Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Howunusual (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 4 October 2014 (→Statement by (username)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:52, 4 October 2014 by Howunusual (talk | contribs) (→Statement by (username))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

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

    Ithinkicahn

    Ithinkicahn topic-banned from Armenian Genocide topics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Ithinkicahn

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Ithinkicahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:AA2
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    • The user engages in a relentless effort to remove any mention of the Armenian Genocide in Misplaced Pages. It's a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The user's edit-summaries are almost always misleading. They're often entirely irrelevant to what the user's edit actually entails (i.e. 14 August , March 12, and 31 July edits). It's impossible to detect when and where the user has deleted references of the Armenian Genocide. Therefore, all edits must be examined. These are the only ones I happened to come across:
    1. 15 September
    2. 26 August
    3. 20 August
    4. 18 August
    5. 16 August
    6. 15 August
    7. 14 August
    8. 31 July
    9. 29 July
    10. 15 July
    11. 24 May
    12. 21 May
    13. 12 March
    14. 2 March
    15. 2 March
    16. 22 February
    • The user also assumes an overt WP:BADFAITH towards his "opponents". He has openly exclaimed, even after I told him to stop with the badfaith assumptions, that "I have reason to assume bad faith on your part because of my experience with you in the past" (29 July). In an article where I have made only six constructive and harmless edits (), the user kept hurling accusations at me by calling me a POV pusher and accused me of historical revisionism (here and here). The user continued doing this even after I kindly told him to stop. Apparently, he was not interested in adhering to basic Misplaced Pages policy either (). Even with third-party users stating that the article was NPOV and reliably sourced (), Ithinkicahn continued unilaterally placing the POV tag and had edit-warred to get his way ().
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 23 February 2014
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I've tried to work with the user on countless occasions. In the past, I've granted him a barnstar and was always supportive of his edits in Turkey related articles. However, once the user started editing in Armenian related topics, it turned into an entirely different story. His deletion of massive amounts of information (often times sourced) concerning the Armenian Genocide is highly problematic. Most of his edits regarding the Armenian Genocide are driven by his own personal opinions and fall contrary to the general consensus Misplaced Pages has instilled regarding the subject. Consequently, the deceptive edit-summaries make it necessary to tend and examine each edit. Furthermore, an uncompromising attitude towards those that don't fall into the user's POV makes it almost impossible to work with him. Hence, for the reasons I have mentioned, I suggest that the user be banned from all topics related to Armenia and Turkey.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    @Penwhale: and @HJ Mitchell: Just to let you know, Ithinkicahn has been editing recently. Though I would still like him to respond to the AE report here, I think it's not a bad idea to move forward with this report. If he truly believes he doesn't deserve the topic ban, he can always appeal it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


    Discussion concerning Ithinkicahn

    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 Ithinkicahn

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Ithinkicahn

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

    • Editor hasn't edited since September 16, according to contribution. Wouldn't say stale, but revisiting this when editor returns may be the way to go. - Penwhale | 05:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • There is a prima facie case that Ithinkicahn is censoring out mentions of the Armenian genocide. If the editor is now active but is not planning to respond here, why not go ahead with a topic ban. How about a ban from the topic of the Armenian genocide broadly construed, as well as the history of Turkey and of Armenian people between 1909 and 1930. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The one edit he made on the 27th has nothing to do with the area (and thus in my opinion should not affect how we view this). I am more comfortable with a very stern warning at this point, but will also support the TBAN that EdJohnson set out.. - Penwhale | 23:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • He has edited since this request was filed, and since my ping above, so it's reasonable to conclude that they are avoiding it. I agree that there is merit to the request, but I think such a sweeping topic ban may be a little draconian. I propose a ban from Armenia Genocide topics, to include adding, removing, or editing any mention of the Armenian Genocide from other articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

    Reaper7

    Reaper7 is topic-banned from everything related to Macedonia under any meaning of the term.  Sandstein  13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Reaper7

