified of this discussion: Jan 6. Please see the usertalk page of the user for more discussions as to the problematic behavior. Believe that a broad topic ban from all religion/science/pseudoscience/creationism related pages is in order.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning GodBlessYou2

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 GodBlessYou2

I will confine my response to the original charges made above according to the diffs cited.

1. Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism.

These edits were related to Fine-tuned Universe. It is not creationism nor classified by WP as such . (See also, categories: at bottom of article.) While critics may like to classify FTU it as creationism, I sincerely question if this article falls under the pseudoscience and fringe science editing restrictions.

Even if I'm wrong on that account, my only edits have been related to adding citations to two books and attempting to add these to the list of ==Further Reading==. Both books are written by astrophysicists who address the fine tuned universe issue in a manner intended to make it accessible to non-scientists with an emphasis on why this hypothesis is compatible with both science and religion. I continue to remain confounded by one or two editor's efforts to block this content. More so because two articles by Stephen M. Barr are elsewhere included in the article under External Links. Why the effort to block my adding a book of his on the subject?

2. Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism.

An RfC by Cposper sought opinions on adding one sentence and one source. Numerous editors agreed the source should only be used in the context of other sources and with attribution. I came to the article in response to this RfC. I drafted a section to show Csposper how to use multiple reliable sources to address the issue in a more balanced way. The RfC did not address my draft and is not binding on it. Check the dates. Most all of the RfC's comments were written before my draft and my draft addresses and incorporates most of the helpful comments. It does not preclude new content that addresses the same issue in a more substantive, balanced way.

3. #Jan 9 The so called Edit-warring on a Jytdog's talk page first, does not fall under the fringe and pseudoscience arbitration rules.

Second, and most importantly, the edit conflict was clearly regarding difference in our understanding of policy guidelines governing the deletion of comments on user talk pages. This was addressed by Doncram in this diff . It is further discussed in my own diff here . Arguably, the confusion was due to Jytdog referring me to Wp:TPO in this form rather than to WP:OWNTALK, because WP:TPO clearly indicates at the very top that comments should not be deleted. The confusion has resulted in efforts to clarify this problem per this discussion on the policy guideline page. In short, this wasn't edit warring. It was a sincere effort to prevent what an editor, whom I perceived as one with a history of deleting valid content, from hiding a record of disruptive behavior on his talk page contrary to policy as I understood it, and was even stated as such in the link he provided to defend his deletion.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In summary, every edit in the article I have made has been relevant and well sourced. There wouldn't be any basis for this complaint if the editors making the complaint showed more respect for the good faith contributions of other editors. In general, it is my impression that these articles are subject to a lot of WP:OWN protectionism. Prime example: tag team deletion and talk page equivocations over adding the book by Barrs to the FTU Further Reading list. Seriously?! –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my proposed new section to the article on the creation evolution controversy, you will see that I have not been editing the article but rather confining myself to the talk page to try go the editors to actually discuss the 14 sources and proposed content I have offered. Instead, there is, what I perceive to be a refusal to recognize that there are any differences between my extensive contribution and the one proposed by Cpsoper. I am sincerely trying to get them to focus on the content, but they are so anxious to shut me out (not very collaborative in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, in my opinion) that they are ganging up on me both there and here. I believe the process recognizes that consensus can change, especially if an editor like myself goes to the effort to develop a well balanced section that is clearly topic relavant and based on 14 sources covering both sides of the contentious issue. It may not be perfect, but it is something that can be built on using WP:PRESERVE methods. In my view, it is my accusers who should be reprimanded for not making more effort to work with editors to incorporate material. The only reason I came to these pages was because of Cpsoper's RfC which, on investigation, led me to believe his contributions were being rejected without any effort to help him incorporate them per PRESERVE. My mistake was thinking the other editors here would welcome my efforts to help Cpsoper learn how to find and use a wider range of reliable sources, something AndytheGrump said would be needed in his response to the RfC,,. but now he's angry at me for implementing his advice. Go figure.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Heimstern Läufer comments below. I strongly object to his classification of thise edits as related to pseudoscience. Most importantly, I object to the assumption that my notification of this policy was sufficient if the scope of pseduoscience is going to be different than that by which the articles are marked.

Clearly, fine-tuned universe theory is not considered pseudoscience by Misplaced Pages categories, the article itself, or by scientists. It is speculation about origins of the universe issue, but that itself does not render it pseudoscience. And what is my "offense" there? Trying to include two books by astrophysicists writing for people interested in the intersection of faith and science in the further reading list, book which delve into depth into the fine tuned universe theory. I continue to be puzzled why I am being prosecuted for attempting to add these sources when clearly it is protectionists who feel they WP:OWN these pages who are hounding out even the most modest edits which support the idea there is no real conflict between science and religion.

Secondly, the confusion regarding the user talk page was due to confusing organization and statements in Policy regarding deletion of comments. It has nothing to do with the psuedoscience discretionary sanctions and should not be considered in any decision.

Third, the article evolution-creation controversy is about the controversy between these camps. Not about the science, or the pseudoscience, properly speaking, as those are addressed in separate articles. It is about the charges and counter charges advocates on both sides make against each other, which may include some science and pseudoscience, but also includes charges of discrimination, which is really political and not the subject of the discretionary sanction being employed against me. My edits on this article are an effort to bring a bit of WP:PRESERVE collaboration to the page to simply support the rather obvious fact that the stated claims and counter claims have been made were clearly done in faith and mostly confined to the talk page. There is no violation of policy.

Finally, your assertion that my edits "are about an attempt to use scientific reasoning to support creationism" is simply false. Show me a pattern of such edits. In fact, I'm not a creationist. I've not argued for creationism. As per the evolution-creation controversy, I have simply dared to acknowledge that there are reliable sources, and numerous wikipedia articles, about the claims made by academics that they are discriminated for questioning the adequacy of evolution and also reliable sources identifying those who have responded to and denied these claims.

Any judgment against me based on the false charge that I am advocating creationism is simply unfair and demonstrates a failure to look carefully at my edits. The real issue, the real reason these complaints have been made against me, is that when I make what I feel are clearly reasonable contribtions and they are shouted down by people with WP:OWN behaviors, I dare to persist instead of being bullied away.. Please do not give the bullies an easy victory based on contributions to pages which don't even properly fit under the discretionary sanctions rule.

I've double checked, and even the evolution-creation controversy page is not marked as being in the category of psuedoscience or fringe science. So the notice regarding discretionary sanctions for these categories should not be applied outside those categories. It is totally unfair to apply topic specific sanctions against editors when the articles are not identified as being within that topic...and properly so....this article is about the controversy between people in these camps, not the actual science or psuedoscientific claims.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Checking all my article contributions you will see that I only made one edit of Creationism and the diff for edit shows I only tagged a request for a citation regarding the claim that there are three kinds of creationism. That was immediately reverted by Dominus Vobisdu without any explanation. That's it. My only other edit to a pseudoscience article was in regard to Extraterrestrial hypothesis both of which simply attempted to clarify the wording in the lead about the lack of any published scientific evidence in favor of ET activity and the U.S. government's official denial that any such evidence exists. Both edits were again reverted by Dominus Vobisdu who appears to claim ownership over articles in which he has some presumed expertise, as a microbiologist and teacher.

In total, in the WP:Category:Pseudoscience, I edited only two articles, with a total of only three attempted edits, all reverted. None of these four edits were pushing religion or confusing pseudoscience with science. I can see no possible way these edits could run me afoul of the psuedoscience discretionary sanctions.

