Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive161

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RAN1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Factchecker atyourservice (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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#May 2014 (NEWBLPBAN):

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

1. [1] - dismisses RFC as illegitimate, initial post airing this disagreement, 20:11. January 6, 2015 (UTC)
2. [2] - in response to Gaijin42, insists that RFC would not be cut short by agreeing to use non-disputed image. 16:13, January 9, 2015
3. [3] - attacks Gaijin42 without responding to lack of support for his assertion or otherwise contributing to discussion. 16:53, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
4. [4] - dismisses RAN1’s argument with rhetorical questions. 22:08, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
5. [5] - asks RAN1 to clarify analysis. 23:04, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
6. [6] - after RAN1 clarifies, unproductive comment. 23:32, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
7. [7] - response to RAN1, aggressive attacks with no contribution to discussion. 00:05, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
8. [8] - response to Gaijin42, borders incivility and shows battleground mentality. 00:25, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
9. [9] - FCAYS says then we also need to include the "giant tough guy committing strongarm robbery the day of the shooting" photo, for balance (with regards to Michael Brown). 23:26, January 10, 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [10] - AE Warning - BATTLE/CIVIL 16:52, December 27, 2014 (UTC)
2. [11] - AE block for incivility. 01:32, January 7, 2015 (UTC)

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.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 27 December, 2014 by Cailil (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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Recently, a dispute has come up on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown about whether a photo of Michael Brown should be used and which one. An RFC was started, but FCAYS disputed its validity on the grounds that BLP overrides consensus. As this argument was dismissed, they became somewhat confrontational, and insisted with an almost personal attack that consensus be unconsidered on the basis of a BLP violation that no other editor supported. Today, FCAYS made an edit request asking for the photo’s removal as the page was protected. I contested the edit request as it was unsupported by consensus. As I discussed this over with FCAYS, they became increasingly aggravated at my responses, in which I tried to explain neutrally and non-personally (as far as I can tell) that consensus was not for removing the image. I justified why the image should be kept, and FCAYS continued to question in an increasingly personal and incivil manner. They went on a full rhetorical question spree at the end, with aggressive tone and battleground attacks. In a separate thread, MSGJ rejected the edit request, and FCAYS contested it. Gaijin asked FCAYS to stop repeating their argument for removal, to which FCAYS gave incivil, consensus-disrupting comments à la WP:WIN and to the effect that including the photo is a deliberate misrepresentation by the editors. They were recently the subject of an AE warning for BATTLE and CIVIL and were blocked as part of the sanction 4 days ago, see above. Given this generally disruptive pattern of editing, I request a more severe sanction be imposed.

@ChrisGualtieri: That block was made on 7 January 2015. Aside from the first diff I provided for context, the evidence I brought here has all happened since that block expired. --RAN1 (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Though I wish there were a way to date these without doing them by hand, done. --RAN1 (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I fail to see how FCAYS's comments in later diffs like You don't even seem to have numbers on your side, much less a winning argument! (diff 8) and And which part of WP policy tells you that you are free to ignore the stated objections of others as if they simply didn't exist? (diff 7) makes this a problem of content dispute rather than user conduct. The behavioral issue is why I'm filing this request. --RAN1 (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Regarding your concern that FCAYS's comments do not have BLP implications, I've added a 9th FCAYS diff showing victimization in violation of BLP. --RAN1 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that characterization and I've struck it, and I also don't think we should use that image. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

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.

It appears this is going to be closed without action so I'm not going to comment at length but I would like to point out that Diff #2 above is presented with an egregiously misleading description.

I suggested the "compromise" of using the "graduation photo" image that was not disputed by any editors. Although it was not the preferred image for Gaijin, Ran, and Dyrnych, they had all said they didn't object to using it. Meanwhile, there were a number of objections against the "headphones" photo. One photo had support and no objections, the other photo had support and multiple objections. I didn't think it was much of a stretch to suggest the non-disputed photo and call it a "compromise".

But RAN's summary for Diff#2 was this: "in response to Gaijin42, insists that RFC would not be cut short by agreeing to use non-disputed image."

He makes it sound like I was offered a compromise but rejected it! But that's sort of the opposite of how I understood the events to be unfolding. Puzzling. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but action was already taken on this matter. He was blocked for the issue by @Callanecc:. Given the circumstances, namely that the subject was already punished, this seems inappropriate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please date all diffs submitted as evidence, or I'm not looking at them, sorry.  Sandstein  10:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks. This doesn't look actionable to me. The submitted diffs are all part of a talk page discussion and are nowere near a WP:BLP violation. While they do come across as more forceful and less collegial in tone that would be ideal, they focus on the disputed content rather than on the other editor(s), and are therefore, in my view, by far not sanctionable misconduct. The submitter should be reminded that arbitration enforcement is only to be used for genuine conduct problems and not for trying to force a resolution of a content dispute by way of administrative process.  Sandstein  10:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RAN1, I continue not to see a sanctionable BLP or other conduct problem in the diffs you submit, including the ninth one.  Sandstein  17:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This appears to be legitimate, albeit heated, discussion. I don't see how the BLP discretionary sanctions are applicable here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a second very weak attempt to use AE to win this dispute. RAN1 was one of the few involved in the last case to escape a warning, and he was also the filing party that time. I agree with Sandstein that RAN1 should be reminded that "arbitration enforcement is [and other fora are] only to be used for genuine conduct problems and not for trying to force a resolution of a content dispute by way of administrative process". If FCAYS is as much of a problem as some of you believe give him WP:ROPE and it'll be dealt with--Cailil ^talk 10:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

: WP:ARBPIA -- general 1RR restriction

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

1. 14:33, 11 January 2015 rm "Palestinian"
2. 22:47, 11 January 2015 rm "Palestinian" , thus violating 1RR per ARBPIA

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

Notice about ARBIA in September 2014, by NeilN

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• He has been given opportunity to self-revert, but declines to do so. Huldra (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Number 57: His first edit was a revert of the long-standing text, removing the word "Palestinian". As you correctly points out: it had been in the article since the start. Davidbena has now removed it twice, in one day. Huldra (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User talk:HJ Mitchell: I read the first diff as a revert of long-standing text, a partial revert from this edit. 2nd diff, the same. Huldra (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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.

