Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:23, 13 January 2015 editCapeo (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,263 edits →Statement by Capeo: pseudoscience← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:50, 13 January 2015 edit undoජපස (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,622 edits →Statement by jps Next edit →
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 594:		Line 594:

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

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

	===Result concerning GodBlessYou2===		===Result concerning GodBlessYou2===

Revision as of 13:50, 13 January 2015

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347

JzG

Middle 8 and JzG are both warned; no further action at this time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Request concerning JzG

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

17 December 2014: JzG/Guy misrepresents scientific consensus about effectiveness of acupuncture (in fact there appears to be no unified consensus, rather a range of views). Asserts "consensus view that the weak positive results are fully consistent with the null hypothesis" despite no evidence to support existence of such scientific consensus. There is no single consensus evident in MEDRS's (or in clinical practice at academic centers, at many of which acupuncture is used) when it comes to efficacy for pain, cf. this; nor is there any source meeting WP:RS/AC. Indeed, there is evidence of a mainstream view (from the highest-quality MEDRS in the field) that acupuncture is more than a placebo and a reasonable referral option (for more re which, please see here ).
I'm not providing other diffs; I believe JzG would readily agree that this is a view he's repeatedly affirmed, and according to which he has edited that article numerous times.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: nothing pertinent.

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

Here. (only done as a formality; user is a veteran admin active in topic area and is certainly aware of these sanctions)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: It is tendentious to dismiss significant views, especially by admins whose views will tend to weigh more than most users; this is true no matter what side the view is on. Apart from this misrepresentation of the literature, JzG/Guy is highly clueful, and a block or ban would be imo quite unnecessary. All I seek is a warning, and that it be a formal one, since Guy is imo likely to dismiss it if it just comes from me (despite the sources mentioned above). I also hope such a warning would serve to put other editors on notice, e.g. Kww, who has made a similar misrepresentation; see his ArbCom request (diff), as well as editors on either "side" who misrepresent scientific consensus. I suspect Guy will dismiss this and ask for a boomerang, but the evidence is what it is.

Re JzG/Guy's statement: His sources obviously weigh, but don't outweigh mine and prove no consensus (even if they pretend one exists). He's right re qi but that's immaterial. Also see here (scroll to "The emerging acceptance of acupuncture...) for a quote from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, the "most recognized book in all of medicine". That too is a stronger MEDRS than Guy's. Also see e.g. National Health Service: "There is some scientific evidence acupuncture has a beneficial effect for a number of health conditions." . I don't say my sources are consensus, just significant views rebutting Guy's assertion.

I also don't have a high opinion of Guy's ES & reply to my notification. Not the incivility, but the dismissal of valid criticism. And no, this isn't about gaining an advantage in the ArbCom case; it's unlikely to be heard.

Callanecc, I think JzG is still failing to take this seriously (see user talk thread), but I doubt that's significant. I see no other behavioural issues at this time. (There are behavioral issues with QuackGuru, cf. just below, but that's for a different venue, if any.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru (who has a long block log) and I have had numerous disagreements, and I see he hasn't dropped the stick despite my having been on a long wikibreak. He has a habit of "wondering" about my COI status even though I've answered him three times already and my comments on COI are linked in my signature line. Isn't this harassment? (If anyone really wonders about anything else QuackGuru is saying, just let me know.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For Cailil (and also Sandstein), re content issues and AE: My complaint was about tendentiousness regarding content, so the two are kind of hard to separate. Although I explained above why I gave just one example, I understand Sandstein's point about needing to show evidence of persistent tendentiousness. Cailil, Sandstein was right to AGF about my relative lack of familiarity of AE. I'm clueful about the topic area and WP:5P, but not so much about dispute resolution boards. I'd hoped that neutral third parties here could "referee" a quick examination of MEDRS's, among other things. Next time (whenever that is) I'll seek feedback before posting. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

