Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clpo13 (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 6 December 2015 (→Statement by clpo13). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:52, 6 December 2015 by Clpo13 (talk | contribs) (→Statement by clpo13)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
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:

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 archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

S Marshall

QuackGuru is banned from articles in the Electronic Cigarettes topic area broadly contrued for six month. Spartaz 07:53, 29 November 2015 (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 S Marshall User who is submitting this request for enforcement QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested S Marshall (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 are explicitly extended for the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. Specifically, single purpose accounts may be topic banned or blocked (indefinite or otherwise), if in the view of an uninvolved administrator, they are being disruptive in the topic area.Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy; accounts whose primary purpose is disruption or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely; discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning. The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#E-cigs_case_closed See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 23#Removal. On 31 March 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear. On 20 April 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear. On 19 November 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear. The text about tobacco harm reduction was restored. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_25#New_Images. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#New_.22full_range.22_image_uploaded. SM deleted two images and replaced it with one image. The discussion was still ongoing. SM also deleted another image, but another editor disagreed. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safety_claim_in_Harm_reduction.. I did state it would be better to shorten the text. There was a discussion to relocate the text. The text was misplaced and it was eventually removed from the harm reduction section. I added some information to the safety section. SM stated my edit to the safety section was a "Rv pre-emptive Quackeditry". SM stated in the recent AFD that "it was used as a holder for all the semi-relevant junk that disruptive people kept adding to Electronic cigarette to make it conform to their notion of "balance".". SM was making assertions about me without supporting evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing complaint I cut and pasted the wrong remedy. I had a concern with the text about tobacco harm reduction was deleted three times. I could ask an uninvolved admin to review such complaints before I post them at a noticeboard such as this which would restrict myself from making complaints. In the future when someone makes an edit summary such as "Rv pre-emptive Quackeditry" or "No you don't, sunshine" or other such comments directed at me I should stop taking it too personally. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC) SM is making comments about my current editing without specific diffs. SM previously made comments about me without diffs. I will not know what is your current concern without the specifics. If I disagree with a change on the talk page that does not mean I am being problematic. I am going to start a RfC to try an resolve this dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC) This comment did not state the text about the different volts was previously in the lede. Before I started a RfC the information about different volts was in the lede of the safety page. I explained on the talk page the lede did not mention dry puffing. I clarified the wording in the lede. The RfC on the e-cig talk page is about summarising text in the e-cig. QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC) There are two separate pages. AlbinoFerret is not explaining the text was in the lede of the Safety page before there was a RfC and is not giving me credit that I clarified the wording in the lede. No editor at the Safety of electronic cigarettes page stated it should be removed from the page or the lede. In fact, AlbinoFerret has recently added a lot of content about the different volts to Safety of electronic cigarettes page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC) User:Spartaz, The RfC has been productive. Things are moving faster than I expected. There are different proposals and suggestions on the talk page. I supported the 3rd and 4th proposal. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#RfC:_reduced_volts_and_aldehydes. This is a very controversial topic and sources often disagree. The disagreement among sources is often the cause of the disputes in this topic area. I am not a former smoker or e-cig user. But I did add most of the new material to the e-cig page this year. Until the known unknowns are knowns there will remain a dispute among sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC) User:EdJohnston, you wrote "Edits by Quackguru are causing concern." Can you provide diffs? QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Diff of the notification. Discussion concerning S Marshall 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 S Marshall Hi, Arbitration Enforcement admins! Please investigate QuackGuru's complaints in full and give him latitude to raise new ones against me. I am completely out of patience with this user's ridiculous behaviour since the Arbcom case closed, so it's entirely possible that I've been rude to him.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC) If close this, it'll be back. QG's behaviour hasn't changed at all since the Arbcom case. In that case, a whole spectrum of problem behaviours came out: controlling; manipulative; editing the article and talk page with insane frequency; refusing change wherever possible; where a consensus is emerging that he doesn't like, making pre-emptive changes that partially implement what other editors are saying but without affecting text he's written; reverting subtly, in nickel-and-dime changes that end up restoring his preferred text over time; issuing spurious warnings to other editors; mischaracterising or misrepresenting others' edits; I could go on and on. QG has never admitted fault, has never acknowledged that there was anything wrong with his behaviour, and has never promised to change. And he hasn't changed one bit. I'm fairly bitter and disappointed that after a four-month Arbcom case, QG's still pulling these stunts exactly as if nothing had happened. It's this feeling which is making me snarky. I'd suggest that the resolution is this:- (1) QG admits -- actually articulates -- that his controlling behaviour in this topic area is problematic; (2) He promises to desist; (3) He agrees not to make pre-emptive edits, but to allow consensus to build on the talk page, and to allow the consensus text to go into the article without trying to undermine it later; and then (4) I promise to drop it and desist from the snark.—S Marshall T/C 20:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC) No, QuackGuru. Do not forum-shop by starting an RFC. You've tried to resolve this here, now finish resolving it here. If he starts an RfC then please would an AE enforcement admin close it. QG, you're asking me for diffs. Before I produce them, please confirm that you have read what Arbcom said to you with the appropriate care and attention but you still need me to produce diffs to show you specifically how and why your behaviour is problematic.—S Marshall T/C 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Well, this is completely out of order. So far, QG has started five discussions about this revert: 1 (my talk page); 2 (unilaterally adding me to AlbinoFerret's clarification and amendment page); 3 (starting e-cigs 2 in front of Arbcom); 4 (finally starting discussion in the right place, which is here) and now 5 (RfC when this discussion didn't go his way). On past form I predict that he will become unresponsive in this venue. I need an AE sysop please to close the forum-shopping RFC and bring QuackGuru back here to answer what I'm saying.—S Marshall T/C 11:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel: Whether they're the same disruptive behaviours is worth discussing. Arbcom specified five particular disruptive behaviours in remedy #3 which I'll paraphrase:- (1) Exhibiting a double-standard for sources; (2) and (3) are about gaming full-protection; (4) Edit warring; and (5) Opposing edits which he then makes. There were many other disruptive behaviours discussed while the case was ongoing. I do fully realise you can't treat every complaint editors have about QuackGuru as an arbitration enforcement issue, but I think that in context, Arbcom's list of problem behaviours should be understood as representative, not exhaustive. Awilley is the administrator who enforced AE restrictions against QuackGuru in connection with acupuncture, and he made a useful edit on the proposed decision talk page here. Awilley mentions inappropriate notifications as one of QG's problem behaviours ("For instance, the list of notifications at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Electronic_cigarettes seems inappropriate to me. In my mind it should be uninvolved administrators handing out the template notifications to involved problematic users, not involved users handing out the notifications to everyone who has ever made an edit to an e-cig related topic...") and within a scant few hours of the case closing, QuackGuru placed an inappropriate notification on my talk page. I have previously expressed a reluctance to come up with a laundry list of QuackGuru's problem behaviours and try to get him to stop them all, not least because (as Awilley notes), QG demonstrated in the Acupuncture topic area an ability comply with the exact letter of the restrictions he was placed under, without the disruption ever abating in any way. This is one of the reasons why I reacted as I did to QuackGuru's challenge to supply diffs. Foreseeably, I will come up with diffs of problematic behaviour and then QG will say "But Arbcom didn't say anything about that!", so I've reacted by asking QG to confirm his understanding of the case (a challenge which he has yet to address).—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Spartaz, the first thing that really got my back up was this edit two days after the Arbcom case closed, in which QG presumed to issue me with a "warning" for "edit warring". The actual pretext for this warning was that one of my edits on 19 November bore a vague resemblance to one of my edits from 31 March. (Yes, really. Go ahead and check the diffs he gives in the edit I just linked, see for yourself. I'll wait!) This was the same month when I had asked Arbcom not to topic-ban him, incidentally (and I was clearly wrong to do so and I regret that decision now). He's going for control of the article via chilling effect, which when directed at me is comically off-base but I bet it works with some other editors. I would suggest that your remedy includes a provision banning QuackGuru from issuing notifications or warnings of any kind to people who have edited in the topic area.—S Marshall T/C 18:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerret QG is misapplying the findings of the arbcom case. S Marshall is as far from an SPA per his edit history. Even if we were to double the 446 edits he has made in the area of all e-cig pages and the arbocom case, his total edits of 21,071 make the SPA possibilities a rather bad joke. Of note though is this finding from the case. "QuackGuru (talk · contribs) is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Misplaced Pages will result in further sanctions." One of the issues from the case is forcing his desired outcome on the page, and making edits to pre-empt changes while discussion is ongoing. AlbinoFerret 12:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC) As a NAC with over 200 closes, I can honestly say the RFC QG started is malformed. It consists of his preferred version with no questions. AlbinoFerret 08:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC) After now changing the RFC for I think the 4th time QG has a non neutral RFC question/statement that predisposes his preferred version in the header. This is the kind of behaviour that got him the arbcom warning and should be addressed here. AlbinoFerret 20:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC) @Rhoark, I dont think S Marsall suggested collecting diff's, I think he was referring to the massive amount of diff's I had already collected for ARCA. Most of which pre-date the Arbocom case closing so I dont believe can be used for AE. Due to the constant disruption QG causes, I wonder how many chances this editor will get. He has been banned numerous times and warned by arbcom. The comments of the arbs in this section are worth reading QuackGuru Warned. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC) QG started an RFC for the summery of Safety of Electronic cigarettes in the main article, and it appears that consensus is against him at this point. But he has already started to edit the changes to his preferred version on the Safety page. The Summery on the main article and the lede Safety page should be in sync as all other daughter pages. Editing the text now while the RFC is ongoing is pre empting the RFC. These are the type of problematic edits that arbcom has warned QG about. AlbinoFerret 03:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Here is some evidence of QG's editing from during the arbcom case, but after evidence closed, it should be applicable here. NPOV The first one is damning, it shows that QG has known for months that the claim he is pushing to have in the current RFC is the product of failed methodology. He is also pushing in the current RFC to keep out wording that shows it is the product of failed methodology. This is a NPOV problem that points to negative slant advocacy which most of the other diffs continue to prove. It also shows another problem, re-arguing things over and over till you get the results you want. On August 21, 2015 Johnbod started a section about the new review from Puublic health England showing that the review found "A high level of formaldehyde was found when e-liquid was over-heated to levels unpalatable to EC users". QG then defended his addition of the formaldehyde findings, sourced to the NEJM that the Public Health England on page 77 showing the failed methodology that the NEJM study used. His response was that he had changed it to balance it but the resulting edit "While high voltage (5.0 V) e-cigarettes may generate formaldehyde agents at a greater level than smoking, reduced voltage e-cigarettes generate negligible levels of formaldehyde" makes it sound like this is normal and the harm is the ecig, not the product of failed methodology. In fact QG was warned that the source was based on flawed methodology months before , with a link to a website of a known expert who had authored reviews used in the article, but it only made QG look for it all the more and do searches for it. This talk page section on the topic is a perfect example of QG arguing in circles and not really discussing the problem. Even after the problems with the NEJM article on formaldehyde have been pointed out and discussed.talk. QG placed the material in a position of prominence at the start of a paragraph in the lede. then added it to the Safety article . 