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Reaper7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    • misusing WikiProject talkpage for blatant form of tendentious canvassing about a controversial article, including attacks against three named editors and massive assumptions of bad faith (presenting them as an "organized campaign" and suggesting their editing is motivated by their "ambiguous or hidden ancestry"). Clear expression of battleground attitude.
    • expression of similar battleground attitude and assumptions of bad faith on own talkpage
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. WP:ARBMAC2#Reaper7 previously site-banned for 6 months by Arbcom in 2009 Arbmac2 case for the same kinds of offence (hostile canvassing and personal attacks)
    2. earlier block in 2007, again for the same kind of behaviour
    3. logged warning on WP:ARBMAC in 2011, for the same kind of bad-faith assumptions (ascribing editors' motivations to their nationality)
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Recent standard alert , just a day prior to the edit in question
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Given the intermittent but extremely persistent, long-term nature of this conduct issue, I'd suggest only a permanent, full topic ban will be appropriate here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Reaper7

    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 Reaper7

    There has been an organized campaign along proven ethnic lines with proven sockpuppets concerning the Macedonia pages and it is my aim to remedy this. There have been meaningless bannings on both sides and constant requests such as this one, for members to be banned indefinitely - a culture that solves nothing on the pages themselves. I request that Fut.Perf., who has been disciplined before is disciplined again. It does not matter how often he carefully sets out the template for a banning action, what is key here is the motivation.

    I suggest the user is warned that wiki project pages are designed for canvassing for work to be done on certain pages. A brief glance at the Greece wiki page that Fut.Perf. monitors for Macedonia related problems will prove this. The Macedonian pages are in need of more editors and there is currently an investigation - which I am not included in, concerning poor behaviour due to users of specific nationalities and sockpuppets once again in the pages. Taivo is one of those accused and that is why I mentioned him and I have been victimised by Fut.Perf. in the past hence his name mentioned - but not in an insulting manner as he claims. Fut.Perf. is a user who tries specifically to ban members of what he believes is are against a certain stand point concerning the Macedonia issue. I hope for end of this poor bevaiour with a strong and swift reprimand for abuse of Enforcement requests by user Fut.Perf.. This culture has created war ground and should not be acknowledged or tolerated unless dealing with genuine sockpuppets or genuine insults on the pages themselves. I have done nothing on the pages to warrant a ban what so ever. Please take the time to check my last edits. Fut.Perf. is trying to ban myself for asking wiki project Greece for more editors to make there presence know on the Macedonia pages. I have warned the editors which users to be wary of to avoid further conflict. That is not worth a ban or any type of action. Once again, the behavior of Fut.Perf. demonstrates severe bad faith and should not be tolerated or encouraged, no matter how many members he has tried to ban concerning this subject in the past. I am not a Sockpuppet, I have not insulted members, but I have been victimized my this member and others in the past specifically over these pages. I have edited 1000s of pages and never met such aggression as that as I have found on the Macedonia pages. The problems I have had on these pages relate specifically to Taivo and Fut.Perf. hence my warning to the project members of this members for exactly this reason. We cannot afford anymore bannings. This bullying should not stand and I hope for fair outcome unlike in 2011 where Fut.Perf. is not rewarded for attempting to ban members who have not negatively edited any of the pages he feels he needs to police with draconian measures. These are the type of members we are attempting to free ourselves from - his/her page says everything: User:Macedoniarulez Thank you for your time. Reaper7 (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by Stevepeterson

    I am not familiar with user's background but in this instance she/he did nothing but 1) express her/his opinion in a request for comment 2) try to convince a contributor (me) who had participated in the actual debate to "let it pass". She/he has no involvement in the actual argument (no edit on the main article), no reversions and never insulted other users. Regarding the second point (warning a contributor), it was me who initiated the discussion in his talk page, hence I take full responsibility for this. I believe that he used the ethnic metaphor as a way to convince me to withdraw from the meaningless debate. Stevepeterson (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Reaper7

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

    The request has merit. The submitted diffs are evidence of Reaper7 treating Misplaced Pages as a ethnic/nationalist battleground. What I find particularly odious are their references to the "editors carrying ancestry from the Republic of Macedonia others with more ambiguous or hidden ancestry", as if any editor's ancestry, even if it were known, would be significant for what they contribute to Misplaced Pages. Reaper7's statement is additional evidence of an inappropriate battleground attitude, given that it does very little to address their own editing, which is what is at issue here, and does not recognize the problematic nature of their conduct, but makes lengthy and vague allegations against the complainant that are however devoid of evidence. The previous sanctions indicate a longterm conduct problem. Unless an administrator objects, I will ban Reaper7 from anything related to Macedonia (with respect to any meaning of the term).  Sandstein  13:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

