Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MastCell (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 5 February 2016 (→Prokaryotes: closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ollie231213

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Topic Ban from Longevity broadly construed, imposed at

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

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Statement by Ollie231213

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Ollie's assertion that we should "base its (Misplaced Pages) articles on longevity primarily on this (GRG) source and not on other less-reliable ones." goes right to the heart of why he must stay topic banned. GRG is not a super source of absolute WP:TRUTH that must be used to the general exclusion of all other RS. --> I have explained very clearly what my point of view is here and explained why it is in line with policy. I am not suggesting that other sources be excluded, just that they are not given the same weight as sources which are considered authorities on the subject according to mainstream consensus. It should be clear to anyone wishing to write good encyclopedic articles that you cannot treat all sources as if they are equally valid. Again, how on earth can I be topic banned for simply suggesting that the most reputable sources on a specialist subject should be the primary source used to write articles on Misplaced Pages? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I don't understand how this works - how is this a "fair trial" if just some editors turn up and comment but not others? Am I allowed to request input from someone who will likely defend me? (And a number of respected users have, by the way). If not, how do we get both sides of the argument? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Spartaz If the only opinions that matter are those of the uninvolved admins, then why is anyone else even allowed to comment? I'm not going to canvass support but it seems totally unfair that there is no systematic way of dealing with appeals like this. Where's my lawyer? Other editors have expressed frustration at the behaviour of LegacyPac and others (see here). Now, can you please provide evidence that I am editing to "advocate for the GRG position"? The implication is that there is COI but I've clearly explained why that's not true. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: So yet another editor involved in the longevity WP:BATTLEGROUND, clearly biased against me, arguing in favour of a topic ban, who does NOT explain why my edits have violated policy. It's a strawman to claim that I am arguing that the GRG is the "only and only true source"; I am not. I am saying that other sources clearly recognise that the GRG is an authoritative body on the topic of the oldest people in the world and thus, Misplaced Pages's articles should be based primarily, but not solely, on that source. If we want to make an article of the top 100 oldest people ever, then it should be based on verified data from the most reliable source that deals with age verification, not on a mish-mash of other sources like news reports on people claiming to be 135 or whatever and then compiled in a jumbled WP:OR, WP:SYNTH mess. This really should be common sense. How can sourcing articles on a specialist subject primarily to specialist organisations, most reliable on the topic, in any way "degrade the quality of the articles"? It's madness. Are you going to topic-ban people who insist that astronomy-related articles should be based primarily on the WP:BESTSOURCES, like NASA, the ESA, etc.? I should hope not, because those editors are the ones following core policy. Now, I repeat again: how is this a fair trial? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Glrx You're quite right, I don't understand why this sanction was imposed, otherwise I wouldn't be appealing it! You also falsely represent my argument. My argument is that I was editing in line with policy. Do you contest this? If so, can you explain why? So far, no one has done so.

@Guy: "All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Misplaced Pages in support of an ideology." --> Oh look, YET ANOTHER user who doesn't actually respond to any of the arguments I've made, but instead just accuses me of editing with an agenda. So who is it really who is editing with an ideology? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

I don't have anything to add beyond what Ed and I said in the original AE. Ollie, the only opinions that have any weight here are the uninvolved admins. Everything else is just noise. Do not canvass others to come and support you. It won't affect the outcome but would be obvious evidence that you are not editing per our accepted norms. Spartaz 18:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac

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

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

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

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

It will be quite unsurprising that I see no reason to overturn the sanctions here. The amount of energy that's been expended arguing that the GRG is The One And Only True Source on this subject is so enormously wasteful that allowing editors back in who want to continue that fight will only degrade the quality of the articles on human longevity. I don't see where the implementation of sanctions violated any policies, nor do I see how lifting them will be in any way helpful. Therefore, I strongly recommend this be closed with no action and a reminder that brevity is actually a virtue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

In response, 1. Misplaced Pages isn't a court of law and 2. my previous points, especially that one about brevity, are reaffirmed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I am unsurprised that Ollie rejects the findings of independent admins reviewing his conduct - that is pretty much the definitive rationale for enacting a sanction, since people who accept independent views rarely end up here.

Ollie, find some other area to edit. Leave this topic completely, forever. All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Misplaced Pages in support of an ideology. We're bored with it. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ollie231213

Statement by Glrx

Ollie231213's appeal does not show an understanding of why sanctions were imposed. Instead the argument is that GRG should be as respected as NASA and therefore implies the sanctions were improper. The ban should stay. Glrx (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Ollie231213

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

Prokaryotes

CFCF

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 CFCF

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

CFCF (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/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#4.3.1 :

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

1. 26 Jan 2016 Inserts POV caption that does not describe the image "fruit and candy flavored e-liquid may appeal especially to younger users"
2. 27 Jan 2016 Inserts off topic claim (about brain development (children) and is a [[Safety of electronic cigarettes | Safety claim) in the lede, at the beginning of the paragraph (prominent position), that is not in the body of the article. It is also already covered in the Safety article.
3. 27 Jan 2016 Inserts editorial (primary non MERDS) into the article to counter a MEDRS secondary source.
4. 27 Jan 2016 Adds image of illegal drugs and paraphernalia to consume them into the e-cig article relying on fringe source.
5. 27 Jan 2016 Adds a blog post to an< activist site from a known anti-tobacco activist (Stanton Glantz, as described in multiple high quality RS. The first source Reuters ties his activism to e-cigs ) that is currently the subject of an RFC. to prove his point. 1/31/2016 Edit Strike, reword, and add RS on activism.
6. 27 Jan 2016 Adds off topic material against consensus in this section. This happened after this section was opened and he was notified.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• 12 Jan 2016 Previous AE section where CFCF was warned not to edit against consensus.

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Discretionary sanctions mean that editors on a page must adhere to accepted editorial norms and follow policy and guidelines. CFCF is an experienced editor. He is very active on the WP:MEDRS page and had done a lot of editing to it. Because of this he is very knowledgeable on what is and isnt problematic. He should know better than to insert a editorial (primary) to counted a secondary MEDRS source. He should know better than to insert claims at the front of a paragraph in the lede that are not on the page, and not on topic for the page. He should know better than to use fringe sources to link e-cigs to illegal activity. He should know better than to write captions for images that are not about the image to bring in POV about children. But he has chosen to ignore MEDRS and insert POV after POV edit. He is also arguing to keep these POV edits in place. This one is very problematic as it points out a WEIGHT problem along with POV. This one where he argues an editorial in a journal is a position statement. This push to include pure POV without any discussion beforehand or consensus, one after the other is problematic. He has also added multiple images about children, as KimDabelsteinPetersen points out 40% of the images in the article now are about children and vaping, a very POV focused number considering the article states that use by them is low compared to other age groups. AlbinoFerret 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In response to CFCF's post I will point out it is against WP:CAUTIOUS which the talk page has been following lately. Pushing POV edits without and contrary to consensus is problematic. I will also point out the deceptive multiple edit diffs he uses. AlbinoFerret 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.

Responses by AlbinoFerret

@MarkBernstein While Stanton Glantz may be a professor, he is also a recognised activist. As found in numerous reliable sources. The first source Reuters ties his activism to e-cigs While the whole university site isnt an activist site, his personal blog on the site can be reasonably found to hold his thoughts and agenda. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Cloudjpk has provided diffs against me. But none of them show anything really relevant to this current situation.