RAN1, point well taken (cf. also Sandstein's closing comment) about the purpose of AE. ... My reverts in July were (as the ES's indicate) to a consensus version with awkward but accurate wording, and were accompanied by plenty of discussion. A number of well-meaning editors made the same change -- one that that made it less awkward but also inaccurate -- and I always reached out to these editors, e.g. here. ... Why did I post at AE? Because it was (as I understood at the time) noted as a good venue for addressing POV-pushing by several Arbs, here. ... I don't have significant concerns about Guy's civility, but I am concerned about his IDHT in the face of MEDRS's that disagree with the views that he depicts as consensus (but which is actually one of multiple major viewpoints). --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 17:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Re COI: If anyone is wondering about it, please read my declaration: User:Middle_8/COI. Alexbrn has always disagreed with the part of WP:COI that says one's profession alone doesn't create a COI in that topic area. That aspect of WP:COI came to light during my own COIN (hence the "reframing").

RAN1 - Re COI, yes, acupuncturists do stand to benefit or suffer depending on how the subject matter is depicted. That's true for other professions too, but especially so for acupuncture given the state of evidence for its effectiveness (i.e. pretty thin). Note: In the "real world", practicing acupuncturists study and write MEDRS's about its effectiveness and are not generally considered conflicted. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 19:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, yes, you are familiar with my editing, so you know that the diffs you list below are cherry-picked, not as bad as they look, and are far from representative. I don't remove MEDRS's; this was a cut-and-paste error, which I acknowledged the same day it happened. But wait: you'd already asked me about those diffs awhile back, and I'd already answered, explaining that it was accidental. Now, you're bringing it up again, seeking to depict it as part of a pattern??? Good grief. ..... OK: For others, Here is a fully readable set of my candid replies from the first time I was asked about these diffs. I can elaborate later if anyone's worried about it. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 17:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist - to the best of my knowledge, templating Guy was required, cf. Robert McClenon's comment here. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

RAN1 and others: HEY! You are getting way, way too focused on Guy's supposed incivility. It's not as if he bit a newbie. Yes, he can be an arrogant jerk (as he'd be the first to admit), but he gets things done, and you are poking him over nothing.

I really do not understand how stuff works at these boards, and it's making less and less sense. What I thought I knew about AE: a way to cut to the chase. All I wanted (however unrealistically) was an "adult" to either warn Guy to quit IDHT-ing about MEDRS's, or at least some good advice. Not your department? So IAR a little! (And if you're going to scrutinize my edits, PLEASE subject QuackGuru (talk · contribs · block log) to 1/4 of that scrutiny -- on that Guy and I agree.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: here; diff

Discussion concerning JzG

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by JzG

Procedural note: Middle8 as an involved, indeed partisan, editor, probably should not be issuing AE notices to admins. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Middle8 accuses me of misrepresenting the scientific consensus. The consensus is that qi and meridians do not exist, there is no empirical evidence to support the existence or validity of acupoints, and the evidence for effect of needling is equivocal and problematic due to the difficulty of blinding to needle insertion.

Believers, of course, dispute this. That doesn't stop it being true. HSE, Ireland's national health body, summarises absence of evidence for existence of qi. What we do know, is that proponents of acupuncture routinely spin negative results as positive, see Pain Science for example. A systematic review of systematic reviews found no evidence that acupuncture is anything other than placebo. Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh also summarise the scientific consensus as I do. Ernst is arguably the most prominent credentialled expert on CAM in Europe; his studies on acupuncture are regularly published in the peer-reviewed literature (example). His view is actually mroe skeptical than mine, in that he considers the recent evidence with stage-dagger needles is conclusive and proves that insertion of the needle also makes no difference. You can read his views at his blog.

There are no accepted scientific or medical treatments that rely on the concepts of qi, meridians or acupoints. The acupoints and meridians did not appear in anatomy textbooks last time I checked (I no longer have a copy of Gray's so cannot verify this here and now). There are differences between acupuncture traditions as to their location. There is no consistent associated anatomy. To quote Ernst's 2006 review:

There is some tantalizing , but no compelling scientific evidence for the existence of either meridians or acupuncture points . Different authors disagree about their location or number. The evidence from histological studies or assessments of electrical conductance is unconvincing . Some researchers have suggested that the collagen content within connective tissue imparts electrical conductive properties which correspond to meridians . If one believed modern texts on acupuncture, there would be no space on our body surface which is not an acupuncture point .
— Acupuncture – a critical analysis, Journal of Internal Medicine 2006; 259: 125–137

This is not markedly different from my summary, but it is different, markedly and significantly different, from the "consensus" as expressed by acupuncture advocate Middle8.