Please reject this baseless charge and rebuke those who have brought it against me.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

Statement by John Carter

Tend to support some sort of ban, indefinite or otherwise. I also tend to think that the topic area could use some more attention. I don't myself see clear evidence, in just a quick review of course, of a separate Criticism of evolutionary theory page, for instance, which I think would be reasonable. Some months ago I picked up a book published by the Jehovah's Witnesses (clearly biased, and nowhere near being a reliable source in and of itself, I know, but it was one of a number of freebies I glommed onto at an academic book giveaway), and there seems to be from the apparently reliable sources it cites a reasonable basis for an article on scientific questions of evolutionary theory, either particular aspects of it or the theory in general. An article like that, or on any number of other related topics, might well be valuable and useful. When I finish my current never-ending effort of developing bibliographies of reference sources, I may well attempt generating a list of articles on this topic in encyclopedic sources, but others are free to do so before then if they so see fit. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The main article I indicated does in fact exist, under Objections to evolution, and I am grateful for that information. I still think there may be reason to develop further development of articles in the broad topic area, but that is true of most topics and there is no particular reason to think this one would be more of a priority than others. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

jps below is probably right. While there is a distinction between "science vs. religion" and "pseudoscience," the bulk of that distinction lies in areas that would probably best be called "philosophy", including perhaps "philosophy of science". The Creation-evolution debate is for the most part, except in some extremist groups, considered closed in the science vs. religion debatae, because, so far as I can tell, most religions have come to the conclusion that creation and evolution are not incompatible. Those groups still postulating "either/or" in this matter in favor of creatiionism are basically dealing with the broad field of "creation science," and so far as I can tell that is counted as part of pseudoscience. Having said that all that, if the AE admins have reservations, I could see maybe going to ARCA again and requesting clarification. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Adamfinmo

I am involved here and I will try to collect some information and post it here along with a more lengthy statement later in the day. --Adam in MO Talk 19:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I had intended on adding more here but I think that Andy pretty much has it dead on. Considering this user's behavior at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy and a refusal by them to recognize the consensous reached in the last RFC, I suspect that GBU2 will certainly be considered for a topic ban soon.--Adam in MO Talk 02:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo

I'm not great with diffs so hopefully this is sufficient. On Dec 26th another user added this which was quickly reverted. The talk page discussion led to an RFC . Two days into the RFC, with consensus clearly against the inclusion at that point on Dec 28th GBY2 added this section to the article. It was reverted as there was an ongoing RFC covering similar material. On Jan 7 the RFC was closed with consensus against adding such a section On Jan 11 GBY2 readded the section (even bigger this time) against the consensus just a few days old which was again reverted.

Here we have GBY2 edit warring on a user talk page , , , , , until finally stopping after being threatened with a block . This can be chalked up to not understanding talkpage rules but it displays the tendentious attitude in almost all of GBY2's editing.

On Jan 6 in Fine-Tuned Universe GBY2 added two books to further reading , this was reverted. They then tried to add one of the books as a ref , this too is reverted. They add a book back to further reading claiming vandalism this is again reverted, this time by a different user who goes on to add it correctly in the right place. On Jan 11th GBY2 once again tries to add the further reading and yet a different user reverts them. They try to add it yet again and are once more reverted. All the while consensus was also against the inclusion of these books/sources on the talk page yet GBY2 forged ahead regardless.

All of GodBlessYou2's contributions are in the realm of religion, mostly creationism and its offshoots. This mainly started at where they displayed they didn't understand what constituted an independent reliable source in regards to scientific or fringe claims. Capeo (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Intelligent design is pseudoscience and the section GBY2 tried to insert both during and after the RFC depended mainly on the "documentary" Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and reviews of it, as a source.Capeo (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

So now not only has GBY2 tried once more to insert the same exact section that has no consensus, as Andy points out below, but they also added this gem to an essay, essentially claiming we're all lazy for not finding their inclusion worthwhile. Capeo (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump

A further example of GodBlessYou2's refusal to accept consensus at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy - combined with a blatant misrepresentation of demonstrable facts: . GodBlessYou2 writes that "...the only appeal is to a stale RfC. The RfC was about one reference and one proposed sentence." The RfC closed less than a week ago. It mentioned no reference, and made no specific proposal regarding text. This gross misrepresentation, combined with a refusal to accept consensus, suggests to me that at minimum a topic ban is required. Though frankly, given that this refusal to accept consensus seems to be an ongoing issue with this contributor (see this discussion on another topic entirely, where GodBlessYou2's reponse to a clearly-developing consensus was to make the same proposal again, slightly reworded, and insist that it be discussed again) I have to wonder whether we would be better off without such contributions at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

With regard to 'pseudoscience-relatedness', it is worth noting the specific context of GodBlessYou2's confrontational behaviour at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy - his insistance that the article contain material on the claim (not even generally supported by Creationists), that Creationist scientists have been systematically discriminated against by the scientific establishment. While Creationism itself certainly isn't of itself scientific, or pseudoscientific, the claims made by some Creationists regarding mainstream science (particularly but not exclusively evolution) are certainly seen as pseudoscientific by many (including, it should be noted, the U.S. courts in their rejection of 'Intelligent Design' as legitimate science), and an assertion that such Creationist 'science' is being suppressed would seem to me to fall within the remit of the sanctions. It is, after all, common for proponents of fringe viewpoints to claim a conspiracy to silence them. Using Misplaced Pages to promote such fringe claims amounts to promoting Creationist 'science' - and doing so in a manner that does so not on its scientific merits, but on the basis of a fringe conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory that amounts to an attack on the legitimacy of science itself. If this doesn't fall within the remit of ArbCom sanctions in relation to pseudoscience, it would seem to me to certainly be covered by more general policies regarding appropriate weight, legitimate sourcing and the rest in the article concerned - and accordingly, if GodBlessYou2 isn't to be sanctioned for his tendentious behaviour at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy here, the matter will need to be resolved elsewhere. And for the record, I would like to suggest that the 'fine-tuned universe' article may also be within the scope of sanctions relating to pseudoscience - and certainly seems to be subject to some systematic POV-pushing to exclude commentary from the scientific mainstream. I'll not offer further evidence on this for now, however, since I've not really studied the subject matter in the depth necessary to entirely disentangle the legitimate debate from what appears on the surface at least to be special pleading based on preconceptions based around religious belief - certainly an article supposedly about a scientific debate seems to use the word 'God' rather a lot. The problem again isn't that religion has something to say about the universe - of course it does, and of course it should - but that particular views developed from a religious viewpoint are being promoted as science in an undue manner. Maybe these views aren't pseudoscience - if only because the scientific mainstream has little settled opinion to contrast them against - but the promotion of specific scientific hypotheses because they accord with a particular religious perspective is certainly undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And so it continues. GodBlessYou2 has just posted the same arguments yet again, based on exactly the same falsifications previously used to try to Wikilawyer around a clear and conclusive RfC result. At this stage, I'm beginning to wonder whether this should be taken to ANI, with the intention of discussing an indefinite block on WP:COMPETENCE grounds. This isn't just a failure to drop the stick, it is a failure to actually even respond to adverse commentary at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And on it goes - with GodBlessYou2 now stating a bogus 'RfC' (clearly lacking even a façade of neutrality) over content already rejected on multiple occasions. I have began to suspect that this tendentiousness is actually intended to bring about sanctions on GodBlessYou2, who will no doubt then consider his claims of a 'conspiracy' proven. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to GodBlessYou2's assertion above that " It is totally unfair to apply topic specific sanctions against editors when the articles are not identified as being within that topic", I would point out that the word 'pseudoscience' appears four times in the body of the creation-evolution controversy article, and that the talk page contains a header indicating that discretionary sanctions applied to the page. And perhaps more to the point, I find it impossible to believe that GodBlessYou2 is unaware that the objection from the scientific mainstream to Creationist/'Intelligent Design' arguments against evolution in the debate covered in the article is that in as much as they amount to anything approximating scientific discourse, they are pseudoscience: something that "is not scientific" although "its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific". Accordingly, I have to suggest that GodBlessYou2 is engaging in yet more of the tendentious Wikilawyering that brought about this case in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by jps