9/14/2015 Talk page section on new sources, Johnbod points out that QG does not list positive ones. 9/18/2015 I changed a claim to reflect what the source actually said as discussed in this section. QG flagged it as a MERDS violation but QG was the person to add the claim originally. A talk page discussion was opened Talk:Electronic_cigarette#MEDRS_violation where it was pointed out that the edit by QG was OR trying to insert that it was either smokers looking for "alternatives" or of smokers as a whole. 10/11/2015 QG Replaces positive claim that e-cigarettes contain fewer toxic substances that tobacco cigarettes with one that says they contain lower levels of toxic substances. 10/14/2015 QG replaced formaldehyde with carcinogens. 10/28/2015 QG is against adding the NHS website when he has added other government websites. Moves the claim out of Harm reduction to bury it in the Position statements. this is also a possible competency issue. Cloudjpk shows up out of the blue and reverts what QG wants gone. then QG does a ref maintenance afterwards to stop easy undo. Ownership 9/21/2015 There was a discussion on creating a Regulation page with consensus to wait for the regulation from the FDA to be released. 9/23/2015 QG starts another discussion about breaking out Regulation from the Legal status page. Other editors suggest someone else, johnbod, write the article and that QG collect the sources. QG says he didnt have time to gather sources. Then QG without any other discussion or warning creates the page. Afterwards QG had the page speedy deleted rather than allowing other editors to fix the page. (Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk \| contribs) deleted page Talk:Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page) (Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk \| contribs) deleted page Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) 9/25/2015 The lede of the Construction of electronic cigarettes page was 4 paragraphs long. QG originally wrote the lede. I started a talk page section pn the articles talk page. QG argued against WP:LEADLENGTH and misrepresented the guideline and the articles size. calling it "well written". The lede at the time was a collection of claims jumbled together and did not read well. 11/3/2015 I brought a new source to the talk page to be discussed and figure out what can be added. QG prempted the discussion by editing it in. Compentcy 9/14/2015 QG wants to use a blog as a source. 9/14/2015 E-cigarettes are a battery and an atomizer anyone who has been involved for a day in the topic should know this does not need a reference. 9/21/2015 Requires a citation that an electronic device has a switch to activate it. 10/10/2015 Shows misunderstanding of WP:VER in that QG believes it says everything "must" be sourced. 11/2/2015 QG replaces 2015 review with a 2014 book to get the claim he wants. There is a mistake in the date, but this issue shows its a 2014 source. 11/10/2015 QG places a FV tag. then two minutes later removes the claim and substitutes source. There was no discussion, or description of what was wrong with the summery. The 10/28/2015 NPOV instance eerily mimics the events that led QG to be topic banned from Acupuncture. AlbinoFerret 21:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Spartaz would you also consider a clause against editing on topics under discussion to any e-cig page until the discussion has ended? The pages are very intertwined and making an edit on one effects the others. AlbinoFerret 14:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC) I would also like to point out that since being banned from Acupuncture in October , QuackGuru has become a SPA on e-cigarette topics with at least 90% of QG's edits in the topic or closely related topics like nicotine,contribs. As such he is also in violation of the SPA clause of the arbcom decision. AlbinoFerret 20:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark S Marshall recommended to AlbinoFerret that the latter collect diffs of evidence that QuackGuru tends to take pre-emptive action against proposals under discussion. QuackGuru takes pre-emptive action against this suggestion by filing a complaint against S Marshall for not having gathered the evidence himself. Admins should have zero patience for such antics. QuackGuru's block log suggests they will continue to be incorrigible. A one year topic ban would be a restrained response. Rhoark (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC) @AlbinoFerret: SM seemed to be specifically addressing incidents after the e-cig case closed, so I assume he meant something other than the diffs already collected. Not a key point. @Cla68: I have no involvement in this beyond the present filing. I'm not seeing prima facie disruption in the positions QuackGuru is taking on content issues, nor do I see it as a problem that QG started the RfC in parallel with this AE filing. The RfC is about content, while this should be about behavior. This filing itself, along with QC's block history is all I need to see to recognize disruption, but in any further evidence what would be important is patterns of disregarding or pre-empting consensus more than the fact they said this or that about e-cigs. Rhoark (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Cla68 I respectfully suggest to S Marshall, AlbinoFerret, and Rhoark that you take the topic in question off your watchlists and let QuackGuru have it to himself. Putting up with the nonsense that you're having to put up with is not worth the time it drains from your lives that you could be doing more fruitful and productive work elsewhere. Notice that the admins responding below aren't going to do anything to try to rein-in QuackGuru's behavior. So, just let him have the article(s). Just pop in to the article talk page and leave a comment or try to improve the text every few days or so and then don't pay attention to the inevitable revert or snarky response that immediately follows. This will have the effect of chaining QuackGuru to the article as he checks his watchlist every few minutes or so to make sure the article stays the way he wants it while the rest of you get on with your lives. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Mystery Wolff I would like to ask for help on this as it is ongoing. QuackGuru is going about reverting items for his point of view. I have spent a great deal of time researching some of these topics, and begun edits to make the pages much more accurate. Only to see those edits removed in mass by QuackGuru. When he edits he does it with very very little information in the Edit Summary. Most recently an article which had a rewritten conclusion from the source study...I went to the cite, and confirmed that information was not accurate to the conclusion of the researchers. I too the authors conclusions and word-smithed slightly to be used in the page. ONLY to have QuackGuru revert to his text, and claim in the TALK page that I was somehow putting in a copyright violation. I quoted the authors conclusion, of public study, and cited and credited the authors. That is not a copyright violation, I am sorry, it just is not. A journalist doing the same is also not violating a copyright. On another matter QuackGuru, took a study which indicated that Electronic Cigarettes in a standardized trial were shown to be AS effective as Nicotine Patches and other Nicotine replacement products. The cite actually shows they are more effective but the author was not comfortable with the as a full out statement, but that was his data. The that was in the Page said "Electronic Cigarettes have not been shown to be MORE effective than NRT patches. That is skewing and conflation. Repeated data within peer reviewed journals reflects the E-Cigs are AS effective. To assert they fail a bar, when that bar is not the part of the cite, is a problem. Some of the approved therapies are using powerful psychotropic medications that effect brain chemistry, that are black box warnings for suicide. So when something without risks of effecting dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine and their balance together in the brain, has efficacy on par with black box medications....its something to reflect. I have no issue with using the most current research, I have no issue with feedback on undue weight.....but I am very concerned by an aggressive OWNER of multiple pages like QuackGuru. HELP! Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning S Marshall This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. QuackGuru if you are going to relitigate the arb case again then I will simply close this as no action. Please remove all the historical stuff (the case closing is a bright line that deals with previous events entirely) . Also take out all the assertion and reformat this with exactly what the restriction is, why it was broken and diffs to both. You shouldn't need more than 3-4 lines max and that means that you don't need to rehash all your bad blood and history with this user, which is not only wearisome to read but suggests you are still carrying a grudge. Thanks. Spartaz 07:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC) It seems a bit pot and kettle for you to accuse SM of casting aspersions when you have been chasing a single edit of his while relitigating the case around AlbinoFerret's ARCA request, your own withdrawn RFAR and now AE - all the while the article talk page seems to be hosting an notably constructive discussion of the change that SM wants. As far as I can see, while the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, no restrictions have yet been made to normal editing (i. WP:BRD has not been disallowed on the article. Further, SM is not an SPA, nor was he made the subject of any personal sanctions nor was his conduct admonished by the committee. The same decision, however, admonished you for behaving disruptively and warned you that continuing this pattern could lead to further sanctions. Despite that, as soon as the case is over, you seem to be right back to the same disruptive behaviour. This seems very problematic to me. I do not think that we can possibly consider imposing any form of sanction for an editor who makes single edits and then proceeds to engage in civil and productive discussion on the article talk page to help establish a consensus on what the outcome should be. In fact, this kind of behaviour in a contested area is something that should be applauded. Indeed, it is your disruptive behaviour that is obstructing useful discussion. So let me be very clear QuackGuru, I am seriously considering whether you should be topic banned or forbidden from raising spurious noticeboard complaints in order to allow the other editors in this area to continue working towards a consensus on this article. Alternatively, you might wish to reconsider whether it might be more productive for you to stop personalising disputes with other editors and restrict yourself to discussing edits and content rather than pursuing the editors making the comments. I'd be very interested in any comments or thoughts you might have on this and, of course, those of other uninvolved admins. Spartaz 14:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC) QuackGuru That sounds like amn eminently sensible solution to me. S Marshall Cann you cut out the snarky edit summaries please? Waiting for further input before closing. Spartaz 19:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC) It would be good for another admin to pitch in.... Spartaz 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Tumbleweed.... I'll delay closing this until I have time to review the issues raised following my exchange with QuackGuru. Spartaz 14:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC) I apologise for the long delay in picking this up but its not the kind of thing you can look at in 5 minute chunks between RL commitments. I have had a look at the article talk page and article history. To be honest I'm not seeing a significant amount of disruption on the actual article - 1 revert by SM and partial changes but not something that reaches an actionable threshold on its own. However, is QG continues to misrepresent sources than that is a problem and I'd like to see a diff of that to consider further. That then leaves the forum shopping and disruption to talk page discussion. Both complaints appear well founded but given the recentness of the case and an arbitration decision not to ban QG from the article despite the finding of disruption, I'd be loath to down that route immediately without trying something intermediate first. This therefore suggests that we look at the following close. "QuakGuru is prohibited from raising complaints about editors they are in dispute with without first confirming with an uninvolved admin that their complaint is actionable. Further to this, QuackGuru may not raise a complaint about another editor in more than one forum for the edits/actions complained about. QuackGuru is also prohibited from disrupting or derailing talk page discussions for items that are already under active discussion. This means specifically that they cannot open a new section while another section is active, raise any RFCs on matters already being discussed unless there is an agreed consensus that one is required or make any edits to the article about material being discussed on the talk page unless there is a stated (i.e. written) consensus that they are applying". The latter restrictions are to prevent QG trying to control the focus of discussion on the article. My intent is that QG can edit elements that are not contentious and contribute within existing discussions about contentious elements on the talk page but cannot move or alter the discussion to their own agenda. If this does not work and QG continues to disrupt than I do think the next step is a topic ban. Leaving this here for a minimum of 24 hours for further discussion and comment. Spartaz 14:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC) If Quackguru is engaging in the same disruptive behavior less than a week after the closure of an ArbCom case where this behavior was noted in the findings, then a topic ban is the appropriate remedy. Gamaliel (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Edits by Quackguru are causing concern. I'll accept User:Spartaz' conclusion that there is enough bad behavior here to justify admin action. If so I recommend against issuing sanctions which are too complex. There is a risk of thousands of words of future discussion as to whether the exact letter of the complex sanction was infringed. If you want to do something short of an indef topic ban, consider banning Quackguru from the topic for six months. Spartaz has taken note of a well-founded complaint of "forum shopping and disruption to talk page discussion". A short ban would qualify as 'intermediate' per Spartaz's suggestion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC) I agree with Ed. Spartaz's idea is a well-intentioned attempt to get to the root of the problem, but I fear it will prompt more wikilawyering and AE filings. A topic ban, with an opportunity to appeal before the end of the ban should Quackguru attempt to articulate how they would approach the conflict differently, will allow an opportunity for this editor to reassess their behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Very well... I also accept the 6m topic ban but it should be all pages related to broadly construed. Spartaz 21:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru is banned from articles in the Electronic Cigarettes topic area broadly contrued for six month. Spartaz 07:53, 29 November 2015 (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 S Marshall