    Reaper7 managed to get himself blocked and topic-banned directly by Arbcom in WP:ARBMAC2 in 2009. From this report it seems that his pattern of partisan editing is continuing. I agree with a new topic ban which I suggest should be indefinite, and should include any topics related to the region of Northern Greece known as Macedonia. Reaper7 even wants Thessaloniki (a city in Greek Macedonia) to get attention of editors of the proper nationality: "editors of Jewish, Slavic and Turkish origin have clearly got this article wrapped up" (8 August 2014). EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'd agree with a topic ban, though I'd have no real qualms about lengthy block unless there's evidence of substantial constructive contributions in other topic areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    Closed with a topic ban.  Sandstein  13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

    SPECIFICO

    The topic ban applying to SPECIFICO is expanded to cover everything and everyone related to the Austrian School of economics, in addition to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and persons related to it.  Sandstein  08:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning SPECIFICO

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    SPECIFICO (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/Austrian_economics#SPECIFICO_topic-banned : "SPECIFICO is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case."

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 28 September 2014 - Edits Austrian School to add sections of criticisms of Ludwig von Mises' work, as well as Ludwig von Mises Institute founders Murray Rothbard and Friedrich Hayek.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics#Sanctions - SPECIFICO was previously blocked for two weeks for violating this topic ban.
    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.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Though the ArbCom decision made an exception for SPECIFICO to edit related to Austrian economics as long as they don't mention LvMI or persons related to it, his inability to avoid breaching that restriction, either by intent or error, would indicate that the exception will lead to more violations of the specific ban because of the closely-related nature (LvMI is a leading think tank and resource in the world of Austrian School economics). The ArbCom decision allows broadening to the wider topic area, and I recommend, in addition to a punitive block for this infraction, that the topic ban be broadened to include Austrian School and all topics related to Austrian economics to avoid future ones. -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

    This is a response to SPECIFICO's "final statement" on this report. As to his first claim, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that his intent was to revert obvious vandalism, both at the time of his revert and now, and I believe this claim clearly untrue on its face. The edits he reverted were clearly not vandalism (vandals don't often leave edit summaries with their rationale), and SPECIFICO's edit summary of the revert that violated this topic ban does not address it as vandalism. His claims of that now are an attempt to avoid sanctions. In his fourth comment, his promise "to refrain from ‘’any’’ edits relating to the material defined in my TBAN – vandalism or not" is a null offer -- the point of his topic ban is limit his editing within that topic. From all of his responses, it sounds like he still fervently intends to edit related to Austrian economics and is still claiming that Ludwig von Mises and Hayek are not part of his TBAN (though they clearly are as confirmed by admins responding here). Unless he can acknowledge the limits of the generous exception that he was given in his initial TBAN, then it will continue to not work, and removing the exception would put him on par with the others in the ArbCom case who have managed to avoid repeated oversteps. -- Netoholic @ 02:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

    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.

    • Comment I think the claim that Specifico "Edits Austrian School to add sections of criticisms of Ludwig von Mises' work" is a little misleading - what they actually did was revert a large-scale removal of content by a very occasional editor (this is better viewed by looking at the page history. Also concerned that this is an attempt at revenge following Specifico's involvement in the discussion that led to Netoholic being topic banned from the Stefan Molyneux article two days ago. Number 57 07:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment I was the editor who supposedly vandalized the page dealing with Austrian Economics. First of all I would like to point out that SPECIFICO is lying I never referred to relocating the text in my edit summary I said that criticisms belong in the criticism section not throughout the article. While I am an occasional editor I haven't frequently blanked as he claims. I would also like to point out that he lodges what I consider a personal attack against me simply because I said in my old user page that I was a former vandal but that now I mainly did occasional edits of undoing vandalism. Another thing to note is that SPECIFICO lied when he reverted my edit, he said that it was discussed in the talk page that the best format was to have the criticism lodged throughout the page but when I went to the talk page I found no such discussion. SPECIFICO has relied on pulling credentials to basically save himself from punishment. GRosado 06:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Response to SPECIFICO'S disingenuous comment: "I removed all the criticisms because they don't belong in the section discussing the Austrian Schools theories they belong only in the criticism section." This is my edit summary nowhere does it say I'm relocating the criticisms especially since most of them are already in the criticism section. Tone & Substance are just empty buzzwords you're using to emotional sway people & cover you're lies instead of addressing everything I said. I hope the admins will look back at everything that transpired because the evidence points against SPECIFICO no matter which way he tries to weasel out. GRosado 01:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by SPECIFICO