User:Huldra seems to be pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel by its action in the winter of 1948, when I have insisted that she remain neutral, and not to politicize the situation. Specifically, User:Huldra prefers to mention Bayt Nattif of October 1948 as a "Palestinian-Arab village," when I propose that it is far better to simply write "Arab village," since in October of 1948 Bayt Nattif was then under the direct governance of the new government of Israel, based on the partition plan relegated to Israeli and Jordanian authorities by the dissolved British Mandate. To suggest that Bayt Nattif was, in October of 1948, a "Palestinian-Arab village" is to suggest a sovereign governmental body by the name of Palestine given charge over the village's affairs when it was actually the new State of Israel that had been given charge over its affairs. To avoid this seemingly contentious issue, I have suggested keeping the introductory lines neutral in accordance with WP policy of WP:NPOV and by simply writing "Arab village." (For a greater summary, see Bayt Nattif's Talk Page (bottom section) Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is the proper way of seeking professional advice from experienced editors, without abrogating the WP guidelines which look with disdain on "canvassing"? Honestly, how can I go about seeking professional counsel and advice? If anyone notes my own words, I have actually called out for advice, rather than asking editors to side with me in this dispute. Davidbena (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:HJ Mitchell, as far as I'm concerned, the issue has already been resolved. As for the use of the words "lands owned by the Palestinian-Arab village of Bayt Nattif," we have often seen the word "Palestinian" used in our generation, especially by Arab writers, in the context of the overall Israeli-Palestinian issue, i.e. with a political connotation. I was simply asking the editor to avoid this word because of its "political" connotation. I have since allowed her edit to stand. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether I am uninvolved, as I have been editing related articles, but as far as I can see, the first edit is not a revert of any other edit (the very first version used the phrase in question), so Davidbena has only actually reverted once. Number 57 23:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Huldra: I think you misunderstand the concept of a revert. A revert is reverting some or all of a previous edit to the former version. If an edit is doing something for the first time (which the first edit here is), then it cannot be defined as a revert. Number 57 23:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zero0000: Done, but it shouldn't detract from the fact that this isn't a 1RR violation. Number 57 09:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbena has also been violating WP:CANVASS over the same issue: [13] [14] [15] [16]. Zero^talk 00:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57:, I wasn't going to complain about you being "involved" until I noticed that just yesterday you yourself made an edit almost the same as the one being debated here. Kindly move yourself out of the administrators' section. Zero^talk 01:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No violation, but, David, (you asked for advice), your reasoning is deeply defective, and you are trying to establish a precedent that would affect several hundred wiki pages. When the impact of an edit is so far-reaching, it requires consensus. Your reasoning is defective because the verb 'to be' (was) describes a continuous state. It was a Palestinian (under the British Mandate for Palestine) Arab village. The argument that, once its inhabitants were driven out by a conquering Israeli army it became overnight therefore 'governed' by Israel and therefore became 'Arab' not 'Palestinian', is meaningless. The village was blown up (partially on the suspicion that some of the villagers had destroyed a Palmach relief convoy to the Etzion Bloc earlier in January that year), and nothing remained to be 'governed'. The article is not about the village on 23 October, 1948, but the historic village that existed until the Palmach brigade blew it to pieces. It is customary to define such places as Palestinian Arab on Wikipedia, 'Arab' satisfying an Israeli POV that Palestinians did not exist, and 'Palestinian' to satisfy Palestinian traditions that they did exist before 1948/1967. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a sloppily filed report because it does not tell us which rule of conduct the removal of the word "Palestinian" is supposed to have violated or which remedy is to be enforced. If not promptly amended, this request may be closed without action.  Sandstein  10:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Huldra: Unless the first edit was a revert of a particular edit, it does not count as a revert for the purposes of enforcing the 1RR. @Davidbena: Please either provide diffs for the allegation that Huldra is pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel by its action in the winter of 1948 or strike it. If you do neither, you risk being sanctioned for a personal attack. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This doesn't look actionable to me as submitted. As mentioned above, there's no evidence that the first edit was a revert, and that Davidbena was even aware of the 1RR rule in particular (the discretionary sanctions notice does not mention it). Leaving this open until the personal attack issue mentioned above is resolved. In response to Davidbena, we're all volunteers here, so there's nobody around to give you professional advice. As to other advice, you might ask on community fora such as WP:VP. Sandstein  16:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

162.119.231.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Arthur Rubin (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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Discretionary sanctions :

Principles

• Neutral point of view

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.

• Advocacy

Wikipedia articles should present a neutral view of their subject. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion is prohibited.

• Battleground conduct

Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable.

• Making allegations against other editors

Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.

• Recidivism

Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

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

1. 19:42, 8 January 2015 Reverts to non-neutral version which contains unsourced original research
2. 19:32, 8 January 2015 Reverts to non-neutral version which contains unsourced original research
3. 15:35, 3 December 2014 Argues that a term is "pejorative" or "propaganda" based on his belief and insisting that no source is necessary because no one disputes it - that's a violation of all three core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR.
4. 15:31, 2 December 2014 Moves article from "Gun show loophole" to "Gun show loophole controversy", a less neutral title that implies it's only a controversy instead of a real issue, without any discussion.
5. 09:51, 19 November 2014 Reverts to non-neutral version which contains unsourced original research, and brushes aside concern about lack of source.
6. 06:28, 4 January 2015 Ditto
7. 03:51, 2 January 2015 Argues that a paper by epidemiologists at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center is de facto unreliable (despite admitting he never read it) supposedly because evaluating injury rates is probably outside their field of expertise.
8. 22:42, 2 January 2015 Ditto
9. 19:55, 8 January 2015 Accuses me of "POV pushing" - an attack on another editor with no effort to resolve a problem.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Arthur_Rubin_topic-banned