• A year ago I discussed if a source with pharmaceutical funding was biased. I do find activists biased, and started a RFC to gain consensus on if the source should have in text attribution (not removal). Both diffs show how editors should solve differences on content on a contentious article, discussion beforehand. Sadly in CFCF's case that was not done.
• I thank Cloudjpk for including this diff what it shows is I reverted CFCF editing against consensus of a closed merge discussion that was brought to AE and CFCF was warned not to edit against consensus.
• The last link is pretty much ancient history (sadly dragged up to toss mud). The almost a year old section was about me being to active in the topic and editing to much. I took a 6 month self break from the topic. During which time I was just as active in other areas of WP, because I am mostly homebound and have lots of free time. I am no longer as active in the topic and have other interests, including being a NAC on WP:ANRFC where I have closed around 260 RFC's, but still find e-cigs interesting. AlbinoFerret 22:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe because of a prior Arbcom section that I was involved in concerning JzG/Guy that he is involved. I have left a message on his talk page. He disagrees and I hope that he recuse's himself from this section. AlbinoFerret 18:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Guy I will give a link to the Lancet source. I will also point out that it is an "editorial" as can clearly be seen right above the title. Regardless of the respectability of the Lancet, an editorial is a primary source and not WP:MEDRS. Editors should never rely on editorials to counter findings of a secondary source, in this case Public Health England a part of the UK Department of Health.

I will explain the Lancet POV problem. I point out that we have been here before. McNiel wrote a criticism of the Grana review,part of "peer review". The source was said to be primary. In the McNiel case CFCF was against including it. Here is one subsection from that discussion In the case of criticizing a negative review CFCF argued to keep the primary source criticism out, pointing out its not MEDRS . In this case CFCF wants the primary source criticism of a positive review in. This shows a big POV problem. AlbinoFerret 19:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog Yes I suggested that S Marshall start a new section like he had been doing on the talk pages until he took a break. I also think you are missing some of the finer points comparing the Stanton Glantz RFC with the later post by CFCF. The RFC is about a MEDRS review. Many may disagree with me, but thats why we have RFC's to see where consensus lies. But I wonder how many of those no comments would agree to add a blog page by him? Not many by reading the talk page, where the journal reviewing the source was a main reason to vote no. Blogs are not reviewed. Blogs of activists {as pointed out in numerous high quality RS), are not good sources to add anything, find a MEDRS secondary source. As for the Lancet, all I am reading here are excuses to bring in a lower primary source to counter a higher secondary source. That is just not done, we should hold to our high standards of MEDRS secondary sources. As I have pointed out above, the talk page has had these discussions before. Thats part of the problem, CFCF is applying MEDRS differently depending on the view of the source. AlbinoFerret 06:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No its not my opinion, that Glantz is an activist is found in numerous high quality sources. The first source Reuters ties his activism to e-cigs . It is a primary source, and unsuitable for use for any medical claims. It is not even a report, but a submission to the FDA on deeming regulations, something anyone can do. AlbinoFerret 14:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall Involvement is not just specific with a topic, it can also be with an editor on different topics. If an editor calls for sanctions against you on a notice board, it is likely that the two of you are involved because of this. This link contains quite a large section by me calling for JzG/Guy to be sanctioned. As does my comment in the GMO case calling for him to be included as a party, and likely face sanctions if he was included. Just as Jytdog cant say he is uninvolved as I presented evidence and PD against him at Arbcom. AlbinoFerret 10:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion concerning CFCF

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 CFCF

These edits do not constitute anything apart from a departure from the point of view of AlbinoFerret. All edits are properly sourced and I can categorically refute each accusation:

1. There are a multitude of sources to support that statement, I have used at least three separate WP:MEDRS-compliant sources.
2. That statement is taken without any alteration from the Centers for Disease Controls website: , where is is repeated multiple times. I also chose to add the statement later in the article body, and suggested expanding the article by using the linked website, which is among the highest quality MEDRS-compliant sources.
3. The Lancet is a recognized medical authority, this statement was written in their name and as such is compliant as per WP:MEDRS
4. Using a review article as per WP:MEDRS I included a number of images adding to the quality of the article.
5. This is not a blog post but a comment submitted to the CDC with numerous references and is backed by the University of California Los Angeles Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Neither is the inclusion of the authors material the subject of the RfC – but rather if citing him should require attribution as an "anti-tobacco activist". The current RfC reads in favor of no with a vote of 6 to 0 (I have not voted).

I believe it is also important to note that AlbinoFerret chose to revert these edits multiple times, I did not revert back, choosing each time to engage in discussion on the talk page. See reverts: , , .

I am under the firm belief that I chose the constructive approach, following up any controversy with discussion, not reverting. CFCF 💌 📧 18:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to KimDabelsteinPetersen

(Kim has a declared connection to electronic cigarettes, disclosure can be seen at the top of the page: Talk:Electronic_cigarette)

2. Brain development is negligible beyond adolescence, at least in the sense of being affected, this is a content dispute about a qualifier, and I do not dispute that it could be included, but the full phrase was removed entirely without discussion.

3. That is a different situation, without the full backing of an editorial board. This is the same reason I chose not to include the multiple critiques in the BMJ Feature – Public Health England’s troubled trail, Analysis – Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand?. I'm glad to see I was as consistent in 2014.

4. Following another editor removing the image I asked on the talk page if a cropped version would be better . Also note that this is one of two images from the same source which I added, the other which remains in the article.

5. The FDA comment was reposted in full, available in pdf-format here:

CFCF 💌 📧 20:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway

Having reviewed the diffs, I am not persuaded that CFCF has done anything more heinous than disagreeing with AlbinoFerret in a content dispute. My own independent review of the interactions between CFCF and AlbinoFerret leaves me with more concern over the behavior of the latter than the former. See this for instance. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TracyMcClark

Once again CFCF has shown today on talk and article space that their purpose in the e-cigs area isn't to build a reasonable NPOV entry but to advocate their personal fundamental opposition to the subject. No surprise here considering the OP's advocacy in the past which already led to sanctions against tem.--TMCk (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

Is it entirely reasonable to describe a site of the University of California San Francisco as "an activist site"? The author of this particular page is a full professor of medicine. This does have an unfortunate appearance. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by KimDabelsteinPetersen

In reply to the diffs and CFCF's reply to these:

1. A "multitude of sources" here is unfortunately used to mislead, since what we are interested in, is the prevalence of this argument in the literature. In other words it is a WP:WEIGHT issue. Several sources do state this, but several sources also consider it moot. When combined with prevalence of Think about the children! in controversial issues such as this, then any editor should be cautious when relying on, or promoting such.
2. The response by CFCF is incorrect, as the CDC page has the added correct context of ".. among youth". Translating such into a generic statement, ie. all agegroups, is problematic. Particularly when this has been pointed out. For background: Nicotine has a detrimental effect on a growing brain, but not on an adult brain (see Surgeon General (2015)).
3. Here CFCF uses the language "recognized medical authority" where he should have written "recognized medical journal". The Lancet itself is not an authority or a recognized scientific body. What it cooks down to, is that CFCF wants to use a primary editorial source to dispute a secondary review from Public Health England. This is strange because he is against using similar sources in comparable situations.
4. This one is problematic - CFCF wants to place an image of e-cigarettes using illigal drugs, despite the topic being extremely minor in the literature. This seems inline a ecig negative POV as the above.
5. Here CFCF is using a pressrelease and a blog post to argue a point. Strangely he is arguing on the talk page that the pressrelease is a position statement?!

All in all it seems quite clear to me that CFCF is having difficulty in seperating his personal WP:POV from his work as a wikipedia editor on this article. And that is problematic.