My personal view is that ~~anatomy~~ acupuncture is actually a form of distraction therapy, a known effective psychological technique. Yes, it's a placebo, but a theatrical one, and sufficiently theatrical to engender known psychological effects.

This does not, of course, mean that my understanding of the scientific consensus is authoritative or unchallengeable, but it does mean that this request is frivolous, vexatious, and made in order to attempt to gain an advantage in a dispute (see case at ArbCom currently being considered).

Middle8 is asking you to legislate scientific consensus and establish that his beliefs are objectively correct, while the summaries I cite from journals and other sources are not. Journals are not a magic wand, of course: Chinese journals publish essentially no negative results of acupuncture at all, so the scientific community generally discounts them heavily in reviews. Most of Middle8's mainspace edits relate to acupuncture and TCM, many of them constitute edit warring and I see strong evidence of m:MPOV.

As an involved administrator I cannot sanction Middle8 for this tendentious behaviour. I think someone else might feel that the WP:BOOMERANG is a real possibility here. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@RAN1

you cite, for example, this and as "uncivil". It's hard to see how one can deal with obdurate editors engaged in civil POV pushing without being blunt. That statement is blunt, not rude or uncivil. In the end, it profits nobody to use weasel words and play softly-softly, because we know from long and bitter experience that a clear and unambiguous statement is much less likely to be misunderstood or misrepresented. As to responses to Middle8's vexatious report, perhaps not trolling the admins is a better response than telling the admins to be delightful when being trolled? Just saying. We are, after all, dealing with human volunteers, not people paid to smile at the customer's every statement. It is fine to be blunt, direct, brusque even, just not rude, and I wasn't rude. Not that I wasn't tempted. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to your reply: that's what you perceive, viewing it out of context. In context, Middle8 acknowledged that he has a vested interest in acupuncture, but asserted that this is not relevant and that his edits are neutral (and thus implicitly that his judgment is dispassionate). These opinions are objectively wrong. Someone had to explain ti to him, and nobody else was around, so I did it. By the umpteenth attempt to explain why a vested interest is a COI and your edits that get reverted probably weren't neutral, you sort of run out of ways to gloss it up. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

AE can only address matters of conduct, not content. All of this, save the first sentence, is re-litigating the content issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

JzG has accurately represented scientific consensus. There certainly are groups that have different priorities and, as a result, put out different messages. That's the primary problem with something studied so many times: there will inevitably be false positives, and supporters will seize on those false positives as evidence that the vast bulk of studies are wrong.—Kww(talk) 14:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, people are guilty of conflating two different concepts, and that conflation is causing us difficulty. Being a placebo doesn't mean it doesn't make people feel better: actually, a placebo specifically is a treatment of no actual value that makes people feel better due to psychological factors. All an insurance company or health subsidy looks at is whether a treatment is cost effective: if a placebo makes some percentage of patients feel better and the cost of that placebo is low, it makes sense for an insurance provider to pay for it. That doesn't make it a medically-validated treatment, it only makes it cost effective.—Kww(talk) 14:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by QuackGuru

I am very familiar with Middle 8. We go way back. This is not Middle 8's first account on Misplaced Pages. See User:Middle 8/Privacy. Middle 8 appears to have a COI. See User:Middle 8/COI.

In late October 2013 the acupuncture page was junk with Middle 8 editing the page. Editors added numerous reviews and Cochrane reviews and updated the page. Middle 8 is laser focused on acupuncture. So it was no surprise that Middle 8 was not thrilled with the changes. Middle 8 signed a malformed RfC against me. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2#Outside_view_by_Jmh649_.28Doc_James.29. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed_six_month_topic_ban_of_User:Middle_8_and_User:Mallexikon. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#User:Middle_8_again. User:Middle 8 is well aware of the sanctions. I think WP:BOOMERANG is the likely result for Middle 8. I propose an indef topic ban for Middle 8. Middle 8 is wasting our time. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed QuackGuru's opening paragraph as it concerned a content issue rather than an issue of editor conduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Middle 8 continued to make unfounded claims at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 even after he signed a malformed RfC against me. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#There_was_a_previous_proposal_for_a_six_month_topic_ban_for_both_User:Mallexikon_and_User:Middle_8.