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 19:59, 16 May 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Arthur Rubin keeps violating principles from the ArbCom's Gun Control decision. As an administrator he knows the rules but as an editor he doesn't follow them. He advocates a position by labeling a widely held POV as "pejorative" "propaganda", in articles and on talk pages. He reverts articles to restore non-neutral text without sources, despite objections of many editors. He doesn't seek consensus or compromise. He uses talk pages to say he's right and other editors are wrong. He says sources for his own assertions are unnecessary because they are "facts" that can't be disputed, while he discounts expert sources as being unreliable. He smears me as a POV-pusher as a dismissive insult better suited to driving off an editor than to resolve any article problems. The demonstrable "fact" is that he's using Wikipedia to advance a political position with whatever editing tricks are necessary. That's just what the ArbCom and the community have said is unacceptable.

Maybe this is off-topic but gun control is one of the agenda items of the Tea Party movement, a topic where Arthur Rubin has already been sanctioned. During the Gun Control case, he argued that another user should be banned from articles about gun control because of that user's problems with editing Tea Party articles.[17] Should he be held to the standard he sets for others? You decide. These repeated problems, with the Tea Party and with gun control, are examples of his recidivism - once again he's forcing through non-neutral edits about political issues in violation of Wikipedia policy.

It might be easy to toss this out as a content dispute, or give a fellow admin extra leeway. Doing that wouldn't stop Arthur Rubin from making more reverts of reasonable edits, more additions of unsourced POV or more unsupported accusations about other editors. Arthur Rubin is an editor who can't or won't edit in a neutral manner on issues related to gun control. That's obvious to anyone who reviews his work.

AE is the venue for enforcing the ArbCom's decision requiring editors in this topic to comply with site policies. This board should take appropriate action now to prevent the waste of many hours by many editors in the future. Inaction by AE probably means more battleground behavior to advance a cause, more one-sided editing of contentious topics, more antagonism to those who disagree, more defiance of the ArbCom and more violations of site policies.

Sorry if this isn't formatted or framed perfectly. Please fix any mistakes in this complaint. I've already devoted more time to this than I should have to, and I won't be able to edit again in the upcoming week.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

##16:04, 9 January 2015

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.

First, gun control is not one of the issues related to the Tea Party. It is subject to discretionary sanctions, but no specific reversion sanctions, such as WP:1RR. "Gun control" is mentioned twice in Tea Party movement, but the Tea Party is not mentioned in any gun control article that I have noticed. Neither concept is considered important to the other. My previous block for violating the Tea Party sanctions was for an article related to the Koch brothers, which some consider related to the Tea Party.

In regard "pejorative" and WP:NPOV in gun show loophole controversy, the name "gun show loophole" clearly violates WP:NPOVTITLE, as it is only used by gun-control advocates. Unlike "Assault weapon", it is not a term-of-law, but only a term-of-propaganda. Adding "controversy" to the title is a minimal attempt at restoring WP:NPOV. Restoring "pejorative" to the first sentence is also an attempt to restore WP:NPOV; if one source, even an unreliable one, such as the Daily Kos article calls it "pejorative", and no source disagrees, it should be kept until a reliable source is found. There has been no claim made (other than by the complaining party) that his/her edits improve compliance to WP:NPOV on this article, or, in fact, any article other than American Hunters and Shooters Association. In terms of article improvement at gun show loophole controversy, a statement in the first sentence, similar to that in "assault weapon", that it is used to attempt to restrict firearm purchases, would balance even better than "pejorative". (I didn't bring that up on the talk page earlier because I hadn't read the article "assault weapon".)

The complaining party has (in recent times, anyway), only edited gun control articles, and, with at few exceptions, has edited to increase the credibility of gun control, and discussed only "improvements" which increase the credibility of gun control. Those exceptions are on American Hunters and Shooters Association, for which I complemented the editor for not being a POV-warrior there. See Special:Contributions/162.119.231.132. This history shows that it is a stable IP.

My recent edits to Talk:Gun politics in the United States probably are a violation; my only excuse is that EllenCT is a known POV-warrior (finding of fact in two ArbCom cases), and that a 1993 paper which made the same conclusion, was fatally flawed, and recognized as such by most except gun control advocates. I shouldn't have done it. I'll try to stay away from Ellen unless I have specific facts to counter her opinions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed reference to EllenCT; there are too many ArbCom cases in which Ellen was involved for me to be sure, but she was clearly acting as a POV-warrior in attempting to include a chart loosely related to wealth inequality on articles on income inequality, plutocracy, and other loosely related topics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen's claims that I am "stalking" her are completely unjustified. To the best of my knowledge, I never even looked at her contributions page. I decline comment as to whether her edits are likely within policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ArbCom finding of fact that I am a "POV-warrior", let alone in two cases. @Arthur Rubin: I demand that personal attack be struck. I have never been sanctioned by ArbCom or at ANI even though there are several people who have complained there about my insistence on adherence to reliable sources a handful of times over the years. The worst a closing admin has said about me at ANI is that the zeal with which I engage my opponents is cause for concern. But if it weren't for editors such as Arthur Rubin, who constantly stalks my contributions, often making up facts to suit his arguments, then I would be much less of a zealot. If Rubin is topic-banned from gun politics, then he has also been violating that ban at WP:NPOVN#Expert commentary on risks of living in a household with guns, where he has made up out of whole cloth reasons that WP:MEDRS sources on the risks of living in a household with guns are unacceptable for inclusion in the article where he says he probably violated his topic ban above, but has been unable to offer any sources which agree with his opinion. EllenCT (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no ArbCom findings of fact concerning me, and I strongly object to Rubin's revised statement which states that there have been. The only accusations that I am a "POV-warrior" are personal attacks from Rubin himself, based on ordinary content disputes in which Rubin is clearly unable to comport himself civilly. The fact that Rubin is unable to strike his own false allegations, along with his lengthy history of sanctions, shows that he lacks the competence expected of editors, let alone administrators. If any other administrator would like me to email the evidence showing that Rubin has been stalking my edits, please leave a note on my talk page. EllenCT (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