    I reverted vandalism by an editor who has a history of blanking content while posting false and misleading edit summaries.. I undid blanking of longstanding text which was blanked. The edit summary falsely referred to relocating the text, but it was not relocated, it was blanked. SPECIFICO talk 13:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

    Moreover, Netoholic's complaint continues his pattern of stalking and hounding me with vexatious complaints per WP:AE. Please see . In addition, it is grossly disrespectful of this forum to disrupt it in pursuit of the complainant's personal agenda. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

    The editor who blanked the criticism is a self-confessed WP vandal. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

    If, as @Penwhale: believes, my action violated my TBAN with respect to Mises Institute, why would the appropriate sanction would be to broaden the TBAN? Of the three individuals mentioned in the text which had been blanked, only Murray Rothbard was affiliated with the Mises Institute. Mises died over a decade prior to the founding of the Institute and we have no RS for the claim that Hayek had any association with the Institute. . The alleged violation, therefore, has only to do with the Topic already defined in my TBAN -- Netoholic's statements to the contrary notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

    I posted the following neutral notice of this Enforcement Request on the Austrian School talk page: . User Netoholic removed the notice here and incorrectly called it canvassing: . SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

    Regarding the comment of The Devils Advocate: 1. His claim as to the Molyneux article -- that I am banned from the Molyneux article -- was posted here in May, 2014 by the same complainant, Netoholic, and was rejected here. 2. His falsely states that I called for the deletion of the Molyneux article. I am one of several editors who has questioned whether Molyneux is notable. I stated no conclusion as to the matter. It's odd, in that Molyneux is irrelevant to this request except for the problematic involvement of Netoholic.

    Regarding the comment of the IP who blanked the Austrian School commentary: The tone and substance of his remark confirms my belief that he was willfully vandalizing the article. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    Placeholder I will make what I expect to be my final comment here early within a few hours. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    First, to reiterate my initial statement, I reverted vandalism in the form of section-blanking of well-sourced longstanding article content with a false edit summary which referred to relocating criticism within the article but did not do so. The editor whom I reverted has a history of similar actions and a confession of vandalism on his talk page, cited above.

    Second, this has nothing to do with the Molyneux article and after I provided links showing that issue to have been adjudicated here, I am disappointed to see The Devil’s Advocate repeat and expand his discussion of the irrelevant Molyneux article. It’s particularly inappropriate that he presents half-truth and out-of-context references to my initiation of an RfC as to whether the article should call Molyneux a “philosopher” – particularly since my view was sustained in an orderly RfC, the result of which was tendentiously denied by Netoholic, such behavior contributing greatly to his topic ban on Molyneux. The bit about scare quotes similarly states a meme of Netoholic’s which was false and misrepresents the history on that article.

    Third, I am concerned that the notice of this AE Request was removed by Netoholic, and I would like to ask the Admins here whether they feel it would be appropriate to reinsert it, so that we can get uninvolved views of editors familiar with the Austrian and Mises subject matter and editing history.

    Fourth, I regret having made this revert, since in hindsight it seems clear that sooner or later another editor would have done the same thing. I have noted that other similar instances of blanking vandalism in Mises Institute Related articles have been promptly reverted by @Srich32977: and @Binksternet:. No doubt one of them would have done the same in the present case. I particularly regret that the resources of AE and Arbcom are occupied with this matter when there are numerous larger issues on their agendas. I take responsibility for that and I apologize to the admins. For that reason, I intend to refrain from ‘’any’’ edits relating to the material defined in my TBAN – vandalism or not – obviating any recurrence of threads such as the present Request. By creating this bright-line I will ensure that no further cases need come to this board.