Middle 8 added WP:OR to the lead: ...and therefore preventable with proper training. The verified text is: "...it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently."

Middle 8 deleted a failed verification tag but did not fix the original research he originally added to the lead. The word often was OR. The word many is sourced.

Middle 8 was edit warring over the specific numbers in the lede. The text he added was also original research.

Middle 8 added poor evidence and misleading text to the lede: "but have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists." Only after User:Doc James commented on the talk page Middle 8 claimed he misread the text. Middle 8 has a pattern of making a lot of bad edits according to the evidence presented.

He deleted sourced text from the lede and body but he claimed the source does not support the statement. The comment he posted on the talk page shows he did read the source. WP:CIR to edit. Another editor finally restored the text after a long discussion.

During the discussion, Middle 8 was commenting about RexxS rather than the content: RexxS's ad hominem & general drama is a confession of weakness. Middle 8 was not assuming good faith with User:RexxS. Middle 8 continued to argue against including to the text. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_51#Acupuncture_again. QuackGuru (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RAN1

Template:Cue Middle 8 was officially notified about discretionary sanctions twice in mid-2014, both instances with regard to fringe and pseudoscience. He should be well-aware of what DSes are and how they work by now, and is liable to being sanctioned here for his actions since then. His interactions with Guy have been civil afai can tell; however, it should be noted that he has a COI. He announced his COI sometime before April 2014, and continues to edit the article with controversial changes, with a notable string of long-term edit warring back in October (see: ).

Guy's most recent edit to the acupuncture article is 8 months ago, with only two other edits this year, one a small addendum and the other a revert, so nothing sanctionable there. Guy's talk messages re Middle 8 are civil, see . The only instance of incivility on Guy's part was a user talk discussion on Middle 8’s COI, prompting these terse responses from Guy . The user talk indicates a few spots of incivility towards Middle 8, but not a pattern for it.

Ultimately, this looks like an attempt by Middle 8 to soapbox by AEing an admin, which unfortunately succeeded in pissing Guy off. I think an admonishment (if not a warning) for Guy for not keeping calm and an emphasized warning to Middle about how discretionary sanctions are for behavioral issues only, would be appropriate for this. --RAN1 (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I can understand how you can see the first one as being civil, however the second one is well into ad hominem attacks. Saying Middle 8 is reinforc the impression of someone who is unable to accept that their COI is relevant, and who mistakes their own biases for neutrality is inappropriate at best for anyone here. Given Middle 8’s previous posts before that (accusing skeptics of POV-pushing, calling editors who supposedly take contrary views to his on the basis of his COI pathetic, etc), it was pretty clear you were going nowhere in convincing him of your beliefs on his COI. The best course of action would have probably been to disengage. There are appropriate ways to deal with perceived POV pushing, even perceived civil POV pushing, but blunt talk page attacks is not one of them.

@Middle 8: The point I made was about your long-term edit warring before and after acupuncture was protected, not the July discussion. I’ll take a look at it later, but that isn’t justified by previous consensus. The only relevant mention of POV and AE in that AC case is this: It is not the job of either arbcom or AE to rule on article content issues, beyond stressing that NPOV is non-negotiable. I can see how a fresh editor with no recent experience with AE might bumble a case, but your last statement along with the 2 notifications is evidence to the contrary, and you should really know better. Note that your interpretation of COI is likely not to be perceived by other editors or AE admins as accurate to COI, which may have something to do with the fact that a positive view of acupuncturing on WP would benefit your profession and a negative view would harm it. Just my thought, though. —-RAN1 (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I did read the context, but my point was that there are alternate ways to approach this (namely, discussion about how profession affects POV, noticeboards etc.). You deciding not to use them in favor of ad hominem remarks seems to be the issue here.