As submitted, this appears mostly not actionable because it mostly reflects content disputes. I don't also readily see any edit that might violate Arthur Rubin's Tea Party topic ban; the edits here are about gun control but not about the Tea Party. However, there are some points of concern. Even though I know next to nothing about the issue, Arthur Rubin's edits of 8 January 2015 which repeatedly changed the lead sentence of "assault weapon" to "... is a political term used by anti gun advocacy groups ..." strikes me as so distinctly partisan in tone that it might be considered a violation of the conduct aspect of WP:NPOV, which requires that "editors ... should strive in good faith ... not to promote one particular point of view over another". Also, as EllenCT points out, Arthur Rubin's unsubstantiated allegation here that ArbCom found her to be a "POV-warrior" is, at least, a violation of the "casting aspersions" principle enunciated repeatedly by the Committee in application of our WP:NPA policy. I invite comment by other admins about whether this suffices for a "gun control" topic ban in light of Arthur Rubin's previous sanctions in the similar "Tea Party" topic area.  Sandstein  20:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the conduct presented to be extremely problematic. Discussion of reliability of sources is mostly a content issue and not really within AE's jurisdiction. Conduct issues, though, such as moving an article to a title which at least some editors believe to be non-neutral, edit-warring, addition of POV original research ("political term used by anti gun advocacy groups", insertion of "pejorative" in the lead sentence), personal attacks, and casting aspersions are very much issues for AE. I note with interest that this appears to be exactly the conduct that led to Arthur Rubin's topic ban from the Tea Party movement, but I'm struggling to see how he is formally "aware" of the discretionary sanctions. Unless awareness can be demonstrated, all we can do is deliver the template, though a block as an ordinary admin action is not out of the question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin is considered aware of discretionary sanctions concerning gun control because he participated in an AE request discussion about gun control on 16 May 2014, that is, within the last 12 months, as required by WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts.  Sandstein  10:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for that diff. That being the case, I endorse a topic ban from gun control. Given that this conduct appears to have moved here after AR was topic-banned from the Tea Party movement, I worry that we'll just be shunting the issue to some other political topic, but I suppose if that becomes an issue it's up to ArbCom to handle it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that there is enough evidence to support a topic ban from gun control (as described in the case) especially when the Tea Party movement TBAN is taken into consideration. I'll close this in the next 24-48 hours if there are no further comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sitush (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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF :

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. Jan 8 at the Gender Task Force talk page - which ArbCom has said that he's disrupted before - he insists that an article written by members of the task force is in poor shape, and that editors must respond to his complaints, or that he will escalate
2. Jan 9 Removed a sourced sentence (refs at end of paragraph) that essentailly summarizes the 3 sources.
3. Jan9 Removed a revised sourced sentence that exactly summarizes the 3 sources
4. Jan 9 Removed the same sourced sentence again, essentially threatening an edit war

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date none that I know of
2. Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them

I'm only asking that Admins watch the article and talk pages to prevent any edit warring or similar bullying tactics. User:Sitush is aware that I'm here, he asked me to come here [18] (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts):

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. YES
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Don't know
• 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). Don't know
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Don't know
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date Don't know
• 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

Please just let him know that somebody is watching him

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

See above - he requested that I come here. I'll repeat immediately after saving here [19]

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.

I know that I am being watched. This is a content dispute and I am being as careful as possible to keep it on topic. My only mentions of this thing at WT:GGTF have been in direct relation to the fact that the article emerged from a discussion at GGTF and it is quite obvious to me that there is something going on here that amounts to freezing me out. Fortunately, some other people in good standing and with decent knowledge of policy etc are also recognising that.

The entire issue is really one for a variety of noticeboards - OR, NPOV, BLP, wherever coatracking should be taken, etc - and perhaps for a RfC unless it can be resolved on the talk page, where my valid concerns are largely being ignored. The very fact that Smallbones was quick to refer to the Arbcom case there, and then came here asking for very little, should indicate that this is a pretty spurious request. I could provide diffs but I suggest that people read the article talk page. I'm off to bed. - Sitush (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq, the article is very slowly improving in parts. The discussion should be at the article but I've been forced to go to GGTF because much of it in fact is/was taking place there.

The article is not the property of GGTF even though it emanated from a discussion there. Since I was quite clearly being ignored at article talk, my comments at GGTF were intended to draw attention to the issues by using the very forum that the creator etc was using to draw attention to it, asking people to respond in what in fact should be the correct forum. You'll note that others contributed and agreed with me, with this one being quite notable. I'm well aware that I'm being gamed into this situation - OrangesRyellow, for example, has a long history of disliking me from Indo-Pak articles where their POV was also very evident, and a history of latching on to me when they think they can turn things against me - but if no-one actually objects to points that I raise then they cannot really complain if, three days later, I do something about it. I tried to discuss, others didn't; eg: here. What is likely to happen, and seemingly did in the specific case that you linked, is that I'll change something and I'll be gamed to the limit of 3RR by a group of other people. In the process, some changes to the wording or whatever will actually happen.

I've said that I will escalate the issues by if things do not improve further and I will do that, although right now I am not sure where the venue should be because the issues as of last night are many and varied. I would appreciate anyone's thoughts regarding an appropriate venue. Chess has suggested RfC but framing that neutrally might be difficult due to the wide range of issues.