Short response to MarkBernstein: He may be a full professor, but it is still a blog, and the source is still opinion and primary. In fact that particular blog is part of Pf. Glantz activism/advocacy, something which he btw. is well known, and well regarded, for. See the discussion on the talkpage, as well as his BLP article for details. --Kim D. Petersen 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

And we've now turned from Think about the children!, to lets associate it with drug use. I'm not questioning the mention of this in the article, but more the WP:WEIGHT put upon it. And, if i wasn't aware of CFCF's status as a serious medical editor, i would seriously say that he has now turned to the next page in an advocacy handbook. --Kim D. Petersen 20:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Noticeable, with regards to the general POV and WEIGHT porblems, should also be the talk page discussion here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Youth_vaping_images --Kim D. Petersen 20:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In reply to the reply from CFCF:
2. The problem is location and weight combined with the lack of qualifier.
3. It really doesn't change anything. An editorial is opinion, it is not a position statement from a scientific body or a secondary review. And the other discussion is actually very like this, since that was the peer-reviewed opinion of several expert scientists within the topic-area, while the editorial board of a journal aren't a) expert in the topic, nor b) peer-reviewed.
4. Pictures carry content - one image from a reference may be uncontroversial, while another from the same reference may be significantly controversial. You really should know this.
5. What difference does it make that it is in PDF format?? It is still unpublished unreviewed opinion of some scientists, sourced from a blog! I'm shocked that you appear to think that PDF is a guidance to reliability. Anyone can send letters - that doesn't make it reliable. --Kim D. Petersen 21:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cloudjpk

I agree with Starke Hathaway AlbinoFerret's complaint and his related history raises more concerns about him.

AlbinoFerret finds reliable sources he disagrees with biased: ] .

AlbinoFerret deleted text he does not like He claims his change was by consensus, but he deleted a notable source without AFD discussion. He did not not move all the content back to the safety page as he claims. IMO this was gaming the system.

And none of this is new; this is a longstanding pattern Cloudjpk (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved JzG

The "blog post" from an "activist site" is actually a submission to the FDA jointly issued by the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University. It is extensively referenced and although not peer reviewed is clearly an expert opinion and not a mere "blog post".

One of the diffs cited as evidence of evil behaviour also includes this:

The same advertising tactics the tobacco industry used years ago to get kids addicted to nicotine are now being used to entice a new generation of young people to use e-cigarettes,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.

The CDC is not some random bunch of activists, and to pretend that citing the CDC is POV-pushing is plainly completely unacceptable.

The complainant also objects to an "editorial primary non-MEDRS" statement contradicting a "MEDRS" source. In fact, the edit in question was an article in The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, which pointed out that a figure estimated by Public Health England to be based on "an extraordinarily flimsy foundation" Now, The Lancet does not often go into bat against public health bodies, and Public Health England is not actually a MEDRS, there's been a lot of discussion on opinions by medical and public health bodies and they are not considered reliable to the standard of peer-reviewed articles.

I find it worrying that despite the lengthy arbitration, motivated reasoning of this type is still going on. Misplaced Pages really doesn't care how fervently you might wish that medical academics were in favour of vaping, the fact is that there are profound and well-founded reservations about it, and it is Misplaced Pages's policy that these must be adequately reflected in articles. The edits of which AlbinoFerret complains are all entirely defensible and to an independent onlooker they appear to be necessary corrections to pro-vaping activism. This is an area where the evidence base is ambiguous and there is still spirited debate within the scientific community, we definitely should not be trying to protray it as settled one way or another, and balancing statements of the type CFCF added are necessary to maintaining NPOV.

If there is to be an outcome here it should be a topic ban for AlbinoFerret for making vexatious complaints and attempting to abuse Misplaced Pages process to gain an advantage in a content dispute.

Statement by Kingsindian

I have no opinion on the request except to state that Mystery Wolff should not be commenting here as they are under a topic ban from the area. They are a new user, so they should be advised that topic bans apply to all pages. They should simply avoid commenting on this matter altogether. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by LesVegas

First of all, Guy is involved. I'm going to assume in good faith that he is saying he's uninvolved because he doesn't edit on E-Cig or tobacco articles, so he might think he's classified as impartial, but he has definitely been involved in several interactions with Albino Ferret and CFCF that I have seen. One of the more recent ones was when Albino Ferret commented about Guy's behavior at AE here on a GMO case. JzG was also involved in an E-Cig Arbitration Request case where he commented on Albino Ferret, said he supported a topic ban for him, and characterized the E-Cig topic as an unholy confluence of commercial vested interest, emotional commitment, immature medical knowledge and peripheral craziness. Guy and CFCF also both supported topic banning Albino Ferret here and Guy, CFCF, and Albino Ferret have all been involved in a very hot, and very recent dispute on MEDRS, with Guy and CFCF arguing against Albino Ferret's stance there. LesVegas (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Johnbod

Just brief comments provoked by the (unsigned) "Comment by uninvolved JzG" above.

• The diff in the complaint above is neither "a blog post to an activist site from a known anti-tobacco activist" (Per Albino Ferret) nor "a submission to the FDA jointly issued by the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University." (per JzG). It is a press release from the "Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco" linked to a PDF of the submission , which is submitted by 9 academics whose affiliations are footnoted to the "Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco and the Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University." The diff (#5 in the list) in fact comes from the talk page of the EC article (a CFCF contribution) not the article itself.
• JzG says "In fact, the edit in question was an article in The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, which pointed out that a figure estimated by Public Health England to be based on "an extraordinarily flimsy foundation" - as extensively covered on the EC talk page, the "estimate" is from a 2014 paper by 12 academics, which a report commissioned by PHE England from 6 academics (at 113 pages long, much the most comprehensive on the subject) endorsed as the best estimate available. The Lancet's comment has itself been widely criticized.
• It is true that "balancing statements of the type CFCF added are necessary to maintaining NPOV" (JzG), but these need to accurate, and I don't think that either CFCF's edits nor JzG's comments are sufficiently so - in common with much else in the WP debate on the subject, including many of Albino Ferret's contributions. Hence the complaint. The ecig talk page is busy and time-consuming to follow but it is fairly effective at grinding through this stuff, and the process should be allowed to continue.
• The actual press release/submission deal with very specific US regulatory matters, and US evidence of prevalence etc, and the authors are generally careful to keep qualifying their statements to reflect this. What the submission wants might be summarized as to bring US regulation to what the EU already has in large part. There is also some evidence that prevalence of ecig usage in youth is widely different between the US and elsewhere in the world (higher in US). All editors need to take care not to globalize US-specific material on this. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Doc James

• Per this edit the image was placed in the section on motivation and was very well referenced. Not seeing what is so horribly wrong with it?
• Agree this is not the best place for that content and Albino removed it after a couple of hours
• Agree that we should tend to stick with reviews rather than editorials.
• This was added to the talk page and uses the CDC and the UCSF as refs. What is wrong with this?