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: S Marshall (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 are explicitly extended for the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. Specifically, single purpose accounts may be topic banned or blocked (indefinite or otherwise), if in the view of an uninvolved administrator, they are being disruptive in the topic area.Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy; accounts whose primary purpose is disruption or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely; discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning. The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#E-cigs_case_closed

See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 23#Removal. On 31 March 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear. On 20 April 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear. On 19 November 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear. The text about tobacco harm reduction was restored.

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_25#New_Images. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#New_.22full_range.22_image_uploaded. SM deleted two images and replaced it with one image. The discussion was still ongoing. SM also deleted another image, but another editor disagreed.

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safety_claim_in_Harm_reduction.. I did state it would be better to shorten the text. There was a discussion to relocate the text. The text was misplaced and it was eventually removed from the harm reduction section. I added some information to the safety section. SM stated my edit to the safety section was a "Rv pre-emptive Quackeditry".

SM stated in the recent AFD that "it was used as a holder for all the semi-relevant junk that disruptive people kept adding to Electronic cigarette to make it conform to their notion of "balance".". SM was making assertions about me without supporting evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I cut and pasted the wrong remedy. I had a concern with the text about tobacco harm reduction was deleted three times. I could ask an uninvolved admin to review such complaints before I post them at a noticeboard such as this which would restrict myself from making complaints. In the future when someone makes an edit summary such as "Rv pre-emptive Quackeditry" or "No you don't, sunshine" or other such comments directed at me I should stop taking it too personally. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

SM is making comments about my current editing without specific diffs. SM previously made comments about me without diffs. I will not know what is your current concern without the specifics. If I disagree with a change on the talk page that does not mean I am being problematic. I am going to start a RfC to try an resolve this dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This comment did not state the text about the different volts was previously in the lede. Before I started a RfC the information about different volts was in the lede of the safety page. I explained on the talk page the lede did not mention dry puffing. I clarified the wording in the lede. The RfC on the e-cig talk page is about summarising text in the e-cig. QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There are two separate pages. AlbinoFerret is not explaining the text was in the lede of the Safety page before there was a RfC and is not giving me credit that I clarified the wording in the lede. No editor at the Safety of electronic cigarettes page stated it should be removed from the page or the lede. In fact, AlbinoFerret has recently added a lot of content about the different volts to Safety of electronic cigarettes page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Spartaz, The RfC has been productive. Things are moving faster than I expected. There are different proposals and suggestions on the talk page. I supported the 3rd and 4th proposal. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#RfC:_reduced_volts_and_aldehydes. This is a very controversial topic and sources often disagree. The disagreement among sources is often the cause of the disputes in this topic area. I am not a former smoker or e-cig user. But I did add most of the new material to the e-cig page this year. Until the known unknowns are knowns there will remain a dispute among sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, you wrote "Edits by Quackguru are causing concern." Can you provide diffs? QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of the notification.

Discussion concerning S Marshall

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 S Marshall

Hi, Arbitration Enforcement admins! Please investigate QuackGuru's complaints in full and give him latitude to raise new ones against me. I am completely out of patience with this user's ridiculous behaviour since the Arbcom case closed, so it's entirely possible that I've been rude to him.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

If close this, it'll be back. QG's behaviour hasn't changed at all since the Arbcom case. In that case, a whole spectrum of problem behaviours came out: controlling; manipulative; editing the article and talk page with insane frequency; refusing change wherever possible; where a consensus is emerging that he doesn't like, making pre-emptive changes that partially implement what other editors are saying but without affecting text he's written; reverting subtly, in nickel-and-dime changes that end up restoring his preferred text over time; issuing spurious warnings to other editors; mischaracterising or misrepresenting others' edits; I could go on and on. QG has never admitted fault, has never acknowledged that there was anything wrong with his behaviour, and has never promised to change. And he hasn't changed one bit.
I'm fairly bitter and disappointed that after a four-month Arbcom case, QG's still pulling these stunts exactly as if nothing had happened. It's this feeling which is making me snarky.
I'd suggest that the resolution is this:- (1) QG admits -- actually articulates -- that his controlling behaviour in this topic area is problematic; (2) He promises to desist; (3) He agrees not to make pre-emptive edits, but to allow consensus to build on the talk page, and to allow the consensus text to go into the article without trying to undermine it later; and then (4) I promise to drop it and desist from the snark.—S Marshall T/C 20:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, QuackGuru. Do not forum-shop by starting an RFC. You've tried to resolve this here, now finish resolving it here. If he starts an RfC then please would an AE enforcement admin close it.
QG, you're asking me for diffs. Before I produce them, please confirm that you have read what Arbcom said to you with the appropriate care and attention but you still need me to produce diffs to show you specifically how and why your behaviour is problematic.—S Marshall T/C 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this is completely out of order. So far, QG has started five discussions about this revert: 1 (my talk page); 2 (unilaterally adding me to AlbinoFerret's clarification and amendment page); 3 (starting e-cigs 2 in front of Arbcom); 4 (finally starting discussion in the right place, which is here) and now 5 (RfC when this discussion didn't go his way). On past form I predict that he will become unresponsive in this venue.
I need an AE sysop please to close the forum-shopping RFC and bring QuackGuru back here to answer what I'm saying.—S Marshall T/C 11:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Whether they're the same disruptive behaviours is worth discussing. Arbcom specified five particular disruptive behaviours in remedy #3 which I'll paraphrase:- (1) Exhibiting a double-standard for sources; (2) and (3) are about gaming full-protection; (4) Edit warring; and (5) Opposing edits which he then makes. There were many other disruptive behaviours discussed while the case was ongoing. I do fully realise you can't treat every complaint editors have about QuackGuru as an arbitration enforcement issue, but I think that in context, Arbcom's list of problem behaviours should be understood as representative, not exhaustive.
Awilley is the administrator who enforced AE restrictions against QuackGuru in connection with acupuncture, and he made a useful edit on the proposed decision talk page here. Awilley mentions inappropriate notifications as one of QG's problem behaviours ("For instance, the list of notifications at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Electronic_cigarettes seems inappropriate to me. In my mind it should be uninvolved administrators handing out the template notifications to involved problematic users, not involved users handing out the notifications to everyone who has ever made an edit to an e-cig related topic...") and within a scant few hours of the case closing, QuackGuru placed an inappropriate notification on my talk page.
I have previously expressed a reluctance to come up with a laundry list of QuackGuru's problem behaviours and try to get him to stop them all, not least because (as Awilley notes), QG demonstrated in the Acupuncture topic area an ability comply with the exact letter of the restrictions he was placed under, without the disruption ever abating in any way.
This is one of the reasons why I reacted as I did to QuackGuru's challenge to supply diffs. Foreseeably, I will come up with diffs of problematic behaviour and then QG will say "But Arbcom didn't say anything about that!", so I've reacted by asking QG to confirm his understanding of the case (a challenge which he has yet to address).—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz, the first thing that really got my back up was this edit two days after the Arbcom case closed, in which QG presumed to issue me with a "warning" for "edit warring". The actual pretext for this warning was that one of my edits on 19 November bore a vague resemblance to one of my edits from 31 March. (Yes, really. Go ahead and check the diffs he gives in the edit I just linked, see for yourself. I'll wait!)
This was the same month when I had asked Arbcom not to topic-ban him, incidentally (and I was clearly wrong to do so and I regret that decision now). He's going for control of the article via chilling effect, which when directed at me is comically off-base but I bet it works with some other editors. I would suggest that your remedy includes a provision banning QuackGuru from issuing notifications or warnings of any kind to people who have edited in the topic area.—S Marshall T/C 18:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret

QG is misapplying the findings of the arbcom case. S Marshall is as far from an SPA per his edit history. Even if we were to double the 446 edits he has made in the area of all e-cig pages and the arbocom case, his total edits of 21,071 make the SPA possibilities a rather bad joke. Of note though is this finding from the case. "QuackGuru (talk · contribs) is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Misplaced Pages will result in further sanctions." One of the issues from the case is forcing his desired outcome on the page, and making edits to pre-empt changes while discussion is ongoing. AlbinoFerret 12:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

As a NAC with over 200 closes, I can honestly say the RFC QG started is malformed. It consists of his preferred version with no questions. AlbinoFerret 08:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

After now changing the RFC for I think the 4th time QG has a non neutral RFC question/statement that predisposes his preferred version in the header. This is the kind of behaviour that got him the arbcom warning and should be addressed here. AlbinoFerret 20:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark, I dont think S Marsall suggested collecting diff's, I think he was referring to the massive amount of diff's I had already collected for ARCA. Most of which pre-date the Arbocom case closing so I dont believe can be used for AE. Due to the constant disruption QG causes, I wonder how many chances this editor will get. He has been banned numerous times and warned by arbcom. The comments of the arbs in this section are worth reading QuackGuru Warned. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

QG started an RFC for the summery of Safety of Electronic cigarettes in the main article, and it appears that consensus is against him at this point. But he has already started to edit the changes to his preferred version on the Safety page. The Summery on the main article and the lede Safety page should be in sync as all other daughter pages. Editing the text now while the RFC is ongoing is pre empting the RFC. These are the type of problematic edits that arbcom has warned QG about. AlbinoFerret 03:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is some evidence of QG's editing from during the arbcom case, but after evidence closed, it should be applicable here.

NPOV

The first one is damning, it shows that QG has known for months that the claim he is pushing to have in the current RFC is the product of failed methodology. He is also pushing in the current RFC to keep out wording that shows it is the product of failed methodology. This is a NPOV problem that points to negative slant advocacy which most of the other diffs continue to prove. It also shows another problem, re-arguing things over and over till you get the results you want.

On August 21, 2015 Johnbod started a section about the new review from Puublic health England showing that the review found "A high level of formaldehyde was found when e-liquid was over-heated to levels unpalatable to EC users". QG then defended his addition of the formaldehyde findings, sourced to the NEJM that the Public Health England on page 77 showing the failed methodology that the NEJM study used. His response was that he had changed it to balance it but the resulting edit "While high voltage (5.0 V) e-cigarettes may generate formaldehyde agents at a greater level than smoking, reduced voltage e-cigarettes generate negligible levels of formaldehyde" makes it sound like this is normal and the harm is the ecig, not the product of failed methodology. In fact QG was warned that the source was based on flawed methodology months before , with a link to a website of a known expert who had authored reviews used in the article, but it only made QG look for it all the more and do searches for it.
- This talk page section on the topic is a perfect example of QG arguing in circles and not really discussing the problem.
- Even after the problems with the NEJM article on formaldehyde have been pointed out and discussed.talk. QG placed the material in a position of prominence at the start of a paragraph in the lede. then added it to the Safety article .
9/14/2015 Talk page section on new sources, Johnbod points out that QG does not list positive ones.
9/18/2015 I changed a claim to reflect what the source actually said as discussed in this section. QG flagged it as a MERDS violation but QG was the person to add the claim originally. A talk page discussion was opened Talk:Electronic_cigarette#MEDRS_violation where it was pointed out that the edit by QG was OR trying to insert that it was either smokers looking for "alternatives" or of smokers as a whole.
10/11/2015 QG Replaces positive claim that e-cigarettes contain fewer toxic substances that tobacco cigarettes with one that says they contain lower levels of toxic substances.
10/14/2015 QG replaced formaldehyde with carcinogens.
10/28/2015 QG is against adding the NHS website when he has added other government websites. Moves the claim out of Harm reduction to bury it in the Position statements. this is also a possible competency issue. Cloudjpk shows up out of the blue and reverts what QG wants gone. then QG does a ref maintenance afterwards to stop easy undo.

Ownership

9/21/2015 There was a discussion on creating a Regulation page with consensus to wait for the regulation from the FDA to be released. 9/23/2015 QG starts another discussion about breaking out Regulation from the Legal status page. Other editors suggest someone else, johnbod, write the article and that QG collect the sources. QG says he didnt have time to gather sources. Then QG without any other discussion or warning creates the page.
- - Afterwards QG had the page speedy deleted rather than allowing other editors to fix the page.
    - (Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
    - (Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)
9/25/2015 The lede of the Construction of electronic cigarettes page was 4 paragraphs long. QG originally wrote the lede. I started a talk page section pn the articles talk page. QG argued against WP:LEADLENGTH and misrepresented the guideline and the articles size. calling it "well written". The lede at the time was a collection of claims jumbled together and did not read well.
11/3/2015 I brought a new source to the talk page to be discussed and figure out what can be added. QG prempted the discussion by editing it in.

Compentcy

9/14/2015 QG wants to use a blog as a source.
9/14/2015 E-cigarettes are a battery and an atomizer anyone who has been involved for a day in the topic should know this does not need a reference.
9/21/2015 Requires a citation that an electronic device has a switch to activate it.
10/10/2015 Shows misunderstanding of WP:VER in that QG believes it says everything "must" be sourced.
11/2/2015 QG replaces 2015 review with a 2014 book to get the claim he wants. There is a mistake in the date, but this issue shows its a 2014 source.
11/10/2015 QG places a FV tag. then two minutes later removes the claim and substitutes source. There was no discussion, or description of what was wrong with the summery.

The 10/28/2015 NPOV instance eerily mimics the events that led QG to be topic banned from Acupuncture. AlbinoFerret 21:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz would you also consider a clause against editing on topics under discussion to any e-cig page until the discussion has ended? The pages are very intertwined and making an edit on one effects the others. AlbinoFerret 14:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that since being banned from Acupuncture in October , QuackGuru has become a SPA on e-cigarette topics with at least 90% of QG's edits in the topic or closely related topics like nicotine,contribs. As such he is also in violation of the SPA clause of the arbcom decision. AlbinoFerret 20:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark

S Marshall recommended to AlbinoFerret that the latter collect diffs of evidence that QuackGuru tends to take pre-emptive action against proposals under discussion.
QuackGuru takes pre-emptive action against this suggestion by filing a complaint against S Marshall for not having gathered the evidence himself.

Admins should have zero patience for such antics. QuackGuru's block log suggests they will continue to be incorrigible. A one year topic ban would be a restrained response. Rhoark (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: SM seemed to be specifically addressing incidents after the e-cig case closed, so I assume he meant something other than the diffs already collected. Not a key point.

@Cla68: I have no involvement in this beyond the present filing.

I'm not seeing prima facie disruption in the positions QuackGuru is taking on content issues, nor do I see it as a problem that QG started the RfC in parallel with this AE filing. The RfC is about content, while this should be about behavior. This filing itself, along with QC's block history is all I need to see to recognize disruption, but in any further evidence what would be important is patterns of disregarding or pre-empting consensus more than the fact they said this or that about e-cigs. Rhoark (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

I respectfully suggest to S Marshall, AlbinoFerret, and Rhoark that you take the topic in question off your watchlists and let QuackGuru have it to himself. Putting up with the nonsense that you're having to put up with is not worth the time it drains from your lives that you could be doing more fruitful and productive work elsewhere. Notice that the admins responding below aren't going to do anything to try to rein-in QuackGuru's behavior. So, just let him have the article(s). Just pop in to the article talk page and leave a comment or try to improve the text every few days or so and then don't pay attention to the inevitable revert or snarky response that immediately follows. This will have the effect of chaining QuackGuru to the article as he checks his watchlist every few minutes or so to make sure the article stays the way he wants it while the rest of you get on with your lives. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mystery Wolff

I would like to ask for help on this as it is ongoing. QuackGuru is going about reverting items for his point of view. I have spent a great deal of time researching some of these topics, and begun edits to make the pages much more accurate. Only to see those edits removed in mass by QuackGuru. When he edits he does it with very very little information in the Edit Summary.

Most recently an article which had a rewritten conclusion from the source study...I went to the cite, and confirmed that information was not accurate to the conclusion of the researchers. I too the authors conclusions and word-smithed slightly to be used in the page. ONLY to have QuackGuru revert to his text, and claim in the TALK page that I was somehow putting in a copyright violation. I quoted the authors conclusion, of public study, and cited and credited the authors. That is not a copyright violation, I am sorry, it just is not. A journalist doing the same is also not violating a copyright.