None of the issues actually relate to GGTF itself and the admin action requested here is bizarre even if they were. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: OrangesRyellow and myself have a fairly long history due to pov concerns related to the Indo-Pakistani subject area - me neutral, them less so. They got into a fair amount of trouble and have ever since seemed to follow me around whenever they get an inkling that I might be in trouble with the powers that be. It isn't a battle worth fighting. They'll be gone from here before I am and their initial involvement in the article in question is just another example of their inability to be neutral. - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: please can you tell me what it is I am supposed to be doing wrong. You want to caution me but I haven't got a clue why that is so. Like me or loathe me, I'm among those doing a lot of good at the article, turning it from a hyperbolic cheerleading puff piece into something that is more balanced. Sure, you see reverts but that is because too many people are not discussing: I leave a comment for a few days and then act on it if no-one has responded etc. It just happens that then they respond. If that is what it takes to get some sort of fix for the problem then that is what is necessary. I don't think there is a single instance where I have edited the article and my entire original point has been rejected. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if an admin would monitor WT:GGTF and articles which have been discussed there, such as Women's rights in 2014 (created on 2 January 2015). I have not noticed any commentary which is sanctionable, but in view of WP:ARBGGTF it would be desirable for warnings to be issued before the current low-level sniping gets out of hand. For example, there is no need for edit summaries like "oh, ffs, I thought that was smallbones - here comes the meat brigade, I guess" (diff). We are all volunteers, and people can choose which of the many problems at Wikipedia merit their attention, but there is no need for the enthusiasm seen at places like Talk:Women's rights in 2014 so soon after WP:ARBGGTF.

@Bishonen: I understand your instinct to protect Sitush, but you know there is a problem. If no one cares sufficiently to monitor the situation, we can wait until it blows up if you like. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What did Sitush do? He proposed a removal of a sentence, waited a while, then removed it. Then somebody reverted him. Then he reverted that person back, because they did not address Sitush's argument. I'm not going to comment on what sentence is better oon AE, but quoting OrangesRyellow, "When Sitush is around, you will be treated to a constant barrage of frequent tirades, absurd accusations, ANIs, SPIs, etc. and the whole area comes to be seen as "problematic" because of those tirades, absurd accusations etc. The topic of this article is simple enough, but it will be madeproblematic, through polemics, etc. There is a reason why people chose to ignore". That isn't very civil, since if OrangesRyellow has a problem with Sitush's behaviour, maybe it should be taken up at the proper forum (quote by me:"If you have a problem with Sitush's behaviour, why don't you take it up at the proper forum? Such as WP:AN/I or possibly WP:AE." But then OrangesRyellow said in response, "Because I think I am better off doing more constructive things in my limited wiki-time". It's not very constructive to make those allegations in the first place in a debate on content, and I think OrangesRyellow should be made aware of that. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: You shouldn't be forced to stop editing an article because of some people who disagree with you. If they don't address your argument, start an RfC, which I am about to do. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not much of a regular at AE, but surely this kind of thing is not what it's for? To tell Sitush he's being watched? The instructions above are pretty clear: 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 discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator. The remedies that were passed re Sitush was that a) he's warned not to create articles regarding editors he's in conflict with, and b) he's warned not to interact with Carolmooredc. He hasn't done any of those things as far as I know, and Smallbones hasn't said he did. No injunction was imposed on Sitush in the case, and no discretionary sanctions have since been imposed on him by an administrator.

For completeness, I don't think the idea of violating a "finding of fact" has been envisioned — it seems philosophically awkward — nor are findings of fact mentioned in the instructions for posting a report here. But just to make them accessible, here are links to the findings of fact against Sitush:[20] and [21], so you can see whether you find them violable, or to have been violated in this case.

It seems frivolous to come here without requesting any admin action, and without claiming that any remedies, injunctions or discretionary sanctions have been violated. Again, Please use this page only to request administrative action etc. My bolding. Bishonen | talk 05:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I think this is not actionable. Diff 1, a talk page comment, does not strike me as disruptive or sanctionable, particularly considering that the remedy reads: "The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion." The remaining diffs are of edits to an article, Women's rights in 2014, that is not among the "pages relating to the Gender gap task force" and are therefore not within the scope of discretionary sanctions. This request can be closed without action.  Sandstein  15:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Women's rights in 2014 does *not* appear to fall under the discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBGGTF. However if Sitush's remarks on any GGTF project page violate policy then the sanctions do apply. At present I see no reason for enforcement here. Sitush might consider opening a WP:Request for comment on some of the disputed points. The article is likely to turn into a list of interesting things that happened in 2014 that newspaper editorial writers believe are connected to women's rights. Summarizing editorial opinion is always hard, but it is common for such opinions to be mentioned in Wikipedia articles when they are judged relevant. Editorial writers tend to use an uplifting style that may not tie closely to easily-observed facts. Deciding whether 2014 was or was not 'a watershed year for women's rights' can't be determined by any method known to science. So my suggestion to Sitush would be to take this article off his watchlist, to save frustration. If he does choose to continue he will be subject to the normal WP:Edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was created by GGF members as a result of a discussion at the GGTF, I think it can be reasonably construed as being related to the GGTF, especially as this request concerns editor interaction (as opposed to, say, POV pushing). I recommend a strongly worded caution to Sitush, logged as a discretionary sanction, to comment on content and not on contributors. Beyond that, we don't want to get into the business of policing good-faith—if terse—content discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: comments like "oh, ffs, I thought that was smallbones - here comes the meat brigade, I guess" suggest to me that you need to keep a firmer grasp on your temper and remember to "comment on content, not on the contributor". Since you're not one of those editors who seems to find their conduct being discussed here every other week, a caution seems to me to be proportionate. Assuming it's an isolated incident and you don't have a habit of losing your temper or personalising content disputes, no more will be said about it; if it turns out that you do have a habit of making such remarks (I've seen nothing before the GGTF case to suggest that you have, but assuming for argument's sake that you do), then admins evaluating future AE requests about your conduct will see the logged caution and factor that into the decision-making. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the article is covered by these discretionary sanctions, they specifically link to the Wikipedia page and are not broadly construed, see as well the aritrator discussion on the proposed decision page. I don't believe that the small amount of evidence presented which relates directly to the GGTF page is enough to warrant sanctions being placed, though a general caution to everyone involved wouldn't go astray. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it's a direct continuation of the dispute that led to the arbitration case, involving the same parties and resulting directly from a discussion at the GGTF, I think it's overly conservative to say that the article is not within the scope of the discretionary sanctions. Nonetheless, I'm in the minority, and even if we agreed that the discretionary sanctions were applicable, I don't see us getting a consensus for any admin action. I suggest we wrap this up; I don't object to a 'general caution' to all parties, but I'm not sure what it would accomplish and it doesn't necessarily have to be done through AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

} Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of Arab-Israeli conflict, imposed at

      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive152#Sean.hoyland

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[22]

Hi. Six months have passed since the imposition of my topic ban. I was punished for half a year and I respected that decision. I was wondering if now someone could lift my ban, please. I promise I won't break 1RR again and I'll seek consensus before making controversial edits. I really want to contribute to this beautiful encyclopedia in a correct manner. I apologize for the incoveniences I may have caused. Thanks a lot!

I know nothing about other topics. I avoided editing to respect the ban. I was patient. Nobody explained me that I had to make a good record on other topics. Can you give me a second chance? I'll prove my good faith in the Arab-Israeli area. I think I have the same right to edit as other users who focus exclusively on one topic.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• User:AmirSurfLera, your topic ban was imposed in an AE that closed on 8 July 2014. Since that time you've made practically no edits to Wikipedia. It is often asserted that you can't 'age out' of a ban -- instead, you should be trying to establish a record of good editing that will show the ban is no longer needed. Lacking any such record, I would oppose lifting the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. I'd support lifting the ban only after seeing a substantial record of problem-free editing in other topic areas. Otherwise I'd have to think you're a single-purpose account, and that is not something this topic area needs more of.  Sandstein  18:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with my colleagues. The whole point of topic bans is to allow an editor who gets into trouble in one topic area to continue editing in unrelated topic areas in order to avoid the previous problems and possibly for the editor to rehabilitate their reputation to the extent that we can be comfortable in allowing them back into the topic area in question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, six months is a good period of time to wait, however during that six months you need to show that you can edit constructively and collaboratively in other areas. @AmirSurfLera: if you're looking for things to do, have a look at Wikipedia:Cleanup and Wikipedia:Maintenance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months.[23]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Hopefully, the diffs above are self-explanatory. So I just want to add that Dornicke is an WP:SPA whose only edits in the past year are to push WP:FRINGE theory that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[24] At the very least, I am requesting a topic ban. I think a site ban is worth considering given that they don't edit anything to the project outside the promotion of conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

I'm in Wikipedia since 2007. You can take a look at my contributions since then, including extensive contributions / new articles such as São Paulo Museum of Art, Museu Nacional de Belas Artes, Portrait of Suzanne Bloch, [[25]], [[26]], etc. I've written more than 250 new articles to the Portuguese wikipedia, including several featured articles, in the fields of art, national heritage, museums, etc. I've have tens of thousands of edits, in the Portuguese, English, German, French, Deutch, Italian and Spanish wikipedias. I've donated thousands and thousands of images to commons. Saying I'm a "single purpose account" is pathetic. BTW I've never written anything in the articles mentioned by the user above. He's whining about my criticism in the article talk page. He doesn't have good arguments to answer logical questions (all based in reliable sources,and none of them related to add anything about conspiracy theories, which is a blatant lie. It's just an attempt of censorship due to intelectual incapacity of presenting arguments. Any editor can see there's no text in any of the articles written by me. So the claim I'm trying to do anything in the articles is, obviously, a bad faith statement. I'm just presenting my opinion about editorial questions on the talk page - have never tried to add anything related to conspiracy. All material I made reference to are from mainstream, reliable, largely accepted sources, by the way. It's ridiculous that the user above is reacting in such an authoritarian and childish manner. I'd say grow up. Dornicke (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

Users against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

2. MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories :

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

• Ian Thomson:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]

• MONGO

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Ian.thomson notified
• MONGO notified

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.

Are we not allowed to make arguments via Reductio ad absurdum? Am I not allowed to try and explain my "position" again if someone else (who arbitration is topic banning from the subject) refuses to get the point? Should I react to stubborn conspiracy theory pushing with anger instead? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No. Reading over the context of that discussion, I can only say that Dornicke had it coming. There is no prohibition aginst a gentle dose of sarcasm in talkpage discussions, and I can see nothing disruptive in the way Ian and Mongo were attempting to reduce Dornicke's argument ad absurdum by turning it against himself. Close without action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty much agree with FPAS - comments were a trifle glib but that's about it. Recommend closing without action. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, this is a frivolous report containing no actionable evidence. I'm closing it and warning the reporter.  Sandstein  19:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified here

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA - 1RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Sandstein. The first example from List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 is a revert because the page was created just over two weeks ago, and everything in it has been added or subtracted since then, with Ashful present, and in his edit summary, Ashtul knowingly acknowledges his edit as a 'revert'.

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

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

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

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

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

Igorp. Ashtul. WP:NPOV means precisely both sides of a narrative must be given, balanced with due weight. You raise the insufficiency of my edits to Carmel, Har Hebron. I’m not superman doing everything for editors on all sides, esp for those who only sit round checking edits for a putative POV without constructive building of pages. I’m not troubled by edit-warring when I do a settlement article which covers thoroughly the Jewish history, as I did at Susya, which is in brief walking distance from Carmel, Har Hebron. Not a murmur. I found it in this state and left it in this state. While I made a detailed survey of the synagogue and its Jewish heritage. I found no opposition. Silence. As soon as I started to mention the Palestinian realities of the site, I encountered stiff opposition, reverts and challenges on everything. At one point, it was stormed by 4 hostile editors (3 actually User:NoCal100, User:Canadian Monkey were sockpuppets) , who were intractable, leading to an exasperated remark, which was then used to permaban me for WP:AGF. None of those editors built the page, or helped me write its Jewish history. They just sheriffed out as much of the Palestinian content as possible, whereas I showed both perspectives. If I get time I’ll build Carmel’s Jewish realities as well, which neither of you do.