I am just not seeing anything that causes significant concern. This appears to be an attempt by Albino to eliminate those who disagree with them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

I support Guy's suggestion of a topic ban for Albino Ferret for using Misplaced Pages processes as a weapon in pushing a POV. BMK (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by wuerzele

I carefully reviewed the diffs in this AE request and find the request more than adequately supported and actionable. CFCF's transgressions and non-neutral edits may not be obvious to the casual observer. I implore arbcom members to make the effort to look at the diffs REGARDLESS of their opinion about e-cigs:

1. 27 Jan 2016 To insert the Lancet editorial (primary non MERDS) into the article to counter a MEDRS secondary source is obviously incorrect, already acknowledged by Doc James even though he otherwise found "no issues" with CFCF s behavior (but unsurprising giving tehir close relationship on wikiproject med).
2. 26 Jan 2016 The caption CFCF inserted may sound good by itself, but is clearly WP:SYNTH at best because it does not describe the photo of colorful containers - this is unearnest editing.
3. 27 Jan 2016 what AF described as "off topic claim" is hard to see at first, but since it is a Safety of electronic cigarettes claim and was also inserted in the lede, and not in the body of the article I can see the point. This is POV pushing.
4. 27 Jan 2016 Adding illegal drugs to sway an article is something I have seen happen for years at Bitcoin, and is no mild form of tendentious editing.
5. 27 Jan 2016 Adding a blog post again contradicts the MEDRS argument that CFCF so prominently enforces on people who disagree with him, a double standard.
6. 27 Jan 2016 Adding off topic stuff against a talk page consensus is a clear DS violation.
7. 30 Jan2016 To edit on WP:MEDRS to further his own arguments is one thing, but to participate in a slow edit war about a highly controversial issue, in what can be seen as tag-teaming with QuackGuru and Yobol respectively to make yobol's revert of the more cautious versions of LesVegas and Tsavage stick is the very disruptive behavior he was warned about. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Admin JzG describing himself as "uninvolved JzG" in his section is false:

His self evaluation is incorrect and worse: deceptive. I second the editor who made the case, that JzG is involved, supported by multiple diffs. by calling himself uninvolved he aims to legitimize his turning of the table against AF, the requester, by proposing a 3 mth ban. under "Result concerning CFCF", it says "the section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". Furthermore, JzG has a history of involvement on many sites, and has gotten a away with blocking editors. 2015 arbcom members should be well aware of the review, as JzG was warned about his behavior making chilling effects. arbcom clerks, please move His comments.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog

I recently started working on the e-cig articles again for a while, and was really surprised by the level of bad feeling that is still there. When I came on the scene, the "pro-ecig" faction was trying to simplify the article (which it does need) and were proposing content without sourcing. (This section: Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Heading. S Marshall proposed it and AlbinoFerret and others signed off on it (Johnbod at least asked for sources!). When I asked for sources I got rough treatment from S Marshall here and especially here, with the caustic:

But, you see, that leads to the problem your buddy QuackGuru had, where he said the same thing again and again in every paragraph

. Again, I was just asking for sources and wanted the draft content to accurately reflect them.

When S Marshall went ahead and implemented it, finally with sources, it became clear that the draft text had basic factual errors in it. (like e-cigs are 20% better than patches for quitting, when no source said that). These things could have been easily worked out. Instead, drama and trying to force things through. AlbinoFerret actually did a pretty collegial job working with me to fix it once we had sources.

But the level of bad feeling is high. See this lovely side bar between AlbinoFerret and S Marshall on S Marshall's Talk page about the Mystery Wolf appeal. From S Marshall:

it's moot while Jytdog is active anyway as I don't have the patience to deal with them. The topic area attracts that breed of editors like flies to shit

Asking for sources for a proposal is exasperating? S Marshall said he is taking a self-imposed break, which I think is wise.

About the point Albino raises about Stanton Glanz being an "anti-tobacco activist" and mischaracterizing the source as a "blog post"... Albino himself got fixated on adding an attribution for Glanz as an "anti-tobacco activist" but nobody on any side agreed with him, and Albino even started an RfC on that and got no !votes supporting using that attribution, and all !votes opposing. (see here. But he brings that point as though anybody agrees with him - but not even other members of the pro e-cig faction agree. Which just shows that his judgement is out of whack here.

About the Lancet editorial, it is frustrating to see this mischaracterized all around. MEDRS discusses editorials in the normal sense of published opinions written and signed by some individual(s), and it advises the community to treat them as primary. Rightly. The Lancet Editorial in question was by the editorial board - it was signed, "The Lancet". It is a rare thing for the journal per se to make a statement, especially one of the Lancet's stature. For the UK-based Lancet in particular to comment on the PHE report is ...something. It is not of equal stature to PHE itself (PHE is a "major health organization" per MEDRS and I would not consider any journal's editorial board - not even the Lancet - to be one), but the critique was important and should be mentioned. Both sides are distorting things in making the case around that source. Tensions are high.

About CFCF's behavior generally. I agree that CFCF has been too bold lately - there is too much churn and he is driving some of it. The overall churn is so fast and the tone on Talk so negatively charged that I have stopped paying attention to the article. But back to CFCF, there was no urgent need for CFCF to update the images in the article, for example, and he did emphasize the risks to children and the potential for use of e-cigs with pot in the images he selected. Pretty POV. Does that violate DS? Hard to see that, and I don't see that this is more worthy of AE than other behaviors I have seen in the brief time I have been back. I find the filing to be exaggerated and ramping up tensions yet more.

I think if additional sanctions were imposed to slow down editing and discussion for a while, it might be useful. Two talk page postings and one edit per day, per involved editor, and another admonishment to try to make edits and suggestions that opponents would be likely to accept - the whole "write for the opponent" thing? Something like that. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• AlbinoFerret continuing to call the posting a "blog" is not helping you - they reproduced a formal report they submitted to the FDA on their blog, yes, but it is not some random "blog" posting like , oh, this (random e-cig blog). You missed the point of what I said about the "anti-tobacco activist" which is that the label is yours, and yours alone. And that you remain committed to this is also meh. We need to think about how to dial things down and this weak AE is not helping. Jytdog (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• S Marshall I was not trying to prevent change and you can bring no diffs to show that. Asking for the sources that support proposed content is WP 101 and your reaction to that very basic request, and your characterization of it here at AE, shows how twisted up you have become over this topic. Your instinct to step away was good and you should stick to it. If you persist here I will present a case to have you topic-banned or at least blocked - that will not be hard to do based on your recent behavior, which I do understand arises from your frustration, and which has been out of line. Please reconsider what you are doing here. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• S Marshall yes it is obvious that you approached me with bad faith; thanks for acknowledging that. I acknowledge that asking for sources for your proposed content slowed you down and I understand that was frustrating. I hope you have enough perspective to see that proposing content without sources is abnormal at best; you still haven't acknowledged that we all found it to be inaccurate, when we finally did have sources. However much you find the current content "fundamentally deceitful" as far as I know there is nothing inaccurate in it. The process of trying to improve the article in ways that satisfies everybody is hard. And the article needs improving. There is no doubt about either thing. But the frustration you have expressed and are expressing is not helpful. And you have provided no diffs supporting your claim that I was trying to prevent change, and you will not be able to. To anybody reading what you are writing, you are only digging a hole for yourself. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• S Marshall the text you proposed was highly compressed and summarizing and needed sourcing. Period. And as you still have not acknowledged, the proposed content was inaccurate. And I did acknowledge the article needs improving - no one is disputing that. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes S Marshall. In response to my question to the specific sources for the specific content you were propising, instead of simply providing the sources for your proposed content you:

first didn't answer at all

then you insulted me and QuackGuru and hand-waved that I should go check how QG used sources...

said in your edit note that I wasn't paying attention and in your remark you provided me some random citation without connecting it to some part of the content you were actually proposing

wrote in your edit note and on the Talk page you "having trouble assuming good faith" and wrote

I literally have no idea how you could possibly fail to see the sources. Surely you must be capable of reading the article and seeing the sources which are there now

. As I did then, I find this bizarre because you greatly condensed the content and added new things like the very surprising (and as it turned out, inaccurate) statement that

Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products

. For all your intensity about improving the article you were trying to force through content that just wasn't true. I can only attribute this to you being so frustrated .... but it is really disruptive and strange behavior. I am not going to go on with the rest of the diffs. But these diffs are plain as day that instead of simply doing is what is normal and providing citations for the content you proposed, you were so frustrated and stuck that you wasted time abusing me (and insulting QG) instead of just ... providing the sources.

And then you just went and stuck it in the article, with incorrect information and all.