On another matter QuackGuru, took a study which indicated that Electronic Cigarettes in a standardized trial were shown to be AS effective as Nicotine Patches and other Nicotine replacement products. The cite actually shows they are more effective but the author was not comfortable with the as a full out statement, but that was his data. The that was in the Page said "Electronic Cigarettes have not been shown to be MORE effective than NRT patches. That is skewing and conflation. Repeated data within peer reviewed journals reflects the E-Cigs are AS effective. To assert they fail a bar, when that bar is not the part of the cite, is a problem. Some of the approved therapies are using powerful psychotropic medications that effect brain chemistry, that are black box warnings for suicide. So when something without risks of effecting dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine and their balance together in the brain, has efficacy on par with black box medications....its something to reflect. I have no issue with using the most current research, I have no issue with feedback on undue weight.....but I am very concerned by an aggressive OWNER of multiple pages like QuackGuru.

HELP! Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning S Marshall

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

QuackGuru if you are going to relitigate the arb case again then I will simply close this as no action. Please remove all the historical stuff (the case closing is a bright line that deals with previous events entirely) . Also take out all the assertion and reformat this with exactly what the restriction is, why it was broken and diffs to both. You shouldn't need more than 3-4 lines max and that means that you don't need to rehash all your bad blood and history with this user, which is not only wearisome to read but suggests you are still carrying a grudge. Thanks. Spartaz 07:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- It seems a bit pot and kettle for you to accuse SM of casting aspersions when you have been chasing a single edit of his while relitigating the case around AlbinoFerret's ARCA request, your own withdrawn RFAR and now AE - all the while the article talk page seems to be hosting an notably constructive discussion of the change that SM wants. As far as I can see, while the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, no restrictions have yet been made to normal editing (i. WP:BRD has not been disallowed on the article. Further, SM is not an SPA, nor was he made the subject of any personal sanctions nor was his conduct admonished by the committee. The same decision, however, admonished you for behaving disruptively and warned you that continuing this pattern could lead to further sanctions. Despite that, as soon as the case is over, you seem to be right back to the same disruptive behaviour. This seems very problematic to me. I do not think that we can possibly consider imposing any form of sanction for an editor who makes single edits and then proceeds to engage in civil and productive discussion on the article talk page to help establish a consensus on what the outcome should be. In fact, this kind of behaviour in a contested area is something that should be applauded. Indeed, it is your disruptive behaviour that is obstructing useful discussion. So let me be very clear QuackGuru, I am seriously considering whether you should be topic banned or forbidden from raising spurious noticeboard complaints in order to allow the other editors in this area to continue working towards a consensus on this article. Alternatively, you might wish to reconsider whether it might be more productive for you to stop personalising disputes with other editors and restrict yourself to discussing edits and content rather than pursuing the editors making the comments. I'd be very interested in any comments or thoughts you might have on this and, of course, those of other uninvolved admins. Spartaz 14:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  - QuackGuru That sounds like amn eminently sensible solution to me. S Marshall Cann you cut out the snarky edit summaries please? Waiting for further input before closing. Spartaz 19:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    - It would be good for another admin to pitch in.... Spartaz 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
      - Tumbleweed.... I'll delay closing this until I have time to review the issues raised following my exchange with QuackGuru. Spartaz 14:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
        I apologise for the long delay in picking this up but its not the kind of thing you can look at in 5 minute chunks between RL commitments. I have had a look at the article talk page and article history. To be honest I'm not seeing a significant amount of disruption on the actual article - 1 revert by SM and partial changes but not something that reaches an actionable threshold on its own. However, is QG continues to misrepresent sources than that is a problem and I'd like to see a diff of that to consider further. That then leaves the forum shopping and disruption to talk page discussion. Both complaints appear well founded but given the recentness of the case and an arbitration decision not to ban QG from the article despite the finding of disruption, I'd be loath to down that route immediately without trying something intermediate first. This therefore suggests that we look at the following close. "QuakGuru is prohibited from raising complaints about editors they are in dispute with without first confirming with an uninvolved admin that their complaint is actionable. Further to this, QuackGuru may not raise a complaint about another editor in more than one forum for the edits/actions complained about. QuackGuru is also prohibited from disrupting or derailing talk page discussions for items that are already under active discussion. This means specifically that they cannot open a new section while another section is active, raise any RFCs on matters already being discussed unless there is an agreed consensus that one is required or make any edits to the article about material being discussed on the talk page unless there is a stated (i.e. written) consensus that they are applying". The latter restrictions are to prevent QG trying to control the focus of discussion on the article. My intent is that QG can edit elements that are not contentious and contribute within existing discussions about contentious elements on the talk page but cannot move or alter the discussion to their own agenda. If this does not work and QG continues to disrupt than I do think the next step is a topic ban. Leaving this here for a minimum of 24 hours for further discussion and comment. Spartaz 14:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  - If Quackguru is engaging in the same disruptive behavior less than a week after the closure of an ArbCom case where this behavior was noted in the findings, then a topic ban is the appropriate remedy. Gamaliel (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    - Edits by Quackguru are causing concern. I'll accept User:Spartaz' conclusion that there is enough bad behavior here to justify admin action. If so I recommend against issuing sanctions which are too complex. There is a risk of thousands of words of future discussion as to whether the exact letter of the complex sanction was infringed. If you want to do something short of an indef topic ban, consider banning Quackguru from the topic for six months. Spartaz has taken note of a well-founded complaint of "forum shopping and disruption to talk page discussion". A short ban would qualify as 'intermediate' per Spartaz's suggestion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
      - I agree with Ed. Spartaz's idea is a well-intentioned attempt to get to the root of the problem, but I fear it will prompt more wikilawyering and AE filings. A topic ban, with an opportunity to appeal before the end of the ban should Quackguru attempt to articulate how they would approach the conflict differently, will allow an opportunity for this editor to reassess their behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
        Very well... I also accept the 6m topic ban but it should be all pages related to broadly construed. Spartaz 21:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

HughD

Request concerning HughD

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Champaign Supernova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#Tea_Party_movement:

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

Date November 30 Makes minor edit to Watchdog.org, a project of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a family of pages which HughD was blocked for one week for editing in October
November 30 Makes substantial reversion of disputed content on Watchdog.org
November 30 Makes another substantial reversion of disputed content on Watchdog.org
November 30 Makes substantial edits to the Clarion Project, including section where funding by Donors Capital Fund is discussed. HughD has been told repeatedly to avoid editing content with connection to Donors Capital Fund, as the Fund has received money from the Koch brothers and he is banned from editing content related to them.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

August 28 HughD topic-banned from "any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, for one year."
October 11 After AE request, HughD warned that "further violations of the TBAN will likely result in a block (even if just minor)."
October 29 HughD blocked for one week "following editing on Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity." An appeal of this block was declined at AE .

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

HughD has repeatedly shown that he is not capable of editing within the confines of his discretionary editing ban related to the Kochs/Tea Party. His repeated failure to comply with the sanctions against him suggests that he should be banned from editing all of post-1942 U.S. politics. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand from the helpful comments on this complaint from various administrators that an article must explicitly state a connection to a topic-banned area in order to be considered a violation. Per SafeHaven's suggestion below, I believe I removed any shadow of a doubt regarding a Tea Party/Koch connection to Watchdog.org with this edit . Hugh is, however, still editing the article. I don't know how much clearer a connection can be than "Watchdog.org represented the largest media investment to date for Charles and David Koch." If an editor banned from Koch-related articles continues to edit an article representing the Koch's largest media investment, I'm not sure what the point of such a topic ban is. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning HughD

Statement by HughD

No violation of topic ban. Sad, pointed, harassing retread of previous failed request for enforcement. Hugh (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC) A content dispute improperly escalated to AE; respectfully request involved editors to return to the article talk page in good faith. No disruptive edits reported. No boundary testing; our project's articles Watchdog.org and Clarion Project are clearly out of scope. Respectfully request decline again. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

In evaluating this complaint readers are respectfully requested to note that the April 22, 2013 Columbia Journalism Review article cited by commenting involved editor Safehaven86 below is not currently included in our project's article on Watchdog.org, nor is it involved in any of the edits cited above by complainant. Please also note that on 10 July 2013 a fellow editor added a connection to the Kochs to our project's article Watchdog.org, supported by that very source, and the commenting involved editor Safehaven86 deleted it within minutes with an edit summary of WP:SYNTH, then today comes before our project's arbiters claiming a connection sufficient for enforcement. Hugh (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Safehaven86

Hugh has been given more than enough chances to show that he can meaningfully comply with his topic ban. See User talk:HughD#Editing ban, User talk:HughD#One week block for violation of topic ban, User talk:HughD#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HughD, User talk:HughD#Draft WP:TBAN addition, and numerous discussions at User talk:Ricky81682. The ins and outs of the ban have been discussed at length, and it has been made clear to Hugh that he should not touch articles broadly defined in the Tea Party/Koch Bros realm. Whether the topic ban is too confusing because it is a unique and individualized ban or whether Hugh is willfully disregarding it doesn't really matter at this point--he's been given enough warnings and explanations. I agree that a broader ban is in order. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

He was banned for one week for editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity because of that group's Koch connection. Watchdog.org is the main project of the Franklin Center. If the Franklin Center was found to be in scope of the ban, it only seems logical that Watchdog.org would be, too. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, that makes sense. I think the issue at hand here is that while it doesn't currently appear that any Koch-related material is in the Watchdog.org article, there does seem to be a connection. See this Columbia Journalism Review article, which says "But there is a key clue to the Koch brothers’ vision of the media— the Kochs’ leading media investment to date, an ambitious right-leaning investigative outlet called the Franklin Center and its watchdog.org network..." So I guess the question is, does an article need to explicitly state a connection to Tea Party/Koch to be in violation of the topic ban, or does there just need to be a connection that a reasonable person could ascertain through basic research, whether or not such a connection is stated on the page? I don't know the answer to that. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Arthur Rubin