As to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 which I created on January 4, the history is this. User:ShulMaven created an article to document exclusively Palestinian attacks on Jewish Israelis (Silent Intifada) in October. He was opposed to mentioning numerous assaults in the period covered on Palestinians. When the list grew weightier than the several incidents he focused on, a proposal (not mine) was made to give off a large part of the material into a list, and a List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 was created through consensus by User:Cwobeel. The precedent is that we have numerous articles (if only for Israel’s perspective, listing terror events by year, cf. Palestinian rocket attacks). I added everything I came across regarding violence to Jews and to Palestinians, in my work on that page. No partisanship. When the New Year arrived, I naturally, following precedent, created a successor page List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015. Regardless of the fact that it is perfectly consonant with precedent and, unlike the rocket pages, covers injuries to Israeli Jews and Palestinians, User:Igorp lj protested its lack of NPOV from the start, and Ashtul edited in masses of material which fail the criterion for physical or property damage. It was all rumour or innuendo from unreliable sources, that fail the WP:RS standards rigorously insisted upon when editing anything about Palestinians. I added any incident regarding Jewish victims (here , here and here that came to my notice). They are few, compared to Palestinian victim incidents so far, but that is the fault of reality, not mine. Ashtul basically wants to ‘balance’ the article by including obscure website reports that some Palestinian was observed throwing a stone somewhere at a Jewish car or house, which is deemed to achieve parity with the mainstream newspaper reports of physical or property damage caused by episodes of real violence, the remit of this page. He can’t understand WP:RS, WP:NPOV in his fervour to find something anywhere to equalize what he considers my 'nurturing of articles with over the top pro-Palestinian propaganda.' Facts sourced from mainstream newspapers are not propaganda.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verbosity? If my honour is attacked, I reply. You're welcome to ignore that. Sandstein, it is still a mystery to me, and I gather several others, why you cannot see that the first two diffs are both reverts. people more experienced than I, one at least an admin, say they are.

You state:'I believe that a topic-wide 1RR restriction is far too wide in scope to be reasonably imposed or effectively enforced'.

I'm not a policy wonk, but, um, I thought all editors in the I/P area(the topic area) are under a 1RR restriction. If you think the ARPBIA decision to that effect is 'far too wide in scope', then you appear to be saying that all the rest of us are laboring under a misprision, or that the system of specific regulations is flawed. Maybe. But all regular editors have worked under that system for several years. If it doesn't apply to Ashtul, he is granted a sovereign Ausnahmezustand. Still, this place works, like the Lord of popular myth, in mysterious ways. I just want any sanction that stops him from rushing about, without the flimsiest awareness of standard policy and practice, creating huge workloads for people who actually build articles. He needs a breather.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Igorp. Your remarks here about RS only illustrate why it is so damnably hard to work this area when editors ignore Wikipedia's practices and policies through insouciance or indifference. You say (not relevant here by the way) .0404, is a reliable source for facts in the West Bank because mainstream Israeli newspapers refer to it or use some of it? Translation: The Pyongyang Times is reliable for facts because some articles in the New York Times refer to it. I mean, understanding these simple matters is really really basic, and one shouldn't be editing if the simplest points of policy aren't grasped.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am told I haven't supplied the evidence this is a revert. Is this adequate proof?

• (1) On 10:32, 12 January 2015‎ Ashtul edited in 'An Israeli source reporting of the incident says the area has daily confrontation by Palestinians and radical-left activists.' (source HaKol Hayehudi)

The addition merely smeared the victims, had nothing to do with the list definition, and came from a Zionist religious website that was egregiously subpar/subpoor for 'facts'.

.

• (2) Rather than edit-war, I immediately took the matter to the RSN. here.

The only comment was from User:Zero0000, an administrator who knows the area and policy and never makes friendly calls, whatever the POV. he wrote:

I think Nishidani was way too accommodating in bringing this issue here. To put it bluntly, if web sites like HaKol HaYehudi are wiki-reliable we might as well just delete WP:V and forget the concept of reliability. (Zerotalk 09:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC))

• (3)Since Zero might be held to be partisan, I waited 2 more days for further advice, though I though his call sufficient because obvious.
• (4)When no third party chipped in, I duly

removed that passage ('An Israeli source reporting of the incident says the area has daily confrontation by Palestinians and radical-left activists') along with all the other material sourced to HaKol Hayehudi and 0404 websites (Revision as of 13:24, 15 January 2015)

• (5)Ashtul then restored that passage ('An Israeli source reporting of the incident says the area has daily confrontation by Palestinians and radical-left activists') together with all the other material from unreliable websites. (Revision as of 01:29, 18 January 2015) with an edit-summary acknowledging that he knew it was a revert ('revert changes unjustified by Nishidani').

I.e. he added that passage on Jan. 12. I took it to RSN, my judgement was seconded, and waiting 2 days, I then removed it on Jan 15. On Jan 18 Ashtul restored the passage, in defiance of the RSN verdict. This is clearly a revert. Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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

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

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

This is not a revert but sensible solution to our conflict. Looking at WP:REVERT, it completely fail the conition of "being restored to a previous version".

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

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

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

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

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

• And for last, here is part of our exchange on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 lead which the revert complaint is about -

Your addition to the lead is as POV I would expect from you. I will look at it later and I am sure we will settle somewhere. Overall, I think it is a solution. Good night. Ashtul (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Me settle? Never. I do admit to squatting, though. regularly every morning.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nishidani brings Susya as an example to his 'great' job. While I do not discount the GREAT job with the synagogue (and many other articles), the Susya article is a great example how Nishidani made it into a piece of Palestinian propaganda. A huge part is about "Palestinian Susya" and neighboring Palestinians, while the article is about the settlement. Give him a few years, and each and every settlement article will look like that. Is that what WP became? Every article about a settlement will become a a center piece of I/P conflict. I believe the WT:Legality of Israeli settlements covers that aspect and many facts that are generalized should be left out. You don't write in every car company article how it damages the environment.

reply to other editors

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

Sandstein I admit to a mistake on Carmel article but is was since it is not classified as 1RR, I had no way to know it.