Your behavior through this little episode was really out of line - so much drama over a very, very basic WP thing. That you cannot see this.... whew. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by S Marshall

• Summarised version of the bits of the above which are directly relevant to CFCF -vs- AlbinoFerret:-

  JzG's proposal will not resolve the problem. The root cause of the behavioural problems on this page is bias in the text. It is uncontroversial that there is bias. The primary author of the current version of the article was QuackGuru; and Arbcom have found that QuackGuru showed a double standard for sources; therefore, QuackGuru-authored text reflects QuackGuru's biases. CFCF in good faith, and others about whom I can no longer assume good faith, are behaving in such a way as to delay and prevent substantial changes to the article, and therefore to preserve the bias which exists. If you unilaterally topic-ban AlbinoFerret who is pro-change, then the effect of this decision will be to further crystallise the bias which is apparent to many knowledgeable readers. This will continue to attract new editors who want to correct the text, as it consistently has for years. These people will continue to be frustrated in this aim, and the ongoing drama will continue, until someone, somehow, forces change. Topic banning the worst offenders has not helped, because as soon as you get rid of one, another one pops up and is entitled to a fresh assumption of good faith. There is nothing in Misplaced Pages's standard dispute resolution toolkit that can deal with the problem on this page and at some point, someone in authority is going to have to get creative.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've read Mystery Wolff's complaint below and I confirm that: (1) I have implied that his topic ban is fully justified; (2) I have implied that he's not competent to edit in the topic area; and (3) I have been amused by what I see as his misconceptions and misunderstandings in the past. If these implication are seen as "mocking and taunting", then I will also be happy to correct that by saying these things more plainly, more directly and more seriously.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mystery Wolff

Remarking solely to the abusive and derogatory remarks made directly at me by S Marshall here inside this very AE, and on various user TALK pages, (and also the thinly veiled comments directly alluding to my personal nature, my competence and generalized editorship) I strongly object to their placement and usage here.
They are not fair, and its a continuance of tag-teaming, battlegrounding, mocking and taunting by S Marshall against my generalized editorship and others. This is NOT how Misplaced Pages is supposed to function. I will not be gamed and made sport of and be silent to attacks like this that are outside of Article space. This AE has a responsibility to the entire project, and not solely to any specific articles. Being gamed, and mocked derogatorily is disruptive, moreover it is corrosive to the health of the project.

Note to Admins: My comments are regarding that of S Marshall only, the ones talking about me, as I they were done here, I have no other option than to remark here. S Marshall has already been warned to not taunt me specifically and others also. He has said he can not work with me in other AE, and I am sorry but, its simply unfair and wrong to be spreading and canvassing...that I am someone, that can not be worked with on Misplaced Pages. If I need to take this to another venue, instructions are welcome, but I make these remarks in good faith now. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (Username)

Result concerning CFCF

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

• I propose a three month topic ban for AlbinoFerret for vexatious complaint and attempting to use Misplaced Pages process to gain an advantage in a content dispute, per my observations above. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Darkfrog24

SageRad

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 SageRad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Edward321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

SageRad (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

] :

"SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."

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

1. SageRaded removes tags from Charles Eisenstein; according to the article, Eisenstein has a column where they write "on topics including genetic modification and the patenting of seed".
2. SageRad edits DuPont; according to the article, DuPont "makes and sells hybrid seed and genetically modified seed" and has made and sold pesticide.
3. Further edit by SageRad to the Dupont article.
4. Further edit by SageRad to the Dupont article.
5. SageRad edits Talk:DuPont
6. SageRad further edits Talk:DuPont
7. SageRad edits Dow Chemical Company; according to the article "Dow’s Agricultural Sciences segment provides crop protection and seed/plant biotechnology products and technologies, urban pest management solutions and oils".
8. SageRad edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
9. SageRad further edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
10. SageRad further edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
11. SageRad further edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
12. SageRad further edits Talk:Dow Chemical Company
13. SageRad edits Talk:Yvette d'Entremont; according to the article, d'Entremont "works on debunking ideas about alternative medicine, the anti-vaccination movement, and the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement".

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)

• SageRad was mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• SageRad was reminded of their topic ban by Looie496.
• SageRad was reminded of their topic ban by HighInBC.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'll requote the decision against SageRad, emphasizing the parts some people are missing "SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning SageRad

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 SageRad

Could we please be done with this? It's bad for my love life, and it's bad for my ability to sleep through the night. I'm observing the topic ban to a strict degree. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals at all since the topic ban. Period. I'm not stupid. I know that violating my topic ban would be suicide. Someone obviously spent a lot of time trying to compile a case. Looks like enemies have it out for me. I'm editing with integrity and not touching the areas from which i am topic banned. I don't have time to waste on this and i'm not even going to grace this case with any point-by-point rebuttal. It's clear this is a witch hunt trying to find an excuse to get me blocked. SageRad (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

But, just to be safe, none of the diffs provided show me discussing GMOs or agrochemicals at all -- because i have not. And when Kingofaces writes:

SageRad has also been commenting directly at ANI on a discussion on GMOs

he's actually speaking of a conversation that begins with:

Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions Kingofaces43 is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in a OR noticeboard discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe.

In other words -- it's not "a discussion on GMOs" -- it's a discussion on meta-level aspects of Misplaced Pages culture, mainly about the use of "fringe" as an aspersion, and how we deal with name-calling, and all that. It is not a discussion on GMOs, and his trying to frame it as such is a lie.

And once again, what Kingofaces calls:

They also responded directly to me at WP:FTN when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion

links actually to this diff which has nothing to do with GMOs. Again, a lie.

And most of his issue seems to be that i have opinions and speak against a McCarthyism sort of dynamic that i see going on. Ironically, this very case here is another such incident within that dynamic. I should not have to be wasting my time on this.

As for DuPont -- my edits on that company (and Dow who have merged with them, hence ) have been about the chemical PFOA (like this edit ) which is not an agrochemical. It's a Teflon additive that did pollute water in West Virginia and in the Ohio River. That's not at all under my topic ban. And i also edited about Styrofoam to correct a trade name. Styrofoam is made by Dow but Thermocol is made by another company. I also made the same change at Polystyrene to correct that trade name (my edit).

Seriously, my edit to Charles Eisenstein  ??????? This is out of control. So he's a wonderful thinker, author of Sacred Economics and a social change agent in the world. He probably wrote something about GMOs sometime, but i've never read it, and it's not his main thing, not what he's known for. You're really stretching. This is looking like McCarthyism, sort of proving my point, the actual point for which this case appears to have been brought against me.

So, even though i said i wouldn't, i just went through all the diffs provided, and as i know, they do not show me editing anything at all about GMOs or agrochemicals. I know this because my conscience is clear. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals at all since the topic ban. I ask for this case to be summarily dropped, as it's onerous and seems to be intended to "get me" for being outspoken on cultural issues within Misplaced Pages. Good day. SageRad (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, i still reserve the right to speak to meta-issues on Misplaced Pages that are not about GMOs or agrochemicals. The topic ban is what it is -- and you cannot "clarify" it to become greater than it is.

Let's give it a rest already. SageRad (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that i was quite aware of this decision which explicitly did not prohibit editing about companies that may also make agrochemicals or GMOs. Those were subject to DS and not the ban, and that was already clarified. I operated under that clarification when i edited about PFOA and Styrofoam, if Only in Death was unaware of this clarification, then now they are.