    Fifth, discussion here about punishment and discussion about broadening the TBAN to an area where there has been no alleged violation do not address the issue at hand. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    Comment by MONGO

    Admins are likely aware that an arbcom case which names SPECIFICO as one of the named parties is likely to be accepted and commence soon. Should that be the case any ban/block will have to be modified to allow SPECIFICO to be able to post to pages related to the case.--MONGO 13:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by The Devil's Advocate

    I would point out that SPECIFICO has extensively edited the BLP of Stefan Molyneux and Molyneux has written a number of articles for LewRockwell.com, which is noted in the lede. LewRockwell.com was started by two of the three co-founders of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell and Burton Blumert, after the death of the third co-founder Murray Rothbard. Note that SPECIFICO can be found on the talk page of Molyneux's article advocating for the deletion of his bio. LewRockwell.com is definitely associated with the LvMI and SPECIFICO fighting over the article of a regular writer, even calling for said article's deletion, should be seen as problematic.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

    SPECIFICO, Misplaced Pages is not a court of law. Case precedent is not established here. Admins may simply not have been aware of Molyneux's connection to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and change their minds upon seeing what I presented above. In fact you exhibit a lot of the same problematic behaviors on the Molyneux article that got you banned from other LvMI-related articles. There is you arguing about describing Molyneux as a philosopher and trying to cast doubt on his qualifications in that respect. You also show an unusual interest in talking about his financials. Seems you just moved to an article close to LvMI, but far enough away that it would not be obvious that you are just continuing the same activities that were the cause of the original arbitration case.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

    The request has merit. In adding the text "... also embraced by Murray Rothbard ...", " Hayek’s successful appearance on the London scene" and "Hayek's development of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory", SPECIFICO did add material related to Murray Rothbard and Friedrich Hayek, who are persons related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, as set out in that article's lead. This violates SPECIFICO's topic ban from "articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it". That the addition occurred by way of a revert is not relevant. I would impose a one-month block (doubling the previous block duration) if no other admin disagrees. I would also warn Number 57 that casting aspersions on another editor's motives without good evidence is disruptive and can lead to sanctions.  Sandstein  07:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

    • Per my comments above, I disagree. It was a straightforward revert of a mass content removal, not specific additions, and I think that's entirely relevant. I've also commented on your talk page about giving me a warning. Number 57 09:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't see that you are commenting as an administrator, and have struck the comment pertaining to the warning. Still, the motives of the complainant do not matter for the purpose of the question of whether the edit at issue violated the topic ban. Therefore, I think, any speculation about these motives is irrelevant here and can only serve to unnecessarily inflame tempers. As to the topic ban, it applies to all edits and does not differentiate between new additions and reverts, and so neither must we.  Sandstein  10:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • User:Number 57's comment provides background for the dispute and seems harmless. I agree that SPECIFICO's revert violates his topic ban. He has already responded above and claimed to be reverting vandalism. That seems incorrect. It's hard to see any reasonable response here short of a block of at least one month. The previous two-week block was due to a June 2014 appearance at AE. In that case he claimed to be unaware he was adding Mises-related material to an article. Topic bans work only for those who are willing to pay attention and follow them. So imposing a block as the next step seems like reasonable prevention. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, the remedy specified allows us to broaden the exception (as DS). I disagree with a one-month block, and instead propose that the TBAN of SPECIFICO is modified to include Austrian economics (i.e. SPECIFICO is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased.), exactly the same as the TBAN given to Steeletrap. - Penwhale | 22:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • No objection to that solution, either. The reason for this approach, in response to SPECIFICO's question, is that SPECIFICO appears to be unable or unwilling to recognize the borders of this relatively narrow topic ban, so widening it will make it easier for them to observe it.  Sandstein  07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree with Sandstein - Penwhale's suggestion seems reasonable, proportionate and clear. The TBAN violations by SPECIFICO above are very clear. The behaviour of Netoholic can and should be looked into too--Cailil 09:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    WeijiBaikeBianji

    No action, but all involved are advised to observe the relevant conduct policies.  Sandstein  08:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning WeijiBaikeBianji

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Deleet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    WeijiBaikeBianji (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
    Discretionary sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    This editor recently reverted the same article five times in six hours. These edits concern the authors of The Bell Curve, a well-known book related to race and intelligence.

    1. 14:39 Sep. 30
    2. 14:27 Oct. 1
    3. 18:57 Oct. 1
    4. 19:14 Oct. 1
    5. 20:37 Oct. 1
    6. 21:14 Oct. 1

    (I reverted his edit three times, so I won't be reverting him any more today.)

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    N/A

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on July 25
    • He has also notified many other editors of the discretionary sanctions in this topic area, most recently here: Sep 24, Sep 25
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This editor has claimed that including Charles Murray (author) in the hereditarianism article is a BLP violation, but it isn't. There are hundreds of sources that describe The Bell Curve as a hereditarian book, and its other author (Herrnstein) has always been listed there. WeijiBaikeBianji's edit caused the hereditarianism article to include one of The Bell Curve's two authors, but not the other.