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

Cptnono Thanks for your mentoring.

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

Zero, on Al-Aqsa Mosque we chopped together half the 'Access' section out and some in 'Excavations'. There was dialog, something that doesn't happen with Nishidani.

Nishidani, I never asked for balance in the article about incidents. If Israelis are causing more events, it should be in the article. The only balance should be in the lead where (and I invite other editors to check it) your (unnecesary) sources were not balanced and you kept editing out any balancing sources.

You are telling only part of the truth (and this is really the nicest way to say it, someone else probably would have said you are lying to my face).

• Your complaint about 1RR isn't about the 01:29, 18 January 2015 revert but 14:51, 18 January 2015 edit.
• Immediately after my 1st (and in my opinion only )revert, I deleted those HaKol Hayehudi sources and it is in the history description. [HaKol Hayehudi)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_violent_incidents_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict,_2015&diff=642988071&oldid=642987690 Revision as of 01:36, 18 January 2015].

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

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

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

@User:Sandstein: I've added above the sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA - 1RR.   IjonTichy (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

No problem, Ashtul. What is needed for you to start getting it more? Someone up above mentioned a month block which is not going to happen for a first offense. Some editors obviously see a problem. Can you try taking a few extra seconds to think about your tone or reverts before hitting the save page button? Do you need any guidance in the topic area? There are plenty of noninvolved admins who can explain things better than Nish or i could.Cptnono (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Layoff IjonTichyIjonTichy. I don't think anyone disputes the inappropriate editing. Discretionary sanctions are not meant to be punitive. Can we get an admin to lay it out there for him? A short block works but even better would be actually letting them know why and how they screwed up. Any SPI should be done as well (I'm not seeing it but the tools might show differently).Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Sandstein:: The general 1RR restriction for Palestine-Israel articles was imposed by the Arbitration Committee, not by a single administrator. Zero^talk 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement removed by an administrator because it is overly long, confusing and does not seem to have a direct bearing on the edits at issue here. Please resolve related disputes elsewhere.  Sandstein  09:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Sandstein: I see three removals on 18 January of more than 1400 bytes of material at Carmel, Har Hebron. One of his diffs was "This propaganda garbage doesn't belong here" How can this not be a 1RR violation? EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Still not impressed. The report needs to tell us which specific remedy is to be enforced, and it doesn't. Substitute evidence for verbosity, people. Still, if this is about the WP:ARBPIA 1RR rule, the Carmel, Har Hebron edits are a violation, but I believe that a topic-wide 1RR restriction is far too wide in scope to be reasonably imposed or effectively enforced as one admin's unilateral discretionary sanction (even if it were documented who came up with it, which is not the case), so I'm not enforcing it. Others are free to do what they think best, of course.  Sandstein  19:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Zero0000, thanks, I didn't remember that the ArbCom did seem to take over this 1RR rule at some point. That being the case, although I still think it's not the best of ideas, it is an ArbCom decision and must therefore be enforced. Carmel, Har Hebron is clearly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict because it's an Israeli settlement in Palestinian territory, and these settlements are one of the principal issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ashtul is blocked for a week.  Sandstein  09:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 12:45, 8 January 2015 - Violates WP:NPA by calling me an "acupuncture advocate"
2. 14:08, 8 January 2015 - Violates WP:NPA by stating in the edit summary "go away, stupid person"
3. 10:36, 9 January 2015 - Violates WP:NPA by stating "and now you look a bit silly"
4. 17:02, 9 January 2015 Violates WP:NEWCOMER by accusing a new editor of being "a pertennial gadfly with an axe to grind"
5. 13:43, 11 January 2015 Violates WP:CIVIL by stating "how the fuck are we supposed to control POV-pushing?"
6. 00:47, 14 January 2015 Violates WP:NPA by stating "you were the problem then, and it sounds very much as if you still are"
7. 08:33, 15 January 2015 Violates WP:NPA by stating "you are in a minority of one, and clearly obsessed with this particular article"
8. 19:17, 15 January 2015 Violates WP:CIVIL by stating "of all the low-lifes in the world, the cancer quack is probably the worst" and "he is a perfect example of crank magnetism at work"
9. 23:20, 15 January 2015 Violates WP:NEWCOMER by stating "given your extremely limited editing history, I am inclined to dismiss your concern"
10. 23:29, 15 January 2015 Violates WP:NPA by calling me "an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

• Sandstein:

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

• RAN1:

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

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

• NuclearWarfare:

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

• QuackGuru

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 01:36, 16 January 2015

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services[36]
• The Mayo Clinic[37]
• The National Cancer Institute[38]
• The American Heart Association[39]
• Encyclopedia Britannica[40] (which theoretically should produce an article roughly similar to ours)

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

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

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

A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on 26 June 2014. A1candidate deleted MEDRS compliant sources and his edit summary did not give a valid reason to delete all the text or sources from Acupuncture. A1candidate made mass changes to Transcendental Meditation without consensus. A1candidate deleted text from the lede and body that describes Traditional Chinese medicine as largely pseudoscience after there was a long established consensus.[41] See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_92#Traditional_Chinese_medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Chiming in here before closing. As I read it this request is a) not actionable, b) the filer has used this board inappropriately. I see no coherent consensus for any action against other users or in fact A1candidate. My suggested closing is that "No action against JzG. All parties are reminded that conduct at WP:AE is actionable and that abuse of the process to pursue personal grudges, cast unfounded aspersions about others or to advance an off site agenda will result in sanction". Unless there are any objections to this I'll close in 24 hours--Cailil ^talk 11:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]