I echo what AndyTheGrump says about pseudoscience-relatedness, and argue strongly that the edits under discussion here are 100% pseudoscience-related contrary to the attempted demarcation offered by Sandstein below. To give a kind of seminar tutorial in this subject, the National Center for Science Education (I would argue the foremost authority on identifying pseudoscience in the context of the creation-evolution controversy) identifies the precise aspect of the fine-tuning argument which is pseudoscientific here: . This is exactly the same aspect that GodBlessYou2 is pushing. Claiming that the conflict thesis of religion versus science is somehow a separate issue from science versus pseudoscience actually skids dangerously towards adopting the position of intelligent design pseudoscientists make in their Teach the Controversy — another argument that is itself rank pseudoscience promotion. In other words, it is clever propaganda meant to legitimize positions that are pseudoscientific — intending to make them look like a conflict of worldviews rather than pseudoscience. Remember, the discretionary sanctions are on topics that are "broadly construed" precisely because this kind of gaming is so common in contentious areas (of the "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" level of intellectual argumentation). jps (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sławomir Biały

Sandstein's argument seems to be that the edits in question do not fall within the mandate of the PSCI decision, because they concern the culture war rather than science. If that were truly the case, then Sandstein's argument would be quite convincing. However, it does not seem to me that the edits in question do concern the culture wars per se. Rather, they concern the Creationist claim (as advanced by one particular piece of unreliable propaganda) of exclusion the scientific process because, they allege, their "scientific" work is censored by the establishment. This is not a statement about religious belief versus science, but specifically that the Creationist agenda of "questioning evolutionary theory" (in the style of Teach the controversy) are legitimately scientific. For example, from , "This consensus is so embedded in academia that some critics believe it has created a chilling effect on scientists who might raise questions regarding the adequacy of evolutionary theory." Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

I recommend a topic ban from creationism-related pages for civil POV-pushing beyond the bounds of reason. Godblessyou2 has now got a third RfC, within a few weeks, going, on essentially the same issue on the talkpage of Creation–evolution controversy, ignoring that there has all along been solid consensus against what he wants to do. (Before somebody points out that he didn't start the first RfC, I'll mention it myself.) I gave him a pseudoscience discretionary sanctions alert a while back, and I have already warned him several times against uselessly wasting editors' time. The first diff, from 31 December 2014, contains my reply to his (incredulous) question whether discretionary sanctions can be imposed for arguing for inclusion of material on the talk page: "yes, discretionary sanctions can be imposed for arguing on the talkpage, if it's taken far enough and uselessly exhausts too much of our most precious resource (=the time and energy of out volunteers). It's been done". To me, the amount of beating a dead horse and the level of civil POV-pushing GBY2 has demonstrated on that talkpage over several weeks is well ripe for a topic ban from creationism-related pages. I would already have instituted such a ban myself, except that when I went check out the article talkpage yesterday, to take stock, I realized I may be considered too involved (even though I've never edited the article), since I "voted" in the first RfC. But a topic ban is what I think should be done. This is the kind of thing that burns out good-faith competent editors.

@Sandstein: Godblessyou2's whole argument is about whether or not creationist scientists are discriminated against by academe, as regards getting their papers published, getting hired to pursue their research in an academic setting, etc. Yes, creationism may be taken as simply religious, but this is all about creationism as science — GBY2 is pushing it as science. In that context, it is certainly pseudoscience. I don't think the OP has the emphasis right — e. g., never mind the mistake about restoring posts to user talkpages — but I do believe sanctions under the pseudoscience DS purely for the way GBY2 has acted on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy would be wholly appropriate. We need to give some protection to the protectors of articles. Bishonen | talk 07:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Dominus Vobisdu

Since this case was started, User:GodBlessYou2 has continued to pursue his "proposal" by launching another RfC on the article talk page, which has been characterized by numerous responders as serious flawed and tendentious. See ].

He also appears to be canvassing: ].

This editor is deeply unsatisfied with the rigor of our sourcing policies. He has tried to loosen the notability guidelines for fringe films: ]

And has proposed that sources should be considered reliable if they appear in Google News searches: ]

He refuses to accept the fact that our policies forbid the additions that he wishes to make to this and other articles, and has a serious case of WP:IDHT. He also has a penchant for accusing fellow editors of working against him, and resorts to appeals to WP essays, which he himself tried to alter, to back up his behavior, blithely ignoring our core policies and overwhelming consensus by many editors in the process.

He (not so indirectly) accused his fellow editors of being "lazy" his edits to one of the essays, in that they should try to "preserve" something of his additions, even though they violate our core policies: ]

This is indeed a pseudoscience related case, as the material he is trying to insert pertains to how pseudoscientists feel "persecuted" or "suppressed". He bases this all on in-universe fringe sources which he persists on insisting are reliable despite being told by many fellow editors that the contrary is the case.

WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR apply here, and I see little hope that this editor will ever be able to edit productively, particularly on controversial topics. He has squandered lavish amounts of his fellow editors' time, and will undoubtedly continue ad infinitum. I see no other viable option than an indefinite block under discretionary sanctions. Trying to reason with him has gotten me, and many other editors, precisely nowhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (User)

Result concerning GodBlessYou2

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

Three diffs of three different edits aren't evidence of edit-warring. We'd need dated diffs of each and every edit making up the edit war for that. This report may be quickly shelved if the evidence is not supplemented accordingly.  Sandstein  18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, there's some evidence now of confrontative, tendentious editing. But can somebody explain how this is in scope of the sanctions? After all, evolution and the "fine-tuned universe" are not fringe science, and as far as I know the objections to evolution are essentially religious, not scientific (or even pseudoscientific) in nature and motivation. So where's the pseudoscience-relatedness in all of this?  Sandstein  06:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I understand that there are forms of creationism that are portrayed as scientific, such as creation science, and these are probably pseudoscience and subject to sanctions. But the edits at issue here are not related to such "religion in the form of science" topics, but rather they appear to be related to the "religion versus science" debate that is at the core of the cultural controversies related to evolution, and that is not a topic covered by discretionary sanctions. So, unless other admins see something I don't, I'm of the view that this conduct is not within the scope of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  09:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with AndyTheGrump and jps, and contra Sandstein, I view these edits as falling into the area of pseudoscience (excluding the talk page edit warring ones, which appear to be based on a misunderstanding of policy and for which DS seem like the wrong tool). The edits, from what I can see, are about an attempt to use scientific reasoning to support creationism, thus making it fall under the topic of pseudoscience. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You may well be right - distinguishing the cultural and religious issues from the scientific ones is tricky here, I think, and I'd prefer to be cautious - but if you think that this is within the scope of the sanctions, I leave it to you to determine which action, if any, is appropriate.  Sandstein  17:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

To Sandstein and to others here: Bit busy now. Will try my dangdest to come back to this soon, but real-life deadlines are approaching. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

JzG

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 JzG

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

A1candidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

JzG (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/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
• 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. 12:45, 8 January 2015 - Violates WP:NPA by calling me an "acupuncture advocate"
2. 14:08, 8 January 2015 - Violates WP:NPA by stating in the edit summary "go away, stupid person"
3. 10:36, 9 January 2015 - Violates WP:NPA by stating "and now you look a bit silly"
4. 17:02, 9 January 2015 Violates WP:NEWCOMER by accusing a new editor of being "a pertennial gadfly with an axe to grind"
5. 13:43, 11 January 2015 Violates WP:CIVIL by stating "how the fuck are we supposed to control POV-pushing?"
6. 00:47, 14 January 2015 Violates WP:NPA by stating "you were the problem then, and it sounds very much as if you still are"
7. 08:33, 15 January 2015 Violates WP:NPA by stating "you are in a minority of one, and clearly obsessed with this particular article"
8. 19:17, 15 January 2015 Violates WP:CIVIL by stating "of all the low-lifes in the world, the cancer quack is probably the worst" and "he is a perfect example of crank magnetism at work"
9. 23:20, 15 January 2015 Violates WP:NEWCOMER by stating "given your extremely limited editing history, I am inclined to dismiss your concern"
10. 23:29, 15 January 2015 Violates WP:NPA by calling me "an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 11 January 2015‎ - User:HJ Mitchell warned him to comment on content, not on contributors, and this warning was to be "logged as a discretionary sanction"

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

• 8 January 2015 - Alerted about discretionary sanctions regarding pseudoscience and fringe science
• 12 January 2015 - Alerted about discretionary sanctions regarding complementary and alternative medicine

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violates WP:NPA by calling an editor "the most severe (stupid person) was already dealt with at the previous AE". (02:37, 16 January 2015) His comment about a particular "OP" deals with a separate editor, not me.

• Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violates WP:NPA by calling editors "fringe promoters on alternative medicine" (06:22, 16 January 2015). He claims that I am adding "grossly unreliable sources", without stating which sources, and he accuses me of pushing pro-fringe material without giving evidence in the form of diffs.

• TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violates WP:NPA by calling me a civil-but-tireless POV-pusher (02:30, 16 January 2015). In this arbitration filing, he commented in an area reserved for uninvolved administrators only, despite his status as an WP:INVOLVED administrator as evidenced by his recent participation in the talk pages of Energy Catalyzer, Homeopathy, and Miracle Mineral Supplement: 19 November 2014, 2 December 2014 and 12 January 2015. Based on the evidence shown above, TenOfAllTrades is clearly an involved administrator.

• Sandstein:

1. I am not an advocate of these treatments. I only support the scientific study of these therapies.
2. I have previously removed positive studies about acupuncture (diff) and Transcendental Meditation (diff). If I were to advocate for anything, that would be for the faithful representation of scientific and medical literature per WP:MEDRS.
3. A significant portion of TenOfAllTrades's recent editing falls under the category of pseudoscience, fringe science, or complementary and alternative medicine. In addition, TenOfAllTrades has participated in several content disputes about these articles (19 November 2014, 2 December 2014 and 12 January 2015) and is therefore an involved administrator in these disputes.

• RAN1:

Please read WP:MEDRS carefully. The Cochrane review was removed because it does not support what was being stated in the article, not because it fails WP:MEDDATE (Cochrane reviews are generally exempted from WP:MEDDATE). The other review fails WP:MEDDATE and was therefore removed. I stand by my edits because they absolutely conform to WP:MEDRS.

Further discussion removed by an administrator because it relates to a content dispute and is therefore beyond the scope of this forum.  Sandstein  17:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• NuclearWarfare:

There is a difference between being direct and being plain abusive and provocative. JzG uses foul language, makes baseless accusations, repeatedly bites the newcomers, and repeatedly comments on contributors instead of content. I do not claim to be a perfect editor and if you dig hard enough into my contributions, you might be able to find something that slightly borders on infringement of a guideline a while ago, but I believe I have nothing incriminating to hide. Feel free to search my edits, but until you find something incriminating, my conscience remains clear. I am not an advocate of acupuncture, neither financially nor otherwise.

• QuackGuru

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a disruptive editor who has been repeatedly blocked for multiple counts of edit-warring and disruptive editing. Problematic behaviorial issues include:

1. 30 March 2014 - Accusing me of sockpuppetry, without evidence
2. 30 March 2014 - Removing my request for clarification and accusing me of sockpuppetry again, without evidence

1. 24 May 2014 - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming the the tattoo marks of Ötzi the Iceman suggest some form of acupuncture "developed independent of China"
2. 15 August 2014 - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming that the tattoo marks of Ötzi the Iceman are supposedly "acupuncture points"
3. 16 August 2014 - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming that "acupuncture was previously used in Europe 5 millennia ago"
4. 16 August 2014 - Advocacy of pro-fringe material claiming that "an acupuncture-like therapy was already used in Europe 5 millennia ago" and the tattoo marks correspond to "acupuncture points"
5. 17 August 2014 - Repeated advocacy for pro-fringe material using unreliable, non-WP:MEDRS sources, despite earlier consensus against its inclusion
6. 3 January 2015 - WP:Ownership of articles according to comments such as "I added a quote to ensure no editor claims the text is unsourced."

I reverted his edit because they contained many sources that fail WP:MEDDATE and he was advocating for pro-fringe material using a speculative claim that the tattoo marks on Ötzi the Iceman are supposedly "acupuncture points". This mass addition was performed without any attempts at discussion whatsoever, and that is why I removed it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 01:36, 16 January 2015

Discussion concerning JzG

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 JzG

This is abuse of process by one of a number of fringe advocates who are engaged in a determined campaign to undermine the scientific rigour of our coverage on quackery. Given the determined and vexatious nature of quackery advocacy on Misplaced Pages, it is unsurprising that a dumpster dive through contributions of any reality advocate will turn up instances of tetchiness, especially since it is usually necessary to explain policy repeatedly, in words of one syllable, and even then they just keep asking, and will always keep asking until they get what they want - something not in our gift, because what they want is for science to completely change and their beliefs to become true. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42

The diffs that predate the 11th are prior to the warning, and the most severe (stupid person) was already dealt with at the previous AE that just closed.

• In diff #6 the OP accuses Guy of WP:WRONGVERSION and threatens to take him to ANI, Guy responding on his own talk page that he thinks the OP is a problem editor seems pretty justified
• #8 is not a civility issue at all, he is clearly talking about the subject of the article G._Edward_Griffin who is indeed a well known crank.

This seems like editors that didn't like the previous result trying to take two bites at the apple, but JzG could certainly tone it down a bit, while still holding the line against the quackery. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate My "stupid person" comment is a direct reference to diff #2 that you posted above. As for the "OP" one, I was providing the context for Guy's comment, not accusing you personally of anything. But I do find it interesting that you are finding so many diffs that do not involve you to complain about. If this is the way conversations generally go in this topic area, I am not surprised that Guy lost his cool. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc Since A1 mentions the CAM sanctions in his report against JzG, wouldn't that be sufficient to say he was aware of them at the time of his posting? Also he was a named party on the CAM ArbCom case where the sanctions were applied by motion and he commented there significantly. Either seems to satisfy point #2 of the "awareness" criteria? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dominus Vobisdu

There is a WP:GAMING tactic currently being used by several fringe promoters on alternative medicine articles to provoke other editors into reacting and then calling them out for being uncivil. This complaint is a good example of trying to eliminate opposition to fringe promotion. I myself stopped editing altogether for several months because of my disgust at this phenomenon. I believe that boomerang applies, and that the OP should be topic banned from all articles related to medicine, including alternative medicine and related topics, broadly construed. This has become such a serious problem that alternative medicine articles are now covered by discretionary sanctions because fringe promoters tried to evade discretionary sanctions related to pseudoscience topics. This particular editor has been tendentious and disruptive, and pushing pro-fringe material backed up by grossly unreliable sources. Civil POV pushing is an apt description of his behavior. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RAN1

Short comment: A1candidate’s TM diff was immediately preceded by a number of edits removing the sourced consensus that research on TM was of poor quality, making the lead statement to that effect unsourced. His justification for this was primarily MEDDATE on <10 year old articles. See here (~13:12, 10 January 2015). —-RAN1 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion removed by an administrator because it relates to a content dispute and is therefore beyond the scope of this forum.  Sandstein  17:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

After seeing the comments at Jimbo's talk page that led to this request, I figured this would be a bad faith attempt at gaming the system by A1Canaditate. Having read this and the other comments, I am now convinced as such. In particular given how A1candidate is accusing people who disagree with him of various sundry violations simply because they disagree with him. I would agree with ToaT that this is more likely to be a WP:BOOMERANG situation than anything else. Resolute 16:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

@Sandstein: Can you please clarify how the accusation of being "an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas" is true? If you're referring to acupuncture, and I assume that you are, I believe that you are mistaken. My only prior knowledge of acupuncture is what I see in the movies and on TV. But when I looked it up at:

• The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
• The Mayo Clinic
• The National Cancer Institute
• The American Heart Association
• Encyclopedia Britannica (which theoretically should produce an article roughly similar to ours)

Not a single one of these sources described acupuncture as pseudoscience, and these sources are about as mainstream and respected as they come.