@Middle 8: Regarding COI, Misplaced Pages does not apply that standard to COIs since Misplaced Pages's aims are markedly different than most MEDRS's. You should also be aware that AE does not "cut to the chase" in favor of any one involved party, and it's certainly not a place to get warnings for editors you consider disruptive free of scrutiny. Reporting stuff here results in an analysis of the behavior of all involved parties, including your own. I would imagine QuackGuru will come up eventually in the discussion once people have had a time to review his actions. --RAN1 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Alexbrn

I'd class myself as "previously involved" in the Acupuncture article since I have edited there in the past, but gave up and effectively topic-banned myself because the article sucked too much and the Talk page environment was too toxic to allow a realistic prospect of improving it. Life has been better since. I have also had a number of exchanges with Middle 8 on the topic of conflicts of interest, both on the Acupuncture article's Talk page, and elsewhere – so I am familiar with Middle 8's editing history and stance.

This strikes me as an extraordinary AE filing since Guy's expressed view (with which Middle 8 obviously disagrees) is nevertheless perfectly respectable, and was made only on a Talk page. To request AE for this is a strain of Misplaced Pages's mechanisms.

I think this represents the latest in a pattern of behaviour over the last year which has also caused unnecessary strain:

Middle 8 has a COI and to their credit, took this to WP:COIN where the advice seemed to be that yes indeed Middle 8 did have a COI which should be heeded. However by reframing the question and ignoring the responses Middle 8 seemed to take from this a different view and writes in an essay (linked from their sig) that "I don't have the specific 'Misplaced Pages kind' of COI". as a justification for not being bound by WP:COIU.
In view of the above, there have been a number of contentious edits made to the article: deleting information about acupuncture's risks, and repeatedly chipping away at critical content in the lede.
Middle 8 endorsed a hostile RFC/U against QuackGuru and during the course of this it became apparent they had not even properly reviewed the case that was being made, which was based on weak or false evidence. This again strikes me as an attempt to use Misplaced Pages's mechanisms to "do down" an opponent without taking proper care. See the section here ("I overlooked this insufficient evidence when I certified the RfC").
During a content dispute Middle 8 has engaged in canvassing with the non-neutral announcement to would-be recruits that another (actually highly experienced) editor is "not grokking some basic stuff" and that "there's only one right way to read the paper" (which comment itself speaks of a problematic approach).

In deciding whether any WP:BOOMERANG applies to this filing, I think the above could be usefully considered. Alexbrn 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

Double standards applied. When newbie editors respond to disagreements in confrontational ways in topics under DS, they get banned. However, when established editors and admins, like JzG, respond rudely to edits which go against their personal POV, they, perhaps get warned. Or perhaps not. You guys kill me. Cla68 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist

Cailil, just a note that RfC/U no longer exists.

Seeing I'm here, I'll also note:

Yes, JzG erroneously asserted that involved editors are not permitted to issue DS alerts because, in fact, anyone can issue them. But that doesn't mean that Middle 8 was permitted to issue the DS alert when he, being an involved editor, knew JzG was already aware of DS here.
To be clear, Middle 8 asserted "I know you know about this" when he issued the DS alert to JzG.
Whether JzG intended to say "a stupid person" in the edit summary or to tell the person to stop acting so frivolously on his talk page (which is more consistent with JzG's actual comment) is ultimately a matter for JzG himself to clarify and apologise for if appropriate.
A warning is cited below from Dec 2013; we are now in Jan 2015, and the DS system was subject to changes since that time, as the admins below are aware (which both current and former arbitrators are not up to speed with even last month).
I don't think it is a benefit to the project to expect its contributors to demonstrate infinite patience at all times to tendentious editing, and that too when it continues in the user space. Similarly, does the level of frustration expressed by JzG on his user talk page equate to the problematic approach adopted by Middle 8 not just on JzG's talk page? Treating tendentious editing and an instance of incivility equally is risky business for arbitration enforcement, and the reason AE exists. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I honestly cannot believe that it is even remotely being considered that it is sanctionable for an admin to say that they are an admin, as is discussed below. I also tend to believe that, as others have said, this is an attempt at winning a content dispute through intimidation, and I cannot believe that any reasonable person would think that would work, particularly with JzG, who I have never gotten the impression was intimidatable. We can expect some individuals to lose their tempers or civility a little in hot content disputes, like this one, but I don't think that the comments by JzG even remotely rise to the level of sanctionability. I am not sure however that the filing of this complaint for such probably minor infractions, possibly in an attempt to bully others, might not be sanctionable in some way, perhaps at least with a rebuke and/or stern warning for abusing the process. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by jps