    The reason I'm reporting this here, instead of at the edit warring noticeboard, is because I would like admins to address WeijiBaikeBianji's history of edit warring and advocacy over a long period. He also edit warred on the IQ and Global Inequality article a week ago, and made the same revert four times in 24 hours:

    1. 20:23 Sep. 25
    2. 20:31 Sep. 25
    3. 23:14 Sep. 25
    4. 13:10 Sep. 26

    He was warned by an admin for this in his user talk on September 26.

    WeijiBaikeBianji's edit warring in the race and intelligence topic was the subject on an RFC/U in 2010, which documented a case where he made the same change twenty-eight times, while being reverted by seven different editors. He does not appear to have learned from that, because he's resumed making the disputed changes within the past year:

    Other behavior/advocacy issues also need to be addressed. An early concern about his editing was his inserting allegations of white supremacism against living people in articles. An example of something similar from this year was this edit, where he removed all of the sources taking the perspective that race can be useful as a proxy for ancestry when determining the correct dosage for a patient. The same edit added quotes in support of his POV from several of the remaining sources, which is abnormal in a "further reading" section.

    This editor's advocacy often has been a source of conflict on race and intelligence articles. Here is an example from 2010, related to him renaming several articles at once without consensus. Here is an example from last month, related to him misusing sources on an article's talk page. This editor has consumed a lot of other editors' time over the past four years, so I request that admins try to address his behavior in the long term.

    @Sandstein:: Could you please also examine the other examples of behavior that I presented, and not only the most recent one? He was warned for edit warring on a different article in this topic a week ago, and this is similar to some of the conduct covered in the RFC/U about him. This report was meant to be about the long-term pattern of behavior, not only about the current dispute. Deleet (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    @Sandstein:: The talk page Talk:IQ and Global Inequality states that the article is covered by discretionary sanctions from the race and intelligence case. The edits where he resumed removing the human intelligence template, which was one of the actions covered in the RFC/U, are from December of last year. The edit to the further reading section of the race and health article is from April, and the thread in which multiple editors complained he was misusing the article talk page is from last month. Last month he also posted an identical thread on Talk:Race_and_intelligence, and Maunus removed it for the same reason.

    I'm not sure if I should use examples that require some knowledge of the source material, but these two edits, both from September 16, were also a problem. First he removed an entire section from the article, and next he removed several sentences of content cited to Earl Hunt's book Human Intelligence. The content he removed was well-sourced, and can be found in the book at Google books. He seems to have removed it only because he disagreed with it. There are things like this every few months, and the purpose of the older examples is just to show how long this has been happening. I haven't made an AE report before, so I didn't know it was necessary to have dates on all of the diffs. Deleet (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AWeijiBaikeBianji&diff=627896917&oldid=627634064

    Discussion concerning WeijiBaikeBianji

    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 WeijiBaikeBianji

    I'm trying to make sure that WP:BLP is correctly applied in controversial articles. I see that the latest edit to the article Hereditarianism is a section blanking by Maunus, essentially a self-revert of his previous edits there. I appreciate his concern, expressed in the edit summary, to ensure correct sourcing of the entire section, and indeed of the entire article. I had earlier this year noticed a very anomalous edit to that same article by an I.P. editor, which I reverted, assuming good faith, with an explanatory edit summary. I noted the WP:BLP policy after that I.P. continued to insert unsourced statements about living persons, which I again had to revert. Another I.P. editor (the same person?) restored some unsourced content in another section I had just removed, and I reminded that editor too about WP:BLP. The recent edits by the complainant here appear to be part of the same editing pattern about the same issues, and I have to ask why the complainant didn't simply provide a reliable source as he began editing.