As best I can tell, the POV that acupuncture is pseudoscience is a WP:FRINGE or minority POV (perhaps even significant minority) but certainly not scientific consensus. This appears to a case where editors who claim to be arguing in favor of scientific consensus are actually arguing against scientific consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Pekay2

I fervently agree with aqfk. I would add--this whole fringe, quackbuster focus is an anachronism in my view. History is replete with yesterday's quackery as today's science, and yesterday's science as today's quackery.--Pekay2 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by QuackGuru

A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on 26 June 2014. A1candidate deleted MEDRS compliant sources and his edit summary did not give a valid reason to delete all the text or sources from Acupuncture. A1candidate made mass changes to Transcendental Meditation without consensus. A1candidate deleted text from the lede and body that describes Traditional Chinese medicine as largely pseudoscience after there was a long established consensus. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_92#Traditional_Chinese_medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Callanecc, in case you missed it A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on 26 June 2014. So admins are able to take further action against A1candidate at this time. Of course, he deleted the notification. A1candidate was also notified of the sanctions for acupuncture on 12 January 2015. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JzG

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

The quality of the diffs provided, when examined in context, suggest that A1candidate is a ripe candidate for a boomerang. WP:AE is not meant to be used by a civil-but-tireless POV-pusher to try to eliminate editors who seem to have a much firmer grasp of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:MEDRS. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The request is unfounded. Insofar as the diffs submitted as evidence postdate the civility warning, they are not personal attacks, at least not to a sanctionable degree. Instead, a look at A1candidate's editing history makes it appear likely that JzG's assertion that A1candidate is "an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas" is true. They seem - at least since Summer 2014 - to edit exclusively in this topic area, including such articles as Transcendental Meditation, Traditional Chinese medicine and Acupuncture, and their edits seem to be intended to present these methods in a more favorable light. I invite comment by admins, and evidence by others, as to how and whether this might amount to sanctionable conduct.

I'm also of the view that A1candidate's contention that TenOfAllTrades is an involved administrator is not supported by any evidence submitted here. Involvedness might arise from a personal, direct dispute with A1candidate, of which we have no evidence, but not merely from the fact that TenOfAllTrades has edited in the same topic area. TenOfAllTrades's view that A1candidate is a "civil-but-tireless POV-pusher" is an administrator's assessment of misconduct and not a personal attack.  Sandstein  11:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with that assessment and am inclined to decline to take action against JzG regarding this complaint. I'm not sure if I was just turned off by the excessive pseudo-legalese format in which everything was presented, but at a bare minimum, #1, 5, and 7 are also not at all evidence of misconduct. WP:CIVIL does not mean "unfailingly polite in all aspects of one's speech," and not all comments require that everything be footnoted and filed in triplicate. It is sometimes nice and even required to have that, but it would also be nice to live in a world with delicious calorie-free chocolate and no alt-medicine quacks. I don't (necessarily) think that A1candidate meets that criteria, but I think a closer examination of their recent edits are warranted. NW (Talk) 14:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

With respect, NW, are you sure you're an uninvovled admin? This comment seems to suggest that you are rather friendly with (and thus not objective regarding) JzG, and your recent comment a A/R/C also suggests that you are not impartial on this subject and you even stated that you wouldn't consider yourself uninvolved. Coupled with the relative infrequency with which you participate as an admin at AE, it would be easy for somebody to get the impression that you were 'defending your mates'. I've seen you admin in other areas for many years, so I don't believe that is your intent but I would respectfully suggest that you move your comments to your own section and leave the adminning to admins who come to this issue 'cold'. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the question Harry, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. There are certainly a number of medicine editors who I would consider myself on good enough terms with to not take admin action. I would not say say that JzG is one of them; I think we may have worked together on an article at some point 3-4 years ago (Abortion?) but I honestly cannot remember. I do not believe that it was too extensive though. The comment I left on his talk page was intended to both clarify Arbitration policy and also to simply leave a humorous comment for all those editors who are serious about WP:WEIGHT who might come across it – which is not an insignificant group considering that JzG has a reputation for zero bullshit in this area and has the eighth most-watched user talk page on Misplaced Pages. For the recent ArbCom case request, I tried to err on the side of caution (I recall making a few comments as to what I remember as being accuracy of a few sources on Talk:Acupuncture a little while ago) but I generally have always tried to act as an administrator in alt-medicine articles generally rather than as an editor, as it is not really a topic area of particular interest of mine (my real life interests in medicine are not something I edit on Misplaced Pages much or even at all). The reason why I interact with it at all on Misplaced Pages is because I believe it to be the highest profile portion of WikiProject Medicine where WP:MEDRS is routinely flouted. I don't believe the facts that I come into AE with that perspective and don't participate much in the rest of AE is a significant problem, quite the contrary – I would rather stay out of requests if I don't know what is going on. But perhaps others disagree with that perspective. As always, I would appreciate feedback from you and anyone else. Best, NW (Talk) 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it happens that there is agreement among the admins here to close this without action, and even if you were involved, I don't think your comment was the deciding factor there, so it's a bit of a moot point. I'm satisfied with your reply personally. The geo-political disputes are more our stock in trade at AE (though I can see alt-med/psudoscience/fringe science or gender politics and sexuality becoming roe dominant in the future), and some of the admins who are tangentially involved there often comment here as admins but recuse if anybody raises a good-faith objection and generally let another admin close the request and log any action—it might be wise for you to do something similar to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu: You violate the prohibition against casting aspersions on others, an aspect of WP:NPA, by asserting that A1candidate "has been tendentious and disruptive, and pushing pro-fringe material backed up by grossly unreliable sources" without at the same time providing actionable evidence for this serious accusation of misconduct. Please provide such evidence in the form of dated diffs as soon as possible, within 24 hours of your next edit following this message, or you may be made subject to a block or ban.  Sandstein  17:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur, though striking the remark would also be acceptable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that filing this request – which is legalistic, poorly-judged in its choice of evidence, and appears principally to be trying for a second bite at the apple just closed by HJ Mitchell a few days ago – certainly represents prima facie "tendentious and disruptive" conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive, perhaps, but no evidence of "pushing pro-fringe material" and using "grossly unreliable sources" is apparent.
In response to some comments above, the removed comments are not helpful to admins evaluating this request. Involvedness requires evidence of a bias for or against a particular editor or contested content issue, rather than expressing an opinion in very broadly related topic areas. My comment above did not relate to acupuncture specifically, but to the totality of topics edited, which have in common that they are disputed with regard to their scientific validity or lack thereof.  Sandstein  19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to close this thread – as it appears that there is little evidence or appetite for a sanction against JzG – rather than let it get sidetracked into a tangent bickering about A1candidate's conduct? If there are editors with specific concerns on that front, I suspect that they will find that a well-formed, dedicated enforcement request regarding A1candidate's behavior would be more focused and better able to address the issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I could live with closing it without prejudice to a request being filed against A1candidate. I'm less than impressed with both parties, but JzG's tone was addressed in the warning last week; I don't know if he's heeded it, but there's nothing in the diffs that is absolutely outrageous (though the "low-life" remark in diff #10 would have been, had it been directed at an individual). It's not about knee-jerk "civility" enforcement, but about creating a hostile atmosphere in the topic area, and I note that that comment was made on a user talk page, not an article talk page (DS apply everywhere, but comments on a user talk page do not contribute as much to a toxic environment in the mainspace as comments on an article talk page do). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As all of the admins who have commented here so far are long familiar, dealing with this alleged "civil POV pushing" is a difficult task. It is a huge annoyance to have someone being an excessive stickler for the rules instead of actually being willing to work with other editors to figure out what everyone wants for the article so that it meets the underlying principles being WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, etc. This AE report is not a helpful report in that respect (it brings up, at absolute worst, very very borderline comments), but based on my review a few weeks ago of A1candidate's edits, I do not believe his editing style is what I would consider to be civil POV pushing. However, I would be willing to be convinced otherwise. NW (Talk) 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nearly the whole "Additional comments by editor filing the complaint" section suggests to me that they intend to disrupt, finding something in most comments made to complain about when most of which were blatantly not what they said they were is disruptive whether they know it was or not. Given that as well as conduct in other related comments (which Sanstein commented on) I would suggest that we take action against A1candidate. While civil POV-pushing is not necessarily a violation of policy, continuing to do so after having been informed of community norms regarding that and continuing to be disruptive is disruptive and likely tendentious as this this report. To that end I would suggest a short block due to disruptive conduct on this page (which includes trying to discredit editors who have commented rather than only rebutting their evidence). From what I can find where A1candidate has previously been notified of the ARBPS or Acupuncture discretionary sanctions so we would be unable to take further action against them at this stage expect an (unlogged) warning that they are walking on thin ice.