Someone really should do something about User:Middle 8. He is one of the primary problems at acupuncture because as a practitioner he believes strongly in its validity and is willing to WP:FORUMSHOP like this in order to enforce his ownership of that article. He has been doing this for nearly a decade. jps (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning JzG

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

This is a content dispute and therefore not actionable. The arbitration process, and by extension arbitration enforcement, can only address problems of editor misconduct, but can't decide who is right in matters of content. While it is conceivable that persistent tendentious (aggressively non-neutral) editing could be considered sanctionable misconduct, one talk page edit is certainly not misconduct, whatever its merits may be. Assuming in their favor that they are not familiar with the purpose of AE, I would only warn the complainant that any repeated misuse of the AE process by making unactionable complaints may, in turn, be considered disruptive and sanctionable. Everybody who is commenting here should not comment on the merits of the content dispute; such contributions may be removed as out of scope. Sandstein 17:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

On reading the case and reviewing Middle 8's editing history I'd be more inclined towards a harder WP:Boomerang. I see absolutely no reason at all to assume Middle 8 is unaware of AE's purpose - especially given that they were involved in an AE case about Fringe science in 2009 (yes that's 5 years ago but it's a world aware from being unfamiliar with AE in the context of fringe science). This looks like a straight forward attempt to "win" a content dispute by removing/chilling "the opposition" with process. I'd tend towards a sterner final warning for abusing AE and re: WP:BATTLE--Cailil 23:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

JzG: Just to note, any editor may issue an alert, regardless of involvement (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts). Your status as an administrator is irrelevant. When acting as an editor on a content issue, you're just any other editor. No opinion on anything else yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hence WP:INVOLVED. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the complaint as currently written is asking us to rule on a content issue, which we cannot. @Middle 8: If you believe that there are behavioural issues which we can address please present them as soon as possible. Given the incivility in the response to the notification of this AE request (note that I haven't looked into the interaction between Guy and Middle 8 to see if this is explained by a pattern) suggests there might be conduct issues worth addressing (specifically civility) but evidence of those would need to be provided, I haven't looked beyond this. I'd also note that AE is unable to make decisions based on use of admin tools per WP:AC/DS#Placing sanctions and page restrictions, though actions or comments made while using them or while discussing using them may be admissible (I don't think there is a precedent on that? This is probably as close as we've come to any action by admins). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok having had some time to review Middle 8's contribs I agree that there is some clear evidence (cf. RAN1's fist para and Alexbrn's statement) of tendentious editing regarding Acupuncture possibly due the issues related to the COI, but that neither here nor there. There is definitely growing evidence that a ban is needed to prevent this disruption, however if other admins are happy to review Middle 8's contribs in detail in this request then I'd encourage other editors to present evidence regarding Middle 8's conduct since 8 May 2014 when they were first alerted to the sanctions.
With the current level of evidence I would be in favour of a logged warning for JzG to stay calm and remain civil in discussions as well as a warning regarding comments like "should not be issuing AE notices to admins" (in his statement above), given that they were previously given a logged DS