How far would a topic ban reach? Like if i edit about corn, would that be a violation because there is GMO corn in the world? As you see, people tried to claim a violation when i edited about Charles Eisenstein because maybe (i have no idea) he wrote something about GMOs somewhere. Well he probably did mention them in his many book but i've no idea. This is simply topic ban creep gone crazy. Come on already. I'm done with this. If this is how it is then you basically kill my ability to edit Misplaced Pages because i'll be nailed to the cross whatever i do. SageRad (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And there's this. SageRad (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I guess that "Science Babe's" page does say that, but I hadn't noticed when I made the single talk page comment about peacock language, it's not what my edit was about, and I know her as only a commenter on food safety regarding food additives. I had no intent of making any comment on GMOs by posting that comment on the article's tone. I was well aware of three BLPs that were considered to be within the topic ban and i never touched them and never will. I would be happy to include "Science Babe" in that list from this point forward, though it wasn't in any initial list from the ArbCom case (which did list three i think). And for goodness sake, all i said was that the article seemed to be too promotional, a general comment on tone. I didn't think it was a violation and i'll never touch that page again. SageRad (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Re Only in Death's comment: I have no "MO" except to edit articles well. I have many interests and one of them is the history of chemical spills in the U.S.

Re DHeyward's comment: The only one being tarred and feathered here is me, and it's a joke. I honestly do have an interest in chemical contaminations because i was born in a town with polluted rivers, and i have been affected. As a human being, i have an interest that we know about what's happened in history, solely so we don't repeat the same mistakes. That is an honorable intention and it's part of "the sum of human knowledge" and it's a concern shared by millions of other people. So please simply let me do my little piece of the work as one human being, and stop attributing motives that i don't have.

Re JzG's comment: Thanks. Honestly though, i thought of "Science Babe" only as commenting on food additives and not about GMOs as i've noted elsewhere. As for "get as close to the topic as you can" -- no, that's not what i'm doing, for goodness sake. I'm not editing about GMOs. Seriously, in the real world, ideas don't fit into tiny neat separate boxes but i'm simply not editing about GMOs or agrochemicals, and i'm not trying to "get to them" somehow. If i'm not allowed on my neighbor's property, i can still walk near the fence sometimes. The line is where the line is, and i'm editing on many topics, some of them a degree or two of separation from the topic ban areas, but then again most people are a couple degrees away from Kevin Bacon. I couldn't even edit about "bacon" in fact as animals eat GMO feed. And Kevin Bacon probably spoke out about GMOs at some point or wrote a song about them. I say check my contribs and judge. I'm editing well and i'd like to be able to do so in peace. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, as for "Science Babe" i'll just say "I'm sorry, it was my oversight, i didn't see that part of the lede, and even though my edit had nothing to do with GMOs, it's still too close for comfort, and i'll never touch her article ever ever ever again... scout's honor." As for chemicals like PFOA, it's a different topic and i'm not trying to "tar and feather" any company. I'm looking at contamination and following that wherever it went. That is done now too, but i still have the right to edit judiciously in that realm with discretionary sanctions and i think that ought to be ok. As for Charles Eisenstein, he's totally unrelated to GMOs as far as i know. It's not in the article and not his wheelhouse as far as i knew. Anyway, i'm busy editing for real on things like experimental evolution which is another of my passions, and i'll just be on my way. SageRad (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

And BMK, do you think it's okay to call people names who write in my support, like "it is not helpful for the peanut gallery to egg them on" -- like you think that's okay? Where are your manners? Where is your decency? I'm an editor and i do good editing. I use sources and i look at articles. This is McCarthyism -- who are you to be above me in such harsh judgment and then call names to people like HughD when he writes in my defense after having some experience editing with me at ExxonMobil and ExxonMobil climate change controversy where we have been doing top-notch editing with several others, thank you very much??? Really, now -- please be WP:CIVIL. You're wasting my time in a vexatious case and insulting others for what seems ideological reasons here. This is not conducive to good editing on Misplaced Pages -- this whole thing seems to be obstructionist intimidation to knock out someone with outspoken opinions on some core Misplaced Pages values and issues. I don't want to spend any more of my time on this. I really just wanted to go on my way but after name-calling people who even write a word in my defense, boomerang is looking attractive. . . . . . where does the nonsense stop? SageRad (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43 -- I'm not "testing the boundaries". I disagree with the topic ban but i've obeyed it. You want to control my thoughts and opinions? You don't get to. I also get to be a Wikicitizen and take part in discussions about policy, etc. Why do you even mention such things? Let me "do my time" even if i disagree with the particular case, as i've respected the topic ban. And the question decided by the previous clarification was indeed decided affirmatively. I've edited about polystyrene which is a Dow product, but it's not at all related to agrochemicals or GMOs. And my edits there have been simple and neutral and solid. Please, let it go, drop the stick. SageRad (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret

Having commented on the recent WP:ARCA section on increasing the topic bans to "companies that produce them" for the topic banned editors from the GMO case. I would like to point out the motion in section 11.25.1 that would have added the companies failed. As a result, SageRad is not topic banned from editing articles of companies that produce agricultural chemicals as long as he is not editing about agricultural chemicals/GMO's. None of the diffs provided are on agricultural chemicals/GMO's. AlbinoFerret 03:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that that the warnings predate the close of the ARCA section and one was specifically about that section and should be covered by WP:BANEX AlbinoFerret 03:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The "broadly construed" argument to include companies when editing non GMO and agricultural chemicals was rejected by Arbcom. Continuing the argument on AE (a Arbcom page) so soon after the motion failed is going against that finding. AlbinoFerret 18:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

SageRad has also been commenting directly at ANI on a discussion on GMOs starting with this scaled back to this, quite obviously so they could claim they weren't directly entering discussion on GMOs.

Followed by:

With this gem of an edit summary, "There is a reason that i continue to compare the anti-fringe movement to McCarthyism." All these above occurred in this ANI thread, which was explicitly focused on genetically modified organisms, the scientific consensus around it, and how we deal with WP:FRINGE aspects in content discussion around it.

They also responded directly to me at WP:FTN when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion with this referring to McCarthyism again, which is another unambiguous violation followed by more commentary Regardless of meta-discussions popping up within the specific incidents, there they have been plenty of discussions on topic banned users in this topic to not even be commenting from the sidelines at admin boards when they are topic banned.

There have been some previous instances where SageRad has been chaffing against their ban, though not quite as bad as others sanctioned at the case. There still have been issues going on though with a previous AE case. I won't even suggest any particular actions to admins, but SageRad needs to stay out the topic plain and simple without finding ways to skirt the ban. I'm concerned there's a lot of the same soapboxing and hyperbole related to WP:FRINGE, etc. that got them topic banned from GMOs, but that might be something ANI handles if they can respect the topic ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a note on AlbinoFerret's characterization of ArbCom here, but ArbCom did not outright reject the idea that companies should be included. The votes outlined that they'd give editors a chance, but said topic ban broadening and DS should be considered when the editors start engaging in conflicts in the adjacent topics. That's very different than saying it was outright rejected and is some guidance in the votes that admins should read over when it comes to enforcement in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

My observation is that SageRad is much more interested in complaining about being "bullied" by other users who attempt to guide his edits in such a way that is consistent with his topic ban then he is in actually living within the ban and finding other non-banned areas to edit in. He is clearly here to push an agenda, and when he is prevented from doing so, immediately begins his "bullying" trope on talk pages and noticeboards. At this point, I see him as a disruptive element who, by his example, encourages other WP:FRINGE-sympathetic editors to behave similarly. He is a net negative to the project, one that we can hardly afford to allow to roam freely at a time when Misplaced Pages is experiencing a concerted effort to throw off the discipline of the scientific standard and allow all sorts of unscientific nonsense into the encyclopedia. I urge the admins evaluating this complaint, on the basis of the evidence that has been presented, to broaden SageRad's topic ban to include all fringe-related areas, and to encourage admins to police his behavior vigorously.