    In August 2010, in the presence of all the arbitrators then working on the case for which enforcement of sanctions was requested here, I announced an intention to clean up articles when the case decision was finalized. Implementation of that intention has been opposed by "new" Wikipedians who were later found by the Arbitration Committee to be socks and puppets for the first several editors who were topic-banned or site-banned under this case. (Some of those incidents are described, from the instigators' point of view, in the recitation of background facts by the complainant here. Check the record of this case for the ban and block record of some of the editors with whom I have been accused of "edit-warring".) I continue in the intention of cleaning up the long-term mess that was left in dozens of articles by point-of-view pushers who were not (by ArbCom findings) seeking to build an encyclopedia. Building a reliable, well sourced encyclopedia is what I am here for. Naturally, I welcome comment from the arbitrators, from any administrators looking on, and from any of the rest of our fellow Wikipedians about how I can improve in my efforts to clean up and fix past article problems and help build a collaborative editing environment that increases volunteer participation in improving Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your kind attention to the details of the request here and to this response and to comments by others. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

    Reply to Sandstein's invitation to comment about reporter. Arbitrator Sandstein wrote, "I invite comment about whether the reporter, Deleet, shoult instead be sanctioned for repeatedly reverting to reinsert this unsourced controversial assertion about a living person." That's actually a good question, because the article edit history gave plenty of notice about the WP:BLP policy and I individually drew attention to that in a comment on Deleet's talk page and in a (refreshed) comment on the article talk page. There was plenty of notice about what to do (cite a reliable, secondary published source) in the page history of the article and in the page history of the article talk page. And, really, in general editors should own their edits and base those edits on reliable sources. Moreover, I try to make citing reliable sources easy for editors all over Misplaced Pages by compiling two sources lists, Intelligence Citations and Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, in user space for use by anyone.
    Not having any resources to investigate the matter further, I'll note here for the record that Deleet's laborious gathering of diffs from very old matters that are not representative of my contribution history (which includes expanding a former stub into a good article) suggests an attempt to waste ArbCom's time by speaking as a representative of editors who have already been sanctioned under this case, for instance the editors who initiated the RfC against me in 2010 that found no misconduct on my part. I have never been banned or blocked under any set of Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines, and I have cited appropriately (in IQ classification) some of the writers identified as "hereditarians" in the article now under dispute. I'm trying to be scholarly here per WP:NPOV. Perhaps Deleet's eagerness to take the point of view of editors who have been banned or blocked here is a basis for ArbCom to look into this matter more deeply, lest its case decisions be treated with contempt and derision by the editors to whom they are applied. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by Maunus

    For the record I disagree with Weiji's edits to the article, but believe he was acting within policy which does allow for aggressively removing possible libel - especially unsourced. Weiji clearly thought that this was a case in which libel was a possible issue. I think he was wrong, but since that is a subjective judgment I don't think his edit warring should be considered problematic. Secondly, the information he was removing was unsourced. Deleet (and myself) was reinserting obviously contested information without providing a source, which I guess we shouldnt have done since we were acting against policy. The best course of action from Weiji in my opinion would have been to either remove all of the unsourced section on "hereditarians" or provide a source (which I was able to do in ten minutes of google time). But on the other hand he was under no obligations to do so. The accusations of advocacy are in this case fairly suspect, given removing Murray from the list to protect him from possible libel, would tend to suggest a pov in favor of Murray - which is the opposite pov that Weiji has previously been associated with in AE requests. Given that Weiji is a seasoned editor and acted within policy, whereas Deleet is a new editor, himself with a clear POV agenda, who was not acting within policy (and has been inserting unsourced material in other articles), I believe that the best course of action would be to instruct user: Deleet on the sourcing policy and on the policy of edit-warring. Being a seasoned user, I don't personally have an excuse for reinserting contested unsourced material - except for the fact that I was able to provide sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by Volunteer Marek

    The edits appear to follow WP:BLP policy on inclusion of unsourced material and as such do not fall under the scope of either 3RR or even discretionary sanctions (I think, not clear on which one trumps which on that latter part). EVEN IF somehow this wasn't a BLP issue, it's pretty clear that WBB believed in GOOD FAITH that it was.  Volunteer Marek  15:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    Statement by The Devil's Advocate

    @Sandstein: IQ and Global Inequality is explicitly tagged on the talk page as being subject to discretionary sanctions under ARBR&I. Richard Lynn, the author of the work the article is about is well-known as a hereditarian concerning the race and intelligence debate and this work is widely seen as an extension of the debate, hence why the usual suspects on both sides such as Rushton and Nisbett make appearances in the reception section. If you need something a little clear then check the summary of Chapter 9 in the article, which says "discusses the genetic and environmental contributions to differences in national intelligence, and argues that racial composition of the population is a major factor."