In his previous violations, he has made it clear by his edits that he believes that the article is related to the Kochs, whether or not that is actually the case. Objective analysis as to the degree of the relationship was unnecessary. Here, it seems more complicated. I'm not saying I think Hugh is a constructive editor of a benefit to Misplaced Pages; just that an objective analysis of politics, basically a subjective field, may be required to determine whether he's violated his TBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In other words, many of his previous blocks were for making an edit to an article where he had previously made a Koch-related edit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

Looking at some of the diffs, it looks like a "simple" content dispute not a edit war. And the claim of tea party or Koch brothers topic ban seems too far, after all anything can then be claimed to be relevant to the topic by guilty by association. It seems to be that this is just a content dispute and other means should be used to resole before ARBCOM decides to banhammer someone. Sir Joseph 18:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning HughD

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

I'm not a fan of HughD's boundary pushing, but the edits in question have absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party or the Koch Brothers as far as I can see. There are a limit to topic bans. For example, editors topic banned in the American Politics case are allowed to edit articles regarding climate change, despite the fact that climate change is a hot button issue in American politics. Perhaps HughD should be topic banned from American Politics (and there is certainly merit to this viewpoint as he demonstrates a clear battleground mentality), but a more limited Tea Party/Koch Brothers topic ban should not be treated as a de facto American Politics topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I assume that Safehaven86 is referring to User_talk:HughD#One_week_block_for_violation_of_topic_ban when they say that "He was banned for one week for editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity because of that group's Koch connection." What I see there is Ricky81682 blocking for making very specific edits that involve the Kochs ("You added content that specifically refers to the Koch brothers"). Edits to Watchdog.org (this, this, and this) do not seem to involve the Kochs at all. What I see is some slippage here, by Safehaven and by the complainant, Champaign Supernova, from "making a Koch edit in an article" to "making an edit in a Koch article"--that is, and I'm citing the complaint here, "following editing on Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity", the accusation was incomplete, and should have said "following Koch-related editing etc." Likewise, I don't see anything that violates the topic ban in this edit: HughD wasn't banned from editing that article either. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Safehaven86, you have a point, and one or two of the ~~fools~~ ~~suckers~~ reverend editors running for ArbCom have pointed in that direction also--the direction being "broadly construed". One could construe this topic ban broadly but since the connection with Koch is really, really tenuous in those edits, "broadly construed" practically extends to, as Gamaliel points out, "a de facto American Politics topic ban" (good thing Gamaliel isn't running for ArbCom--he has too much common sense) and that's stretching the original topic ban too far. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ollie231213

Request concerning Ollie231213

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ollie231213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 :

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

Ollie231213's conduct at various AFD discussions is bordering into uncivil territory with numerous personal attacks. There has been numerous circular and odd policy debates that Ollie has created and required for months, few of which has improved anyone else's experience here.

December 4, 2015 "Legacypac, I'm sorry that you don't have basic critical thinking or research skills"]
December 4, 2015 Statement that "Not every bit of information in every source has to have citations. The original research has to be done somewhere." shows a fundamental misunderstanding of policy here.
August 2015 RFC Extensively long RFC arguing whether the GRG should get its own treatment as some "super reliable" source shows again problems with policy understanding.
November 3, 2015 "And again, why don't you try educating yourself on the subject at hand." as part of the extensively long RFC about whether to include succession boxes in longevity biographies.

Evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Ollie communicated at the motion to request reinstatement of discretionary sanctions and Talk:Yukichi Chuganji is using Template:WikiProject World's Oldest People which automatically includes a sanctions notice on the page. Ollie also extensively communicates at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People which has the same notice.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I simply think the editor would benefit from working away from WOP article and away from the flaws there. These repeated AFDs are getting heated (which isn't Ollie's fault) but at least a warning and a discussion would be helpful.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Diff

Discussion concerning Ollie231213

Statement by Ollie231213

Firstly, I apologise for being uncivil in a couple of instances. However, please understand my frustration when being faced by pro-deletion arguments which are based on both a poor understanding of the subject in hand and Misplaced Pages policy. The post I was replying to is a deletion argument which is original research and contains false assertions. Note that other users have challenged similar comments from Legacypac elsewhere.

Secondly, point number 2 is a misinterpretation of what I meant. I meant that not every bit of information in the sources themselves has to have citations, not the information in Misplaced Pages.

Thirdly, Ricky was an involved editor in the RFC mentioned above, and actually, in that discussion I argued that not all sources should be given the same weight, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ollie231213

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

WP:ACDS specifically states that participating at WP:AE and WP:RFAR counts as awareness for policy purposes. I would think that since WP:ARCA is a subpage of WP:RFAR, that would qualify. I will add a proper alert notice to this editor's talk page in any case. Gamaliel (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Realskeptic