If the admins who frequent AE doubt that there is a stromg effort to influence Misplaced Pages in favor of fringe subjects, all they need to do is to look up at some of the complaints being filed here., whic clearly outline their program.BMK (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: Please consider "Broadly construed". Generally what that means is that if there is a mere possibility of the subject being part of the topic ban, you should turn your back and go do something else. You, on the other hand, appear to be minutely parsing the subject matter, and then diving in. That's just not going to fly with a "broadly contrued" topic ban, something which you've been warned about at least twice now. BMK (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog: SageRad's topic ban is not phrased to say that he is banned from those pages "except where the edits cause a problem". It is a plain, straight-out ban from those pages which broadly construed come under the terms of the ban. The quality or efficacy of the edits is totally irrelevant and should not be considered by the admins evaluating this complaint. BMK (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Upon reflection, struck one suggestion above. BMK (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@HughD: "SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed." (emphasis added) BMK (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@HughG: "Genetically modified organisms refers to any life form: animal, arthropod, reptilian, plant, bacterial - any organism. I'm not sure what it is that is preventing you from perceiving this, especially since the ban is intended to be "broadly construed" to any page whatsoever that deals with that range of items.What is typical for the POV-edit warrior is to pick away at what they perceive as the edges of their ban, hoping that no one will notice, but the entire point of having a topic ban be "broadly construed" is to stop that behavior in its tracks. It is has been said here over and over again, but I suppose it's worth re

Statement by Darkfrog24

Very uninvolved non-admin. Most of these edits don't specifically mention GMOs, but SageRad is also banned from "pages relating to genetically modified organisms." According to AlbinoF, that does not include DuPont or Dow, but my own take is that it would include d'Entremont.

• 1. No GMO mentioned. Is it the filer's position that SR is trying to indirectly talk about GMOs by minimizing mention of one of their supporters or detractors?
• 2. No GMO mentioned
• 3. No GMO mentioned.
• 4. No GMO mentioned.
• 5. Mentions PFOA, not GMOs. Does the article that SR recommends talk about GMOs? If so, I guess it could be construed as a way to induce others to talk about GMOs, but it could also just be what it looks like. AGF.
• 6. No GMO mentioned.
• 7. No GMO mentioned.
• 8. Recommending the same NYT article. Again, depends on what it says.
• 9. The edits made by OnlyinDeath do not mention or involve GMOs.
• 10-12. No GMO mentioned.
• 13. Maybe this one. SR is talking about the article in general and it mentions GMOs in the opening paragraphs but SR him/herself does not.

IMO #1 and #13 are the only ones that can be construed as violations, but it is reasonable that the filer would not know that DuPont and Dow are not covered by the ban, so I wouldn't call it deliberate spam either.

Yes, SR mentions GMOs or more specifically the discussion of GMOs on Misplaced Pages in this AN/I discussion; self-removes this part of the post about twelve hours later. I don't see the problem with "Resent your calling my response 'hysterical'" or those other posts. Bottom line: There is a lot of stuff in this complaint that's innocuous. The comment on the SciBabe article talk page could be is a problem, and the fact that it appears that SageRad's claim not to know that D'Etremont was involved with GMOs is untrue casts doubt on his credibility. The real clearest issue here is the participation in the AN/I discussion, which included GMOs even though it was not solely about them. I'd go with yes, SageRad was over the line here. If SR has been engaging in a pattern of such borderline activity, then action is warranted. If not, I'd just clarify the terms of the topic ban so that they explicitly state that SR is not allowed to participate in meta-discussions of GMOs on Misplaced Pages. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: It sounds like technically SageRad's Dow and DuPont edits don't violate the ban, even though I'll agree with what I infer to be @Edward321:'s opinion that one would think these pages would be covered. I'd say this: Do the edits cause or constitute a problem? Do they exacerbate a conflict or push a POV? If so, then the admins should consider extending the topic ban, but it should be acknowledged that SageRad did not violate its existing terms with these edits. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC) BMK, I would agree, but there appears to be an exception specifically permitting topic-banned users to edit articles on companies like Dow and Dupont so long as they don't mention GMOs. This is a case of three violations, not fourteen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death

Re Darkfrog, SageRad is banned from agricultural chemicals, which are a major part of Dow's business. The only reason I did not report SageRad for those transgressions was they appeared to take the hint and backed off the article. The AE report I actually filed previously which was closed by EdJohnston despite being a blatant violation was a different matter, evidence of their attempt to canvass support for their POV pushing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

DF, SageRads MO is to show up at an article, declare bias, and attempt to skew it towards their POV. (Their contribution history contains the evidence of that). As they hold a viewpoint that corporations (GMO affiliated ones mainly) are bad and up to no good, this generally means trying to paint them in an unduly negative light. By coatracking, unreliable sourcing etc. Not restricted to companies, individuals who are pro science (and so, anti fringe/pseudoscience) get the same treatment. As SageRad has a basic lack of understanding of how NPOV, Fringe/Pseudoscience policies work, this means they get into the same arguments in multiple venues with multiple editors who have to explain things over and over again. Take a look at the NPOV and fringe noticeboards (and archives) for a sample. Not to mention the rubbish at Veganism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course, there is also jumping into POV discussions from 2009. Oh and then claiming intimidation in order to not edit there. Seriously, why are we putting up with this rubbish? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

The complaint is vexatious, and is apparently intended to lure admins at AE into carelessly extending a topic ban into domains which ArbCom explicitly rejected, for the purposes of gaining advantage in a topic dispute and of further securing Misplaced Pages for the American right.

Is perfluorooctanioc acid an agricultural chemical? It sure sounds chemical, doesn’t it? Does it have something to do with GMOs? Kind of sounds like it would! DuPoint and Dow do make some farm products! Obviously, a breaching experiment: ring the alarms!

Unfortunately for this complaint, some Wikipedians have knowledge of a variety of domains, and others are remarkably willing to look stuff up. A long time ago, I earned a doctorate in chemistry. Also, a long time ago, I was employed by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., though by Central Research, not by the agrochemical division. I can say with some confidence that perfluorooctanoic acid is not an agricultural chemical, at least not on this planet! (Speculation on the slippery nature of perfluorinated wildlife might amuse arbitrators more than this complaint.) DuPont has long been a world leader in fluorocarbon chemistry, and its perfluorinated polymer, Teflon, is a household word. Perfluorooctanoic acid is used to manufacture Teflon and related polymers, as a water repellent, and for related applications. There’s quite a decent article on this on a Web site called Misplaced Pages.

The question of whether the topic ban extends to non-agricultural chemicals, or to other operations of these and other companies, was explicitly raised -- by myself and others -- at ARCA. ArbCom's rejection of this broad construction was clear and unambiguous. The editor raising this question should be topic-banned from discussion of topic bans for GMO in order to avoid future disruption. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I have not looked at all the company-related edits, but the last edit listed in the opening filing, , is an unambiguous violation, because the lead section of the page clearly notes that the subject is notable for criticizing "the anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) movement". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

SageRad has been active at Vani Hari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), discussed during the case, and the dispute between Hari and d'Entremont is well documented - the dispute explicitly includes Hari's GMO fearmongering and when this is taken along with Dow and DuPont I would say it's time to start making firm statements that no, we do not mean get as close to the topic as you think you can get away with, we mean, stay away from GMOs, broadly construed.