Regarding JzG, I agree with my colleagues that there is nothing actionable presented in this report. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft motion for establishing a central DS log

The Committee is inclined towards establishing a central log for discretionary sanctions and would welcome comments and suggestions.

Draft motion establishing a central log for discretionary sanctions

Establishment of a central log

A central log ("log") of all sanctions placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure is to be established by the Arbitration clerks on a page designated for that purpose (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. , ) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by topic, then by month within each topic. An annual log sub-page may be courtesy blanked once five calendar years have elapsed since the date of the imposition of the last sanction recorded on it. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.

Amendments to the discretionary sanctions procedure

1. Additional section to be added

The "Establishment of a central log" text above is to be added to the foot of procedure page, with a heading of "Motion <date>", with the date being the date of enactment.

2, The "Authorisation" section is amended with the following addition:

"Where there is a conflict between any individual provision authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control."

3. The "Guidance for editors" section is amended with the following addition:

"The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions can be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion."

4. The "Alerts" subsection is amended with the following addition:

"An editor who has an unexpired alert in one area under discretionary sanctions may be sanctioned for edits in another separate but related topic, also under discretionary sanctions, provided the nature, or the content, of the edits in the two topics are similar."

5. The "Logging" subsection is amended with the following replacements:

Replace: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the pages specified for the purpose in the authorising motion or decision."

With: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the central log, currently /Log."

Replace: "The log location may not be changed without the consent of the committee."

With: "The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee."

For the Committee,  Roger Davies 09:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Cross-posted by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Arbitration motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments

The Arbitration Committee is currently voting on a motion to establish a central location for the logging of discretionary sanctions procedures and amendments associated with this change. Comments from community members are welcome in the applicable section. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Ashtul

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

1. 01:29, 18 January 2015 ‎Ist revert. It is a revert. I had explained exhaustively on the talk page 3 days earlier why many of the sources he reintroduced here were utterly below the most generous reading of WP:RS here. I also explained that the material from obscure websites like .0404 news did not meet the criteria in the lead of violence to persons and property in several cases.Nishidani (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
2. 14:51, 18 January 2015‎ 2nd revert.

At Carmel, Har Hebron Ashtul performed his second and third revert within 24 hours.

1. 00:53, 18 January 2015‎ Ist revert. Edit warring. Removal of high quality RS (New York Times, Haaretz) which are dismissed as 'propagandistic garbage'.
2. 19:12, 18 January 2015 ‎ 2nd revert. Editwarring removal of the same, this time because the two sources are imputed to have a biased agenda (WP:IDONTLIKEIT).
3. 20:29, 18 January 2015‎ 3rd revert. Edit-warring, editing out the same, this time because Ashtul says the quotes are too long.

The first revert is a revert because it cancelled information I entered yesterday The editor has been alerted about discretionary sanctions in the ARBPIA area of conflict in the last twelve months on several occasions,

• as witness his page, and specifically
• here by User:RolandR in November, last year.
• here by User: User:Melody Concerto in mid December.
• here by User:Zero0000 later in December.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor is obviously tracking me, as he admits to doing so himself, after I registered a protest on his page and request he desist. This began from the day he encountered my edits at Skunk (weapon)). I have had numerous problems since then with his breaking 1R, with his understanding of WP:RS (here and here) and WP:COI (he takes this edit of mine as proof I have a conflict of interest, when I am neither a Palestinian nor a settler, meaning he hasn’t read the policy) and I am not alone. My complaint sheet would be much longer, since the editor's behavior is incomprehensible policy wise and exasperating over many pages, but for the moment ...

Sandstein. The first example from List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 cannot but be a revert because the page was created just over two weeks ago, and everything in it has been added or subtracted since then, with Ashful present, and in his edit summary, Ashtul knowingly acknowledges his edit as a 'revert'.

I have no idea how to handle this sanction-wise. Ashtul appears to be an utterly intractable editor. I don't mind a tough environment, if people understand the basic rules, and decently follow them, and hash out differences. This guy doesn't. So much so that of the second series of reverts, 3, the last two were done after I made this complaint, in full awareness of the fact that 1R was being breached. I leave it to wiser minds to figure out how that is to be handled in terms of sanctions. Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul. You assert here that 'There is no 1RR limit on Carmel'. On the talk page you stated Yes, the article is about a settlement, . . The article isn't part of Israeli–Palestinian conflict or Palestine.'

I suggest to you that is a contradiction in terms, which, indicates that after months of warnings, you haven't actually digested what editors have told you. An Israeli settlement on the West Bank is by definition part of the I/P conflict.Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul.Cptnono just noted what I now note here. He and I rarely agree (which is actually good for the encyclopedia), but I can trust him for an honest assessment because he understands and observes the technicalities of this place with scruple. The problem has been to get you to actually read and absorb the notifications you have been given (listed above) since November. To which I might add the one I posted 14:17, 19 December 2014‎ Notification. Please read the policy and desist from editwarring, which informed you at that date that 'All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.’ That also told you that (b) 'Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.'

I have seen numerous examples of you ignoring this, and my exasperation today has forced my hand. You may not be disingenuous, but you don't understand enough of the rules to work productively here at the moment. Nishidani (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning Ashtul

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 Ashtul

This is a 2nd version. The first can be found here.

• About the List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 revert claim - Nishidani claim is just untrue. 0404 was discussed on Reliable sources/Noticeboard but nobody claimed it was unreliable. Nishidani went ahead with deletion anyway. He also deleted sources about Palestinians violence while he put numerous source about settlers violence. Why? b/c B’tselem and re Hamas (1,2) have nothing to do with the definition of the lead. The lead states that attacks by Palestinians on Israelis are part of the substance of the list. Does it make any sense? not to me.

After deleting material that was reverted by me and I agreed with Nishidani wasn't well sourced, I have changed (but not reverted) the lead so it will be short, precise and without any unnecessary info, like a lead in a normal list as I saw in a few examples I looked at at random. Here is my newer version -

This is a list of individual incidents and statistical breakdowns of incidents of violence, including property damage and expropriation involving a violation of rights, taking place between Israel and Palestinians in 2015 as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, but exclusive of particular events that fall within the parameters of any full outbreak of war hostilities. Housing demolitions are included as well.