Realskeptic indefinitely banned on Misplaced Pages from the topics of autism and vaccination. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2015 (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 Realskeptic User who is submitting this request for enforcement NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Realskeptic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Nov 16, 2015 Edit summary shows attitude to sourcing Nov 17, 2015 Fourth unblock request failing to get the point Nov 17, 2015 More failure to get the point Dec 5, 2015 Obvious declaration to push a fringe theory Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Nov 4, 2015 Edit warring on autism related material Nov 15, 2015 Edit warring to significantly soften description of Wakefield's fraudulent study. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Nov 4, 2015 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 Looking through Realskeptic's contribution history, one quickly realizes that they're here to promote the idea that the 'autism-vaccine link is not "fringe" or "anti-vaccine"; the consensus against it is not a scientific consensus' Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Realskeptic 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 Realskeptic 1. I cited Statesman Journal, which meets WP:RS. I am not sure what the complaining admin's issue is with this. I do not believe "anti-vaccination" is justified as it is a WP:NPOV violation. 2. I wanted an admin to address the substance of my original unblock appeal, but the first reviewing admin refused to do so and instead failed to assume good faith on my part because of a misunderstanding I had about sourcing with another editor, for which I apologized. I stopped appealing after the last reviewing admin suggested I would be blocked longer if I continued appealing. So I did not. The admin who blocked me for a week later admitted to making reverts to my page in breach of WP:BLANKING, and accused me of edit-warring after I called out another admin for wikihounding my edits 3. That referred to my concerns about Washington Post and LA Times' independence from the CDC, for which an admin admitted I was right despite disagreeing with me that it was a problem: "Journalists being taught how to properly report on medical news? Must be a conspiracy...You're going to need a very, very good source suggesting malfeasance on the CDC's part, not simply that they work with journalists." My point was that these mainstream newspapers simply lacked the independence that should be expected of the press. Nonetheless, the complaining admin used this to comment on the contributor instead of the content. 4. My response here following my responses to the initial threatening admin on a talk page in which he asked for reliable sources that significantly disputed what he claimed was the scientific consensus on thimerosal and autism. I delivered on this request. He has yet to respond. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Editing activity: 1. I admitted to lack of complete knowledge about 3RR rule. Nonetheless, following the editor's next revert, I updated the source to a more reliable one that was not self-published on the reverting editor's request. Yet it was reverted again not for being an unreliable source per wikipedia policies, but for being "anti-vaccine propaganda" - proving the editor is POV pushing as opposed to following Misplaced Pages guidelines. 2. My edits here referred to edits that collectively took issue with gross WP:BLP violations, particularly WP:BLPCRIME as the article currently makes accusations against the subject that he has either never been fully charged with or that have been overturned on appeal. I discuss on the talk page. There is a faction of editors who clearly despise the subject and wanted the subject's bio to reflect their hatred for him - including the admin calling for my sanctioning. The complaining admin engaged in edit-warring. When I started a thread on the talk page to discuss edits, the complaining admin instead used it as an opportunity to get me blocked as a punitive measure. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Additional comments: I will appeal any sanction taken. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by BullRangifer RealSkeptic keeps on demonstrating his extreme POV pushing. The latest example is a clear example of IDHT. In response to a nice request by Kolbasz to get him to stop the battlefield discussion behavior and make a constructive edit suggestion, he replied with this IDHT reply. I then commented as follows: "So after all this disruption by you, you have learned nothing and propose we accept a previous edit of yours which was roundly rejected? That's a very blatant example of I didn't hear that behavior, and since it comes after all of the above, it's very disruptive. It's time for a topic ban or long block. You are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, but to advocate a fringe agenda." This editor has been blocked a couple times (by EdJohnston & Acroterion), learned nothing from the experiences, and immediately returned to the same types of behavior. Numerous editors have engaged, explained, and warned him, but to no avail. A few of them are, in no particular order: NeilN, Guy, TenOfAllTrades, Jpgordon, Anthony Bradbury, Dave Dial, Huon, PhilKnight, MaxSem, RJaguar3, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, AgnosticPreachersKid, MastCell, Anthonyhcole, and myself. A more experienced group of editors and administrators would be hard to find, but even they have had no luck with him. A very long block will likely be the only way to protect the encyclopedia from disruption, especially since most of his disruption is time-consuming misuse of talk pages. Since he is likely incapable of reforming, an indefinite block might be even better. Previous experience indicates that repeated unblock requests should not be allowed, and removal of access to his own talk page will be necessary, the sooner the better. There is zero evidence of a positive learning curve, and no evidence of an ability to learn. On the contrary. He just gets further entrenched in his delusional beliefs. He demonstrates the classic signs seen in true-believer syndrome (not a true psychiatric diagnosis, but useful here) and the Dunning–Kruger effect. He is here solely to push a fringe agenda. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by TenOfAllTrades Realskeptic's edits have concentrated essentially exclusively on softening Misplaced Pages's coverage of vaccination related topics, particularly with respect to the once-hypothetical and now-discredited suggestions that there are links between exposure to vaccines or vaccine ingredients (especially the preservative thiomersal) and autism in children. Realskeptic would like us to present a fringe viewpoint – the idea that a link exists – on a substantial or equal footing to the established scientific consensus: a link is not supported by any good-quality, recent, reliable sources, and that the earlier works suggesting such a link was preliminary, low-quality, or outright fraudulent. After a couple of recent blocks for edit warring, he's moved to perpetual WP:IDHT bickering on article talk pages. It's frequent and unpleasant enough – including repeated, unsupported accusations of BLP violations and libel – and spread across enough pages that a topic ban on all vaccine- and vaccination-related articles, broadly construed is warranted. (Since this constitutes essentially all of Realskeptic's editing, such a topic ban would be functionally equivalent to the out-and-out ban proposed by BullRangifer—and I admit that the risk of moving Realskeptic's editing approach to another topic area is concerning.) Here are a few examples. 4 denied unblock requests in 24 hours (18 November). The IDHT and ask-the-other-parent and help-I'm-being-oppressed are all on clear display. Talk:Andrew Wakefield#This article is not neutal. It is very one sided. Period., Talk:Andrew Wakefield#Suggest an edit or move on (continuing to present). After a month of bickering, I observed that talk pages were for discussing their associated articles, and that the encyclopedia would be best served if editors would suggest an edit or move on. Realskeptic first declared that he was making "irrefutable declarations", reiterated his spurious allegations of BLP violations and libel, but at least said he could "leave it there". Sadly, he reneged on that a couple of days later, once again repeating again the spurious BLP and libel allegation. The following day (within minutes of his response to this AE request) he finally suggested an actual edit. Unfortunately, the suggestion was simply to revert the article to his preferred version from mid-November, over which he had been nearly blocked (a third time) for edit warring. Talk:2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference#Rife with BLP issues This talk section illustrates that Realskeptic's grasp of BLP and libel is just...bad. He cites BLP without understanding it, and asserts that well-sourced, factual statements are libel. Realskeptic has clearly exhausted the community's patience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Note to @Gamaliel: Realskeptic has been editing Misplaced Pages since 2011, albeit very infrequently—not for "two weeks". His recent, active editing began in late October, about five weeks ago. (He's spent eight days of that time blocked for edit warring, however.) He was advised of discretionary sanctions in this area just over a month ago, during his first block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Realskeptic This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I'm not sure we're at the point where we can say "Realskeptic has clearly exhausted the community's patience" so a block would be inappropriate. Looking at Realskeptic's history, this user has been here for two weeks and appears to have only edited in a single topic area. It is tempting to conclude that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Realskeptic admits ignorance of some fundamental rules of Misplaced Pages, but insists that long-time editors are using other fundamental rules incorrectly, and throws around the term "libelous" far too freely. I am going to WP:AGF and assume this editor wants to edit Misplaced Pages in a positive manner, so I think this editor should gain familiarity with our rules by editing is a far less controversial and contentious topic area. I would support a topic ban of three to six months from this topic area, voluntary or otherwise. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC) @TenOfAllTrades: Facepalm I'm an idiot. I thought I clicked on "oldest" when examining his edit history, but maybe I only clicked on "older 50"? Well, I'm no longer concerned about newbie biting. If you've been here since 2011 you should have a better handle on policies and such if you are going to loudly challenge others regarding those policies in controversial areas. My "not opposed" for the indef has moved to "support". Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC) ~~I was surprised to see that Realskeptic has only 86 edits to articles and 76 to article talk space given the disruption that he is claimed to have caused.~~ Just to be clear, this complaint focuses on edits to primarily Andrew Wakefield along with Trace Amounts, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference and Joan Walsh on the subject of vaccinations? If DS are applied, it's important to know the scope of any problems that exists so a sanction can be targeted. Liz 17:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Anyone who thinks that was a BLP violation should not be editing Misplaced Pages, full stop. I would like to hear arguments from other administrators as to why an indefinite topic ban from anything relating to autism or vaccination, at minimum, would not be appropriate. NW (Talk) 17:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Not opposed to indefinite with possibility of reassessment after six months. My concerns are based on WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but neither one should prevent us from dealing with a disruptive editor appropriately. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC) You're a better person than I, Gamaliel. I assume very little good faith to new POV pushers. I will close this as you suggest, an indefinite topic ban in the areas of vaccination and autism with appeals as allowed in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications. NW (Talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Realskeptic indefinitely banned on Misplaced Pages from the topics of autism and vaccination. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Realskeptic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Realskeptic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

Nov 16, 2015 Edit summary shows attitude to sourcing
Nov 17, 2015 Fourth unblock request failing to get the point
Nov 17, 2015 More failure to get the point
Dec 5, 2015 Obvious declaration to push a fringe theory

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Nov 4, 2015 Edit warring on autism related material
Nov 15, 2015 Edit warring to significantly soften description of Wakefield's fraudulent study.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): Nov 4, 2015

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

Looking through Realskeptic's contribution history, one quickly realizes that they're here to promote the idea that the 'autism-vaccine link is not "fringe" or "anti-vaccine"; the consensus against it is not a scientific consensus'

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Realskeptic

Statement by Realskeptic

1. I cited Statesman Journal, which meets WP:RS. I am not sure what the complaining admin's issue is with this. I do not believe "anti-vaccination" is justified as it is a WP:NPOV violation.

2. I wanted an admin to address the substance of my original unblock appeal, but the first reviewing admin refused to do so and instead failed to assume good faith on my part because of a misunderstanding I had about sourcing with another editor, for which I apologized. I stopped appealing after the last reviewing admin suggested I would be blocked longer if I continued appealing. So I did not. The admin who blocked me for a week later admitted to making reverts to my page in breach of WP:BLANKING, and accused me of edit-warring after I called out another admin for wikihounding my edits

3. That referred to my concerns about Washington Post and LA Times' independence from the CDC, for which an admin admitted I was right despite disagreeing with me that it was a problem: "Journalists being taught how to properly report on medical news? Must be a conspiracy...You're going to need a very, very good source suggesting malfeasance on the CDC's part, not simply that they work with journalists." My point was that these mainstream newspapers simply lacked the independence that should be expected of the press. Nonetheless, the complaining admin used this to comment on the contributor instead of the content.

4. My response here following my responses to the initial threatening admin on a talk page in which he asked for reliable sources that significantly disputed what he claimed was the scientific consensus on thimerosal and autism. I delivered on this request. He has yet to respond. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing activity:

1. I admitted to lack of complete knowledge about 3RR rule. Nonetheless, following the editor's next revert, I updated the source to a more reliable one that was not self-published on the reverting editor's request. Yet it was reverted again not for being an unreliable source per wikipedia policies, but for being "anti-vaccine propaganda" - proving the editor is POV pushing as opposed to following Misplaced Pages guidelines.

2. My edits here referred to edits that collectively took issue with gross WP:BLP violations, particularly WP:BLPCRIME as the article currently makes accusations against the subject that he has either never been fully charged with or that have been overturned on appeal. I discuss on the talk page. There is a faction of editors who clearly despise the subject and wanted the subject's bio to reflect their hatred for him - including the admin calling for my sanctioning. The complaining admin engaged in edit-warring. When I started a thread on the talk page to discuss edits, the complaining admin instead used it as an opportunity to get me blocked as a punitive measure. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments:

I will appeal any sanction taken. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer

RealSkeptic keeps on demonstrating his extreme POV pushing. The latest example is a clear example of IDHT. In response to a nice request by Kolbasz to get him to stop the battlefield discussion behavior and make a constructive edit suggestion, he replied with this IDHT reply. I then commented as follows:

"So after all this disruption by you, you have learned nothing and propose we accept a previous edit of yours which was roundly rejected? That's a very blatant example of I didn't hear that behavior, and since it comes after all of the above, it's very disruptive. It's time for a topic ban or long block. You are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, but to advocate a fringe agenda."

This editor has been blocked a couple times (by EdJohnston & Acroterion), learned nothing from the experiences, and immediately returned to the same types of behavior. Numerous editors have engaged, explained, and warned him, but to no avail. A few of them are, in no particular order: NeilN, Guy, TenOfAllTrades, Jpgordon, Anthony Bradbury, Dave Dial, Huon, PhilKnight, MaxSem, RJaguar3, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, AgnosticPreachersKid, MastCell, Anthonyhcole, and myself. A more experienced group of editors and administrators would be hard to find, but even they have had no luck with him.

A very long block will likely be the only way to protect the encyclopedia from disruption, especially since most of his disruption is time-consuming misuse of talk pages. Since he is likely incapable of reforming, an indefinite block might be even better. Previous experience indicates that repeated unblock requests should not be allowed, and removal of access to his own talk page will be necessary, the sooner the better.

There is zero evidence of a positive learning curve, and no evidence of an ability to learn. On the contrary. He just gets further entrenched in his delusional beliefs. He demonstrates the classic signs seen in true-believer syndrome (not a true psychiatric diagnosis, but useful here) and the Dunning–Kruger effect. He is here solely to push a fringe agenda. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

Realskeptic's edits have concentrated essentially exclusively on softening Misplaced Pages's coverage of vaccination related topics, particularly with respect to the once-hypothetical and now-discredited suggestions that there are links between exposure to vaccines or vaccine ingredients (especially the preservative thiomersal) and autism in children. Realskeptic would like us to present a fringe viewpoint – the idea that a link exists – on a substantial or equal footing to the established scientific consensus: a link is not supported by any good-quality, recent, reliable sources, and that the earlier works suggesting such a link was preliminary, low-quality, or outright fraudulent.