    Another thing to note is an edit to the main R&I article that is cited above. The edit removes "A prominent proponent . . . is J. P. Rushton who has argued" and simply says "J. P. Rushton argued" instead. The former version implies numerous proponents, while the latter version seems to imply no other proponents. In the edit Weiji also removes material stating Earl Hunt, who seems to be regarded by most editors as an authoritative source on the subject, believes brain size differences could be an important argument for genetic causes. Given that the Nisbett et al material, which suggests that there is no genetic significance to brain size differences, is kept with no action by Weiji for weeks to address the matter further, it appears these changes were intended to remove reliably-sourced material and undermine the hereditarian perspective.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

    Result concerning WeijiBaikeBianji

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

    The question is whether WeijiBaikeBianji engaged in misconduct by repeatedly reverting to remove Charles Murray from a "list of notable hereditarians". I believe that they did not. The entry for Murray in that list was unsourced, and the article about Murray does not mention the word "hereditarian", let alone a source for that association. Hereditarianism is, according to the article about it, "the doctrine or school of thought that heredity plays a significant role in determining human nature and character traits, such as intelligence and personality." Because this appears to be a controversial position, any (contested) association of such a position with a living person requires good sourcing (edited to add: referenced in the article) per WP:BLP. WeijiBaikeBianji's reverts were therefore justified to remove this violation of the biography of living persons policy, and no sanctions are warranted against them. I invite comment about whether the reporter, Deleet, shoult instead be sanctioned for repeatedly reverting to reinsert this unsourced controversial assertion about a living person.  Sandstein  06:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    In response to Deleet, it's not clear to me that the reverts by WeijiBaikeBianji to IQ and Global Inequality relate to "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour" and are therefore covered by the discretionary sanctions. That book seems to be about average IQ by country, not by race or ethnicity. At any rate, WeijiBaikeBianji has already (correctly) received a warning for the edit-warring. The other diffs in the report are not dated but appear to be older than a year and are therefore not, on their own, actionable here.  Sandstein  13:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

    I agree with Sandstein's assessment on the Hereditarianism portion of the report. Regarding the other pieces:

    • The IQ and Global Inequality article history is rather a mess as people fought over the inclusion/exclusion of a map, and if we were to sanction people here there would be more than 1 person sanctioned;
    • The Race and intelligence edits are a bit awkward, but since I have no way of telling whether WeijiBaikeBianji removed on purpose or just never got back to it, I must assume that he just never got back to it.

    @Sandstein: some of the diffs provided are ~10 months old (some even older), so I agree that they would not be actionable here at this time. Suggest closure with no action at this time. - Penwhale | 04:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

    So done. However, I'd advise all who are involved in these disagreements to take care to observe the WP:BLP and WP:EW policies, and to observe proper dispute resolution procedure. Note to Deleet: I'm not an arbitrator.  Sandstein  08:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

    John Carter

    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 John Carter

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Howunusual (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    John Carter (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/CASENAME#SECTION :

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites_3#Remedies

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Date Historical & christian
    2. Date Historical & christian, and also unfair
    3. Date Related to religion
    4. Date Explanation

    "indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Ebionites, broadly construed."

    The Ebionites are an ancient Christian movement, according to Misplaced Pages: "a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era. They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity..."

    Being banned from a religious movement from the early centuries of the Christian era broadly construed means being banned from topics related to religion, or at least to Christianity, or at the very least to early Christianity.

    Topic ban policy: "...a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as: weather-related articles and lists, such as Wind"

    Also, the 2nd link I gave above seems pretty unfair. It is a notification on a Christian-interest page that like-minded members should go influence or monitor a Christian topic. That kind of thing is going to really distort the consensus process. And, obviously, no belief about Christianity in the minority will be able to compete.


    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Date Explanation
    2. Date Explanation
    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.
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
    • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
    • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:John_Carter#Topic_ban

    Discussion concerning John Carter

    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 John Carter

    Statement by (Howunusual)

    This is an odd comment: "The three diffs have to do with early Christianity, but they seem unconnected with the Ebionites."

    Ebionites are a form of early Christianity. I merely read the rules. A topic ban covers "'everything else related to {topic}."' Early Christianity is related to the topic very directly. In fact, religion is related to the topic very directly.

    You might as well assert some edits have to do with the wind, but seem unconnected with the weather...thus the example from the policy page is wrong. Howunusual (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

    Result concerning John Carter

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