This is not a revert but sensible solution to our conflict.

• As for Carmel, Har Hebron article, I kept reverting b/c I wasn't aware it was considered a 1RR article. It doesn't state so in the Talk page. The fact Carmel is a settlement doesn't make automatically part of I/P conflict. On the contrary, after adding WT:Legality of Israeli settlements statement, I hoped different activists feel they have paid their dues and allow the article to be focused on its subject without forcing the politics into each individual article.

In addition Nishidani claims "I have enough on my shoulders just trying to build Palestinian materials without having to eat into my time handling every angle to Israeli related material in the I/P area. I intended to", but between inserting one quote about Palestinian neighbors to another one about the same subject, over 9 months pasted by. So for all that time, and probably some more in the future if I haven't intervene, a passing reader gets to read an irrelevant quote from an article with relevant material. How does that contribute anything to WP? The state at which the article was left 9 months ago is embarrassing and to come back, put another irrelevant quote from a relevant article and take off is WP:BIASED on a good day.

An article of 1,508 bytes (117 words) ballooned into 4,754 bytes (445 words) with no new information about the subject but rather about the fact the neighbors don't have electricity which is a worthy subject on it's own but unrelated to Carmel article. Am I the only one to whom this does not look unreasonable? What exactly will a reader get from this article?

Same is true for Skunk (weapon) page which for years was 2,990 bytes (253 words) and reached 13,606 bytes (1118 words) at the top of it glory. There was minor additions to the skunk itself and almost all other info if about the Palestinian. A worthy issue to mention but it shouldn't take over. Two cases where Nishidani nurtured articles with over the top pro-Palestinian propaganda.

• My previous 1RR violations were mainly due to the fact I was (probably still am) a newbie.

reply to other editors

EdJohnston, though I am an Israeli and a proud one, I have indeed made quite a few edits that didn't support my opinion like here, here and here as well as others in subject unrelated to I/P conflict. I try not to touch any edit that is well sourced and in place but Nishidani engineers his edits to be biased such as changing "Israel maintains" into "Israel sought to justify" b/c he added a source that worded a sentence that way.

RolandR My edits were mainly adding info and multiple edits is a measure I have seen many editors do. If I understand correctly, that is not what edit-warring is about. A delete on BDS page was done a week after I opened it for discussion on talk page. There was never edit-warring with you because even when you reverted my change, it was very reasonable. Please feel free to gather evidence, I am pretty certain I can give a reason for every edit I have made.

Cptnono Thanks for your mentoring.

Nomoskedasticity Seems like you didn't read my title. The pro-Palestinian madness is about dragging any Israeli subject through the mud. Putting a historical fact before current ones are by no mean encyclopedic. Who are you kidding? I guess BDS decided to make articles about Israel completely useless by dumping any possible Palestinian-remotely-related fact into them. Your last revert on Israeli-occupied territories was unexplained and complete WP:BS.

Statement by IjonTichy

Ashtul now appears to be edit warring on yet another article: Carmel, Har Hebron. I have not checked, but would not be surprised if he is editing disruptively on additional articles.

Ashtul is editing recklessly in a highly contentious area of WP with many controversial articles. He ignored numerous warnings posted on his talk page by several members of the community in recent weeks. He appears to not be fully familiar with WP policies, guidelines, community norms and culture.

A one-month block would give this disruptive editor ample time to get a WP: CLUE.   IjonTichy (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

If Sandstein intends to find that there are insufficient grounds for enforcement via AE (despite edit-warring that now reaches three reverts in an I/P context), then of course it could be taken to EWN. Will this be necessary? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• It now appears that Ashtul believes that being "pro-Palestinian" is "madness" (diff). Inauspicious. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cptnono

I've been following this and have chimed in a couple times. I have no doubt that Ashtul is trying to improve the articles. As as someone who was sanction years ago for calling Nishidani a "liar" I get how frustrating his admitted bias can be. Ashtul does need to chill out, though. He hasn't had the experience to understand that he needs a cooler head in the topic area (for example, pointing the finger back and using the term propaganda doesn't help anything). Ashtul needs an uninvolved admin to clarly explain things. I've already suggested this to Nishidani.Cptnono (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Disputing that the settlement Carmel is not subject to 1/rr shows that Ashtul needs to become more familiar with the topic area. It is part of the ongoing dispute. For what it's worth, I agree that it is disconcerting to see such articles become more and more about the plights of the Palestinians to the point that other information takes a backseat.Cptnono (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Ashtul, you are missing it. It doesn't matter that it is not tagged. A common term used in these cases is "broadly construed". Carmel is part of the conflict in at least a small way. It is a settlement (a subject that is definitely part of the conflict) and it is obvious that there is an issue since you two are having a problem right now. Basically, it is subject to discretionary sanctions if there is any correlation between he subject matter and the overall troubles in the region.Cptnono (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR

Ashtul has also been edit-warring on Price tag policy, on UNRWA, on Israeli-occupied territories, on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and on several other articles. This editor's behaviour is highly reminiscent of that of several blocked socks of serial puppeteer Wlglunight93, and unless the result of this AE request makes this unnecessary, I intend to gather the evidence and submit an SPI. RolandR (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

Sandstein, you ask for evidence that the first edit is a revert. Ashtul himself calls it a revert in his edit summary: revert changes unjustified by Nishidani. Ashtul is one of those edit-warriors whose contribution to the encyclopedia is entirely negative. He doesn't have a clue about neutral writing, and the only meaning he gives to "reliable source" is that it supports his politics. Zero 00:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Igorp lj

(after some time without internet) I may add a couple of words about this case, but I have to learn carefully Nishidani's arguments. That's the pity, but (IMHO) they aren't always correct.
For example, there are a lot of edits & reverts since my last edit at 01:01, 13 January 2015‎ and as I see some his edits may be 1RR as well, and such his edits' descriptions as "As per talk", etc. are not correct too. Any way, his dictatorial tone, personal attacks (see. Talk page) and unwillingness to seek any consensus only provoke a war of edits. --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, the best solution would to ask for a neutral intermediary for some time participation in discussion of this complex article to help come to some consensus. --Igorp_lj (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ashtul

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

• I suggest that User:Ashtul should be blocked one week for the 1RR violation documented above. I had a chance to explain to him the significance of 1RR in some detail on December 28. Though I've not had the chance to scrutinize his edits in detail, he does seem like a person who is on Misplaced Pages in service of a cause. I doubt you will see him editing any articles to make them more favorable to the Palestinian side. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I see three removals on 18 January of more than 1400 bytes of material at Carmel, Har Hebron. One of his diffs was "This propaganda garbage doesn't belong here" How can this not be a 1RR violation? 00:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not impressed by the quality of this request. It neither tells us which remedy we are to enforce, nor does it provide evidence that the edits (the first in particular) are in fact reverts.  Sandstein  18:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Dornicke

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 Dornicke

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dornicke (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/September 11 conspiracy theories

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

1. 18 January 2015 Tendentious editing Argues that there's no evidence that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks.
2. 15 January 2015 Tendentious editing Argues against sentence cited to two reliable sources.
3. 07:32, January 18, 2015 Edit-warring.
4. 12:37, January 18, 2015 Edit-warring.
5. 12:48, January 18, 2015 Edit-warring.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 00:17, 6 April 2014 Blocked for edit warring at Talk:September 11 attacks and agenda-driven screeds

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Hopefully, the diffs above are self-explanatory. So I just want to add that Dornicke is an WP:SPA whose only edits in the past year are to push WP:FRINGE theory that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. At the very least, I am requesting a topic ban. I think a site ban is worth considering given that they don't edit anything to the project outside the promotion of conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Dornicke