After a couple of recent blocks for edit warring, he's moved to perpetual WP:IDHT bickering on article talk pages. It's frequent and unpleasant enough – including repeated, unsupported accusations of BLP violations and libel – and spread across enough pages that a topic ban on all vaccine- and vaccination-related articles, broadly construed is warranted. (Since this constitutes essentially all of Realskeptic's editing, such a topic ban would be functionally equivalent to the out-and-out ban proposed by BullRangifer—and I admit that the risk of moving Realskeptic's editing approach to another topic area is concerning.)

Here are a few examples.

4 denied unblock requests in 24 hours (18 November). The IDHT and ask-the-other-parent and help-I'm-being-oppressed are all on clear display.
Talk:Andrew Wakefield#This article is not neutal. It is very one sided. Period., Talk:Andrew Wakefield#Suggest an edit or move on (continuing to present). After a month of bickering, I observed that talk pages were for discussing their associated articles, and that the encyclopedia would be best served if editors would suggest an edit or move on. Realskeptic first declared that he was making "irrefutable declarations", reiterated his spurious allegations of BLP violations and libel, but at least said he could "leave it there".
Sadly, he reneged on that a couple of days later, once again repeating again the spurious BLP and libel allegation.
The following day (within minutes of his response to this AE request) he finally suggested an actual edit. Unfortunately, the suggestion was simply to revert the article to his preferred version from mid-November, over which he had been nearly blocked (a third time) for edit warring.
Talk:2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference#Rife with BLP issues This talk section illustrates that Realskeptic's grasp of BLP and libel is just...bad. He cites BLP without understanding it, and asserts that well-sourced, factual statements are libel.

Realskeptic has clearly exhausted the community's patience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to @Gamaliel: Realskeptic has been editing Misplaced Pages since 2011, albeit very infrequently—not for "two weeks". His recent, active editing began in late October, about five weeks ago. (He's spent eight days of that time blocked for edit warring, however.) He was advised of discretionary sanctions in this area just over a month ago, during his first block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Realskeptic

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

I'm not sure we're at the point where we can say "Realskeptic has clearly exhausted the community's patience" so a block would be inappropriate. Looking at Realskeptic's history, this user has been here for two weeks and appears to have only edited in a single topic area. It is tempting to conclude that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Realskeptic admits ignorance of some fundamental rules of Misplaced Pages, but insists that long-time editors are using other fundamental rules incorrectly, and throws around the term "libelous" far too freely. I am going to WP:AGF and assume this editor wants to edit Misplaced Pages in a positive manner, so I think this editor should gain familiarity with our rules by editing is a far less controversial and contentious topic area. I would support a topic ban of three to six months from this topic area, voluntary or otherwise. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: Facepalm I'm an idiot. I thought I clicked on "oldest" when examining his edit history, but maybe I only clicked on "older 50"? Well, I'm no longer concerned about newbie biting. If you've been here since 2011 you should have a better handle on policies and such if you are going to loudly challenge others regarding those policies in controversial areas. My "not opposed" for the indef has moved to "support". Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

~~I was surprised to see that Realskeptic has only 86 edits to articles and 76 to article talk space given the disruption that he is claimed to have caused.~~ Just to be clear, this complaint focuses on edits to primarily Andrew Wakefield along with Trace Amounts, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference and Joan Walsh on the subject of vaccinations? If DS are applied, it's important to know the scope of any problems that exists so a sanction can be targeted. Liz 17:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks that was a BLP violation should not be editing Misplaced Pages, full stop. I would like to hear arguments from other administrators as to why an indefinite topic ban from anything relating to autism or vaccination, at minimum, would not be appropriate. NW (Talk) 17:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Not opposed to indefinite with possibility of reassessment after six months. My concerns are based on WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but neither one should prevent us from dealing with a disruptive editor appropriately. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You're a better person than I, Gamaliel. I assume very little good faith to new POV pushers. I will close this as you suggest, an indefinite topic ban in the areas of vaccination and autism with appeals as allowed in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications. NW (Talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for Full Protection --->via the ARB to exercising its defined Discretionary Powers regarding Electronic Cigarettes.via_the_ARB_to_exercising_its_defined_Discretion-2015-12-06T17:37:00.000Z">

I am asking for a Full Protection premised upon the outcome of the last ARB, and that uninterested editors would be reviewing, and discretionary actions would be available as a product of those ARBs

Full details are found here https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Request_for_Full_Protection_---.3Evia_the_ARB_to_exercising_its_defined_Discretionary_Powers_reflected.2Fasserted_in_the_posted_ALERT

If there is an alternative approach please tell me. My method seemed correct, efficient and expedient. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)via_the_ARB_to_exercising_its_defined_Discretion"> via_the_ARB_to_exercising_its_defined_Discretion">

A logical approach of course would be to remove the cause of the disruption.--TMCk (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff

Request concerning Mystery Wolff

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mystery Wolff (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#4.3.2 :

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

[12/3/2015 Disruptive talk page section on other editors.
12/6/2015] Disruptive talk page section on other editors.
12/5/1015] Disruptive talk page section on other editors.
12/6/2015 Wholesale reverts to stop article improvement
12/6/2015 Wholesale reverts to stop article improvement

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
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 11/29/2015
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

Mystery Wolf is an WP:SPA. All of this editors edits save one have been in the topic or closely related . This new editor which started editing November 11th has a good grasp of wikipedia syntax even being able to ping other users. Knew what was proper for the lede of an article within two days and used the "lede" spelling . Within 4 days of starting knew the best format for a reference. Has become protectionist over QuackGuru's edits and the specific wording used and understands "undue weight" a very experienced concept. His editing times match up pretty well when comparing his and QG both not editing after 14:00 and starting again about 22:00 UTC. Has opened multiple talk page section in an effort to stop improvement of the article and keep edits in place from QuackGuru These sections have disrupted the articles talk page. Mystery Wolff has been informed of he correct DS locations and was even offered to have a section started for them if they lacked the knowledge to do so. But has continued to disrupt the page instead of seeking DS.

Since the possibility of sockpuppets was brought up in the e-cig case, and seeing the advanced knowledge of Mystery Wolff a checkuser is requested. In any event if not a sock they are a disruptive SPA and should be stopped from adding to the disruption.AlbinoFerret 18:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff

Discussion concerning Mystery Wolff

Statement by Mystery Wolff

Statement by S Marshall

We don't know if this editor is a single-purpose account or not yet. He has ~150 edits and has had his account for a couple of weeks. On the one hand, it might not seem necessary to open an AE request because this editor has pinged everyone in arbcom and everyone who's tried enforcing. Twice now. I think we can assume the AE sysops already have this on the radar.

But on the other hand I do think this is a good idea. He clearly has an issue with me personally, and he needs to be given a forum to express that in. This venue is a better place than Talk:Electronic cigarette, so let's make this a welcoming place for him and encourage him to make all his points in full right here.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mystery Wolff

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

TruthIsDivine

Request concerning TruthIsDivine

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: TruthIsDivine (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/Gun control :

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

Personal attacks : (lying, stupid, idiot, fraud, etc )

Whatever. You're an stupid redneck hillbilly who is too uneducated to understand the most basic axioms of logic you're also a liar, . Enjoy your fraudulent encyclopedia, you intellectual fraud. i hope you enjoy mastrbating to your gun collection at night and your middle school education which thinks it's possible for there to have been 33 million gun uses. , but you have zero intellectual honesty or integrity and you might be the single dumbest two individuals I have ever met. Misplaced Pages is truly the last refuge for idiots who failed out of their formal education and cannot understand the most basic elements of logical argument. And you had no business removing all the other well sourced content I added showing that there WERE ONLy 1600 ACTUAL CASES REPORTED. God, how does someone as stupid as you manage to live?

Edit Warring/NPOV:

Asking for sources, being pointed repeatedly directly to the relevant sources, and then insisting the source does not say what it plainly says, while continuing to make personal attacks (whole section) https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Defensive_gun_use#Pro-gun_fraud_in_this_article

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:TruthIsDivine&diff=694065203&oldid=694064479

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

new WP:SPA editor, WP:NOTHERE, WP:TIGERS. Pinging Clpo13 who is also target of subject's personal attacks and edit warring.

UPDATE : as I was making this report, the user was already blocked for 3 days for harrassment, but given the other diffs, I think more may be in order. However, if this closes without additional action, I see that as valid too. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:TruthIsDivine&diff=694069147&oldid=694069070

Discussion concerning TruthIsDivine

Statement by TruthIsDivine

Statement by Rschen7754

I did block the user for WP:NPA for 3 days. I suspect that further sanctions may be needed, but being out of touch with how discretionary sanctions work, I will leave that to you folks to decide. --Rs chen 7754 22:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by clpo13

One last personal attack before being blocked: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Defensive_gun_use&diff=prev&oldid=694068806

Prior to this account being created, the IP user 2600:1017:b416:1586:bc10:35ea:70fe:b008 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edited the same pages with the same concerns.

I can't speak to most of their changes to Defensive gun use, but I did note their refusal to discuss the changes on the talk page. They chose instead to focus on the 33 million figure at the high end of defensive gun use estimates. Despite numerous explanations about where that figure came from (such as ) and its nature as an estimate, they obstinately stuck to declaring it was a logical impossibility and anyone who thought otherwise had "zero intellectual honesty or integrity" and that Gaijin42 and I were "the single dumbest two individuals I have ever met". clpo13_(talk) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TruthIsDivine

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