I don't know that this remark actually constitutes incivility in this context. While it's ad hominem, given what looks to me like a very bad faith abuse of the AC/DS alert system I think it is an understandable, if rash & regrettable, reaction.I missed the edit summary, yes this is incivility. While I'm against any action being taken against any innocent user who is being vexatiously "process wonked" in principle I think a warning might in fact be appropriate. Guy is 100% wrong about admins being warned by other editors & I think a reminder about that is appropriate here too (HJM's wording above is spot on). That said if there are wider conduct issues (which would seem to be historical) between Middle 8 and Guy this would be better handled by dispute resolution attempts (mediation etc) or RFC/U or RFAr such matters, seem to me, to be beyond the scope of this forum--Cailil 14:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, given Callan's link to JzG's previous warning, I'd be inclined to go with something stronger than a warning. Imagine if a non-admin had been warned to watch their tone, for example, and was then brought back to AE and responded to the AE request in the same manner that resulted in the first warning. But I'm not sure what we could do, and I'm not sure that AE has the authority to sanction an admin for mentioning their admin status in a content dispute. The policy just says we can't restrict the use of the tools, but I wonder if this is sailing a little close to the wind? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

AE can't sanction admin actions as such, but it can sanction incivility, which may include references to one's admin status. But on the whole, while there may be a case for warnings of both parties because of incivility and vexatious use of AE respectively, I don't think that either party's conduct as documented here rises to the level where an explicit sanction is called for. If there is a case for sanctioning Middle 8 along the lines of Alexbrn's comment, it should be submitted as a separate, well-formed request with DATED DIFFS. (I'm not even looking at undated diffs any more, there's been too many times where undated diffs from circa 1970 have been submitted as evidence at AE). Sandstein 16:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein. I think a warning (as laid by Sandstein) for both is appropriate--Cailil 00:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: Do you have anything useful to add or are you just trolling? You're very welcome to contribute if you'd like to present evidence or analysis of evidence against JzG. If that doesn't interest you, I suggest you withdraw your comment. Bear in mind that there is ample precedent for editors being sanctioned for disrupting this board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Sandstein 16:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I couldn't tell you the last time I actually saw real enforcement of the decorum provisions. NW (Talk) 21:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

NW, it happens fairly regularly for comments made at AE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As it appears that there is consensus for both parties to be warned and that we are not going to get consensus for anything further, I'm closing this before any more time and space is taken up with statements by editors on one side or the other on content issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

Request concerning Arthur Rubin

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)

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: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Discretionary sanctions :

Principles

Neutral point of view

All Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Misplaced Pages articles should present a neutral view of their subject. Use of a Misplaced Pages 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

19:42, 8 January 2015 Reverts to non-neutral version which contains unsourced original research
19:32, 8 January 2015 Reverts to non-neutral version which contains unsourced original research
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.
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.
09:51, 19 November 2014 Reverts to non-neutral version which contains unsourced original research, and brushes aside concern about lack of source.
06:28, 4 January 2015 Ditto
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.
22:42, 2 January 2015 Ditto
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

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Discussion concerning Arthur Rubin

Statement by Arthur Rubin

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~~ accused in at least three ArbCom cases, and, in my opinion, correctly, of being a 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)

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)

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)

Statement by EllenCT

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)

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)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Arthur Rubin

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sitush

Request concerning Sitush

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)

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: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF :

Misplaced Pages: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

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
Jan 9 Removed a sourced sentence (refs at end of paragraph) that essentailly summarizes the 3 sources.
Jan9 Removed a revised sourced sentence that exactly summarizes the 3 sources
Jan 9 Removed the same sourced sentence again, essentially threatening an edit war

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date none that I know of
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 (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

Discussion concerning Sitush

Statement by Sitush

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

Statement by Johnuniq

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Statement by Chess

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)

@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)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sitush

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: and , 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).

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

@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)

I don't agree that the article is covered by these discretionary sanctions, they specifically link to the Misplaced Pages 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)