I would not like to see SageRad blocked this time, but equally I do think he needs to actually leave that area alone, and in fact it might be helpful if he was to drop the stick entirely (e.g. stop kvetching about use of a site associated with David Gorski, with whom he has a dispute over GMOs). Guy (Help!) 00:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

The result of "broadly construed" findings was to stop eactly this type of tar and feathering approach to GMO companies. Sorry but I find little coincidence in the editing of GMO company products in a negative tone and editing GMO products themselves. These editors need to get off the "ZOMG! these GMO companies are killing us in so many different ways!" treadmill and find a new hobby. --DHeyward (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Hugh

I see no topic ban violation in the diffs in the complaint. Uninvolved with GMOs, minor interactions with SageRad. Hugh (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: WP:ACDS authorizes topic bans constrained by WP:TBAN. I see no authorization for a page ban sanction animal. Topic bans are bans on topics not pages. Is your point that this sanction here is not a topic ban, it is some kind of page ban thing, exempt from WP:TBAN? Some read "broadly construed" as a sort of two degrees of separation, that is, any page that wikilinks to a article that is in scope is in scope, maybe some of that is going on in this complaint, topic ban creep. Hugh (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Thank you for your reply above. You emphasized the word "pages" in the topic ban notice. What is that word's significance to you? Our project's policy WP:TBAN provides guidance on how to interpret the scope of a topic ban, my understanding is all topic bans. Do you think the topic ban at issue in this complaint is constrained by WP:TBAN, or does the use of the word "pages" in the notification make it into some kind of page ban or some kind of topic ban on steroids? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Thank you for your reply above. You wrote above "It is has been said here over and over again..."; I understand established practice is as important as written policy on Misplaced Pages. I know we are not the first to discuss what "broadly construed" entails, so I appreciate your patience. I would like to better understand your understanding of our topic ban policy. I think we differ in our understanding. May I observe that your understanding may owe more to enforcement history while mine is perhaps more based on written policy. May I ask more directly, do you believe our project's WP:TBAN applies to all topic bans? My humble read of WP:TBAN is that it specifically authorizes conscientious editors to continue to contribute to our project. My read of WP:TBAN is that policy distinguishes between pages that are primarily about a topic, and those that are not, and for those that are not, editing the parts of those pages unrelated to the topic is specifically authorized. Relating this issue back to the current complaint, it seems to me all the diffs in the head complaint fall under this exemption and so are not topic ban violations, given my perhaps flawed read of WP:TBAN. It seems to me that any edit under bullet 4 of WP:TBAN (the "parts" exemption) may always be considered boundary testing by some, and this lack of clarity is resulting in increasing requests for enforcement and detrimental to collegiality. Would you support revising policy WP:TBAN to codify more practice established since the discretionary sanctions regime, for example, to remove bullet 4, or to strengthen "broadly construed" to comprehend a sort of "two degrees of wikilink separation"? When we are saying the same things "over and over" at notice pages instead of editing articles, maybe it's time. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

As contentious as the GMO articles continue to be, I'd say a healthy dose of boomerang on some of the editors here following SageRad around trying to get him banned would probably help things out, but I doubt any of the responding admins will put any effort into doing so. Cla68 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning SageRad

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

AJB43

Jaqeli

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 Jaqeli

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jaqeli (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, as per AA2 general sanctions public notice all subjects Armenia and Georgia related, broadly defined

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

• On 15 March 2015, Jaqeli was given a topic ban exemption to be allowed to edit Georgian scripts, Rhadamistus, Pharnavaz I of Iberia, and Pharasmanes II of Iberia for three months and then reappeal the entire ban which was removed on 29 June 2015. Nonetheless, during this time Jaqeli edited Georgians, Georgian dialects, Iadgari of Mikael Modrekili, Kuji of Colchis, Prince David of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, Nikoloz Baratashvili, Lisa Batiashvili, Anna Chakvetadze, Davit Guramishvili, several Georgian letters, Bir el Qutt inscriptions, Doliskana inscriptions, and creating Zenobia, among other edits.

Despite being topic banned twice, Jaqeli seemingly exhibits the same behavior he has in the past.

• 31 July - One month after the topic ban was removed, Jaqeli removes all mention that the Georgian branch is related to the Armenian branch, which is accepted by all reliable scholars and sourced with Cyril Tumanoff

• 14 October - removed all mention of Ghadana of Armenia being Armenian despite the fact that the sources within the article itself support the claim

• 16 January - Jaqeli removes Armenia from the article title under the excuse "no Armenia existed back then" despite the article having content about the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and Zakarid Armenia

• 18 January - Removing the native Armenian name and other native names and leaving only the Georgian native name. This dish popular throughout the Caucasus.

• 19 January - Jaqeli removes an academic source about the family's Armenian origins and removes all mention of such from the article. Similar to his past edits on Mesrop Mashtots.

• 17 October and 20 January - Jaqeli twice lists Georgia in the List of medieval great powers. I found this to be exagerrarated since it appears that the sources do not claim that Georgia was a "great power" or anything of that nature.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• and - Jaqeli was previously banned twice from Armenian and Georgian articles on 5 January 2014 for edit warring and battleground mentality on Georgian alphabet, and on 15 August 2014 for a wide range of edit warring and incivility, such as removing sourced content for the Armenian role in the Georgian language on Georgian scripts and Mesrop Mashtots.

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

• As stated above, banned in January 2014 and August 2014 by User:Sandstein
• Topic banned successfully appealed on 29 July 2015

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user appears to conduct a concerning WP:TENDENTIOUS editing pattern in Armenian related articles ever since the lifting of his ban. I find that every time he edits an Armenian related article, it is disruptive in one way or another. This disruptive editing pattern is similar to the very same disruption that has gotten him the AA2 ban in the first place. The user has a pretty extensive block log which includes several blocks from edit-warring and topic ban violations. Yet, despite all the blocks, warnings, and bans, the user continues to display a disruptive editing pattern.

For past inquiries, please see Jaqeli's:

• AA2 report of 2 January 2014 (verdict: topic-banned): Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive144#Jaqeli
• AA2 report of 15 August 2014 (verdict: topic ban reinstated): Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154#Jaqeli

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Jaqeli

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 Jaqeli

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield

Regarding the AA2 report of 15th August (which I initiated), I was surprised after it to see Jaqeli continue to edit many articles related to Georgia. When I asked Sandstein about this, I was told that Jaqeli's editing restriction applied only to articles that contained material relating to BOTH Armenia and Georgia . In other words, Jaqeli had no restriction on editing Armenia-related articles and no restriction on editing Georgia-related articles. I do not think that most people would read a "topic ban from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia" in this very restricted way. And given that a lot of the pov editing that Jaqeli has now been accused of is removing evidence of any Armenia/Armenian connections, this very restricted topic ban could be perceived as actually encouraging pov editing. If any editing restrictions are going to be reimposed on Jaqeli, would the closing administrator make the wording of it quite clear as to what the topic ban refers to, and consider whether it should be "everything related to Armenia and everything related to Georgia", or perhaps " "every article that could reasonably be expected to be related to Armenia regardless of whether it currently has content related to Armenia". A lot of the uncontroversial content that Jaqeli has worked on or added and that is only Georgia-related seems quite useful, quite specialized, and nobody else is doing it (so it would be a loss if he is gone). However, there seems to be a fundamentally bad attitude within his editing aims in that he consciously wishes at all times and whenever possible to minimize or remove legitimate content that mentions Armenia from articles that primarily concern Georgian history or culture or that jointly concern Georgian and Armenian history or culture. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Jaqeli

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

• I suggest restoring Jaqeli's previous topic ban from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia per WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 2. The DS log entry has links to all the past discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• It appears that the possibilities of normal discussion have not been exhausted. The filer, User:EtienneDolet, has made only one post to Jaqeli's talk page in the last six months. I would close this with no action, assuming that the parties will at least try to discuss. If there is no useful result, the complaint can be refiled. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

HistoryWrite