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 Dornicke

I'm in Misplaced Pages since 2007. You can take a look at my contributions since then, including extensive contributions / new articles such as São Paulo Museum of Art, Museu Nacional de Belas Artes, Portrait of Suzanne Bloch, ], ], etc. I've written more than 250 new articles to the Portuguese wikipedia, including several featured articles, in the fields of art, national heritage, museums, etc. I've have tens of thousands of edits, in the Portuguese, English, German, French, Deutch, Italian and Spanish wikipedias. I've donated thousands and thousands of images to commons. Saying I'm a "single purpose account" is pathetic. BTW I've never written anything in the articles mentioned by the user above. He's whining about my criticism in the article talk page. He doesn't have good arguments to answer logical questions (all based in reliable sources,and none of them related to add anything about conspiracy theories, which is a blatant lie. It's just an attempt of censorship due to intelectual incapacity of presenting arguments. Any editor can see there's no text in any of the articles written by me. So the claim I'm trying to do anything in the articles is, obviously, a bad faith statement. I'm just presenting my opinion about editorial questions on the talk page - have never tried to add anything related to conspiracy. All material I made reference to are from mainstream, reliable, largely accepted sources, by the way. It's ridiculous that the user above is reacting in such an authoritarian and childish manner. I'd say grow up. Dornicke (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha, love the comments about "advocating the Truthers cause". Can only imagine the level of collective paranoia a nation is imersed in for their citizens to make childish and superficial judgements such as this. Quite anti-scientific, medieval mindset. Typical of the macarthism and inquisition this institutional admission that this encyclopedia respects "taboos". Again: I have NEVER added a single sentence or reference in any of these pages. I have never even proposed that. I have only criticized the writting and accuracy of some sentences in these pages and relied on RELIABLE, mainstream sources to do so. Absolutely NO topic related to the "Truthers" (such a pathetic, macarthist term... can imagine the kind of individuals that use terms like that LOL) agenda has been object of my contributions - which, again, have merely been expession of editorial opinions on talk pages. I like talking about controversies of 9-11. So what? Is it forbidden? Is it a taboo? I'll be burned together with the other witches because I wrote "I dont agree with that" in a talk page? BANNED from pages that I NEVER EDITED? It's ridiculous. Just confirms that english wikipedia is in fact the garbage every one says it is. This is not an encyclopedia. This is a macarthist little club where plurality if ideas, discussion, respect for freedom of expression are sins. Almost a church. You should all be embaressed. Dornicke (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You know what pointless drama is? Banning a user because of his opinions. Censorship is the favorite weapon of drama queens and spoiled brats who have no other way of answering to criticism. Just took a look at the contributions of the administrators. Most are useless as editors, don't add anything valuable to the project, don't contribute with any kind of encyclopedic content. Who are these people to judge the contributions of others? With bases on what? The administrator that said I was blocked for "tendencious editing" is a barefaced liar. I have never been blocked for this reason. I have never added or removed content from these pages. Dornicke (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"The 9/11 conspiracy theory is dead and buried". Really? According to who? Yourself? Funny because last years some of the largest media conglomerates of Latin America have been publishing several stories saying that there are stilll several "unanswered questions" related to 9/11 and my perception is the opposite - the number of people skeptical of the "official version" has never been larger. In books used in Brazilian public schools we already read that "the attacks were attributed to Al Qaeda". Perhaps you have a perception of things in the US, but it's certainly not representative if world views of this topic. And, well... your opinion about that is irrelevant anyway. It's just that, your opinion. Not a bit more correct or relevant than any other editor's opinion. The fact you make judgements about banning users based on the areas they edit shows your obvious ideological bias and the irrationality if your discrimatory position. Tells a lot about how mediocre this site can be when they give power to individuals to censor users based solely on personal perceptions and ideology. Amateur, to say the least. Dornicke (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a good example of why we can no longer rely on sites hosted in servers in the US. Misplaced Pages should move its servers to a free, democratic country in Europe which doesn't have an internet strictly controlled by an authoritarian government that seeks to destroy freedom of expression and ensure the submission of media to its political agenda. Dornicke (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

Well...talkpage disruption is not much better than article page disruption. I have yet to see anything from Dornicke that will lead to article improvements. Misplaced Pages is not a forum afterall...nor is it a webhost for fantastic claims. The tedious arguments put forward by Dornicke in regards to the 9/11 attacks comes across to me at least as trolling since his assertions and odd arguments seem rather unhelpful.--MONGO 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Cla68

Did any of you admins responding below actually read that entire talk page discussion? Dornicke was saying that he felt that the text did not fully represent what the sources were saying. In response, he/she was mocked and insulted and had an enforcement action posted here, simply for asking a question. Is there an unspoken but understood double standard of behavior involving this topic that I'm not aware of? If so, thank you for educating me. It's still, painful, however, to see another editor get treated like this. FWIW, I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. I was at the Pentagon on 9/11 and saw what I thought to be airplane pieces in the burning building before I evacuated. I just want to see WP's rules applied fairly and evenly. Cla68 (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Dornicke

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

• Because of Dornicke's attempt to edit-war a "bias" tag into the main 9/11 article for no apparent reason, and because they seem to have made no constructive contributions to articles in this topic area but instead engage in pointless drama on talk pages, I believe that a topic ban from matters related to the 9/11 attacks is appropriate here.  Sandstein  20:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• This is a user who has very few contributions in the last year other than advocating the Truther cause. This has been essentially his sole area of interest since early 2014, and a quick review of his contributions since his block in April 2014 for tendentious editing (in the are of 9/11 conspiracies) doesn't show any compelling evidence to contradict the impresison of being a single purpose account by this time. The POV-pushing continued after a DS-notice. I suggest an immediate one week block to show that we are serious about this, and after the block, rapid escalating blocks for continued infringements. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is dead and buried, and we have so many other ridiculous ideas causing Sturm und Drang that I really do not think we need this any more. Scratch that. Sandstein is right. This is a case for a topic ban. The talk page argumentation makes the case. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• I would support a ban of User:Dornicke from the topic of the September 11 conspiracy theories on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with the above; topic ban enacted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson and MONGO

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 Ian.thomson and MONGO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Users against whom enforcement is requested

1. Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

2. MONGO (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/September 11 conspiracy theories :

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

• Ian Thomson:

• MONGO

The above comments appear to be intended to mock the other editor and ridicule the attempt to hold a content discussion. Whether or not the editor's point was valid or not is immaterial, the rules still apply.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Both editors appear to be long time regulars on the article. MONGO has been previously blocked for violations of these sanctions.

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 notice that there is a request for sanctions above against Dornicke. The person who brought that request neglected to mention that two other editors involved in that discussion also violated the discretionary sanctions by engaging in tendentious editing and personal attacks by mocking Dornicke and personalizing the discussion. Personally, I understood the point Dornicke was trying to make that the text may not be matching exactly what the sources are saying. By attacking Dornicke and mocking his attempt to have a reasonable discussion on the issue, it seems to me that Ian Thomson and MONGO's behavior was equivalent or worse than what Dornicke is accused of.

FWIW, I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. I was at the Pentagon on 9/11 and saw what I thought to be airplane pieces in the burning building before I evacuated. I just want to see WP's rules applied fairly and evenly. The question I have is, do these sanctions only apply to "one" side in this topic area, or are ALL the editors expected to adhere to the same standard of behavior? Cla68 (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Ian.thomson notified
• MONGO notified

Discussion concerning Ian.Thomson and MONGO

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 Ian.Thomson and MONGO

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ian.Thomson

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

• No. Reading over the context of that discussion, I can only say that Dornicke had it coming. There is no prohibition aginst a gentle dose of sarcasm in talkpage discussions, and I can see nothing disruptive in the way Ian and Mongo were attempting to reduce Dornicke's argument ad absurdum by turning it against himself. Close without action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)