Factchecker atyourservice

No enforcement action taken against Factchecker atyourservice; RAN1 reminded of the purpose of AE. HJ Mitchell \| Penny for your thoughts? 16:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Factchecker atyourservice 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) 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 Misplaced Pages: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 - dismisses RFC as illegitimate, initial post airing this disagreement, 20:11. January 6, 2015 (UTC) - in response to Gaijin42, insists that RFC would not be cut short by agreeing to use non-disputed image. 16:13, January 9, 2015 - attacks Gaijin42 without responding to lack of support for his assertion or otherwise contributing to discussion. 16:53, January 9, 2015 (UTC) - dismisses RAN1’s argument with rhetorical questions. 22:08, January 10, 2015 (UTC) - asks RAN1 to clarify analysis. 23:04, January 10, 2015 (UTC) - after RAN1 clarifies, unproductive comment. 23:32, January 10, 2015 (UTC) - response to RAN1, aggressive attacks with no contribution to discussion. 00:05, January 11, 2015 (UTC) - response to Gaijin42, borders incivility and shows battleground mentality. 00:25, January 11, 2015 (UTC) - 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 - AE Warning - BATTLE/CIVIL 16:52, December 27, 2014 (UTC) - 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) @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) @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) @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) 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) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Factchecker atyourservice Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Factchecker atyourservice 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) Statement by ChrisGualtieri 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) Statement by (username) Result concerning Factchecker atyourservice 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) 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) 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) 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 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 10:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No enforcement action taken against Factchecker atyourservice; RAN1 reminded of the purpose of AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Factchecker atyourservice

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)

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: Misplaced Pages: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

- dismisses RFC as illegitimate, initial post airing this disagreement, 20:11. January 6, 2015 (UTC)
- in response to Gaijin42, insists that RFC would not be cut short by agreeing to use non-disputed image. 16:13, January 9, 2015
- attacks Gaijin42 without responding to lack of support for his assertion or otherwise contributing to discussion. 16:53, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
- dismisses RAN1’s argument with rhetorical questions. 22:08, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
- asks RAN1 to clarify analysis. 23:04, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
- after RAN1 clarifies, unproductive comment. 23:32, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
- response to RAN1, aggressive attacks with no contribution to discussion. 00:05, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
- response to Gaijin42, borders incivility and shows battleground mentality. 00:25, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
- 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

- AE Warning - BATTLE/CIVIL 16:52, December 27, 2014 (UTC)
- 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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Factchecker atyourservice

Statement by Factchecker atyourservice

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)

Statement by ChrisGualtieri

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)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Factchecker atyourservice

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)

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)

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)

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 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 10:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena

No 1RR violation but Davidbena blocked 24 hours for a personal attack. HJ Mitchell \| Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Davidbena 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) 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 14:33, 11 January 2015 rm "Palestinian" 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) 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) 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) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested diff Discussion concerning Davidbena Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Davidbena 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) 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) 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) Statement by Number 57 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 5 7 23:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) @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 5 7 23:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC) @Zero0000: Done, but it shouldn't detract from the fact that this isn't a 1RR violation. Number 5 7 09:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000 Davidbena has also been violating WP:CANVASS over the same issue: . Zero 00:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC) @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 01:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani 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 Misplaced Pages, '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) Statement by (username) Result concerning Davidbena 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) @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) 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)

No 1RR violation but Davidbena blocked 24 hours for a personal attack. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Davidbena

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)

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

14:33, 11 January 2015 rm "Palestinian"
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)
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)
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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Davidbena

Statement by Davidbena

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Number 57

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 5 7 23:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@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)
- @Zero0000: Done, but it shouldn't detract from the fact that this isn't a 1RR violation. Number 5 7 09:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

Davidbena has also been violating WP:CANVASS over the same issue: . Zero 00:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@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 01:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

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 Misplaced Pages, '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)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Davidbena

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)

@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)

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)

GodBlessYou2

Request concerning GodBlessYou2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: GodBlessYou2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPSCI#Discretionary sanctions :

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Dec 30

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning GodBlessYou2

Statement by GodBlessYou2

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

1. Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism.

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

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

2. Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism.

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

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

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

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

Statement by John Carter

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

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

Statement by Adamfinmo

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

Statement by Capeo

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by AndyTheGrump

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

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

Statement by jps

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

Result concerning GodBlessYou2

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

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

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by AmirSurfLera

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

Misplaced Pages: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

Statement by AmirSurfLera

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)

Statement by Lord Roem

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AmirSurfLera

Result of the appeal by AmirSurfLera

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages:Cleanup and Misplaced Pages:Maintenance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)