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 11:12, 19 January 2017 editBishonen (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,327 edits →Result concerning JoyceWood: please close← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:41, 19 January 2017 edit undoEdJohnston (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →JoyceWood: Collapse. User:JoyceWood is banned from Anatole Klyosov Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 17:		Line 17:

	==JoyceWood==		==JoyceWood==
			{{hat\|1=Banned from the topic of ] on all pages of Misplaced Pages, with the right of appeal in six months. ] (]) 18:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC) }}
	<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

	===Request concerning JoyceWood===		===Request concerning JoyceWood===
	; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks\|Jytdog}} 20:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)		; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks\|Jytdog}} 20:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Line 137:		Line 136:
	*This request should be closed soon, since it's been open for five days and appears blatant. I'd favor a ban of ] from the topic of ] on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards, with the right of appeal in six months. If no one else does so, I'll close this request within 24 hours. ] (]) 06:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)		*This request should be closed soon, since it's been open for five days and appears blatant. I'd favor a ban of ] from the topic of ] on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards, with the right of appeal in six months. If no one else does so, I'll close this request within 24 hours. ] (]) 06:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
	:*Please close as indicated, ]! ] \| ] 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC).		:*Please close as indicated, ]! ] \| ] 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC).
			::*Closing. ] is indefinitely banned from the topic of ] on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards, with the right of appeal in six months. ] (]) 18:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
			{{hab}}

	==Towns Hill==		==Towns Hill==

Revision as of 18:41, 19 January 2017

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP: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

JoyceWood

Banned from the topic of Anatole Klyosov on all pages of Misplaced Pages, with the right of appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning JoyceWood User who is submitting this request for enforcement Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested JoyceWood (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 Per their contribs, the user started out editing on some related things but soon homed in and became a WP:SPA for the subject of Anatole Klyosov, a Russian-born scientist who since 2008 has been creating what he calls "DNA geneaology" and characterizes as a "patriotic science" which is a version of human evolutionary genetics (including linguistics, anthropology etc as much work on the subject does) that claims for example that the human race originated in Northern Russia and that has been described by Russian scientists as "DNA demagoguery" (per BLP, refs: Antonova, Maria (November 29, 2016). "Putin's Great Patriotic Pseudoscience". Foreign Policy. and Balanovskaya, E. V.; et al. (2015-01-13). "ДНК-демагогия Анатолия Клёсова" (in Russian). TrV-Science.) Specific diffs in the article First instance of edit warring 02:23, 30 December 2016 First edit, adds inaccurate WL to Genetic genealogy and removing term "pseudoscience" 23:27, 5 January 2017 Removing term "pseudoscience" 00:02, 6 January 2017 Removing term "pseudoscience" Second instance of edit warring for which I warned them, as did Doug Weller here, to which the user replied that they are well aware of 3RR (diff) 03:25, 9 January 2017 Removing reference to humans originating in Russian north, tries to force in WL to Genetic genealogy, and made it less clear that Klyosov himself called his work a "patriotic science" 04:17, 9 January 2017 as above Third instance of edit warring, for which I again warned them: [11:58, 12 January 2017 Removing changes agreed to on Talk page by others, with which they didn't agree, restoring version with which they also don't agree (!) 16:26, 12 January 2017 Again 16:37, 12 January 2017 Again Per the Article revision statistics has WP:BLUDGEONed the talk page with 50650 bytes of commentary. Most of this commentary is almost incomprehensible, not based in policy or guideline or independent, reliable secondary sources but rather primary sources, OR, and personal opinion. The killer thing is that even if you work through all the BLUDGEONing, it appears that the version that JoyceWoods would have at the article is very close (even using the same sources) to what everyone else there would want. See their proposal here for example - you can see that even more clearly in this section I set up at the Talk page that shows the versions. As far as I can tell the focus of the BLUDGEONing and contorted argumentation has pretty much all been about removing the "humans originated in Northern Russia" thing and trying to downplay the description as "pseudoscience". Examples: 03:56, 6 January 2017 extremely long, incomprehensible "analysis" 11:53, 6 January 2017 Making the argument that some papers on which he is a middle author (and which are actually all letters commenting on the work of others) have been cited by others, so therefore the work he actually drove (the "patriotic science" stuff) cannot be pseudoscience. Convoluted and a huge distraction. 20:15, 6 January 2017 more of same 20:42, 6 January 2017 more of same 12:22, 7 January 2017 more of same 10:32, 10 January 2017 arguing that Klyosov did not say that humans originated in N Russia, citing papers he wrote about other things... (oy) When I let them know that their last round of edit warring made no sense - they either agreed with the version they were restoring or they were being WP:POINTY (diff), and then told them I would be filing at AE (diff), they unilaterally launched an RfC, again with an incomprehensible argument (see their post in the discussion section) (diff) Their proposed version of course leaves out the "Northern Russia" thing. In my view this is further disruption. 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) 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 This is a user who blazed into this article with extreme passion and has just been disruptive. We get folks like this, and this is what DS are for. Between their advocacy and their weak grasp of policy I don't believe they can contribute productively on the topic of human evolutionary genetics which includes Klyosov, genetics, linguistics, and anthropology. JoyceWood's response to Gerogewilliamherbert was par for the course. Long, incomprehensible, and in all that, didn't even approach answering the question that Georgewilliamherbert asked, which called for a simple yes/no response. There is some language issue, but the problem is more basic than that. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC) User:JoyceWood, Georgewilliamherbert asked you two questions and you have ignored them. You should answer the two questions. Georgewilliamherbert is going to decide what happens, not me. If you don't understand the questions, you should ask, but by "the arbitration case decision" they mean this: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision, including the discretionary sanctions remedy: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. They are asking if you read it and understand it. The decision was linked-to, in the Discretionary sanctions notice I gave you on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Responding to User:My very best wishes, thanks for weighing in. I agree it is hard to figure out but the two themes i identified - the "Northern Russia" hypothesis of human origins and the downplaying of "pseudoscience" have been consistent issues. With all the walls of text it is hard to tease that out. But I agree on the disruption, and the usefulness of the TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Responding to User:Sandstein, thanks for your comment, but please do spend fifteen minutes and try to make sense of the discussion in say Talk:Anatole_Klyosov#Analysis and please do see the article-editing diffs above. Between the uncooperative, fierce, argumentative walls of text on the Talk page and the POINTY editing in the article, it is very difficult to make progress, and I for one am fed up. This is not just a content dispute, or I would not have posted here. This is a matter where PS DS should be applied. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your replies, everyone. Sandstein thanks for taking more time to review. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested diff Discussion concerning JoyceWood 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 JoyceWood @Georgewilliamherbert: I do not agree and accept these accusations, and consider them as false in respect of my intentions and actions. I will not comment the behavior by Jytdog, however I must say that he showed lack of good faith toward me from the very beginning (i.e. since when he joined the discussion(s) on 7 January) which culminated with this AE. The case above is a cherry-picked construction in which my intention is twisted, and ignored the simultaneous development of understanding of the several topics which were raised, from content and content change, to sources and sources reliability, within these several days, from 5th to 12th January. This profound discussions, which were prolonged due to contributors mutual misunderstanding due to lack of English language or lack of concise replies or simple ignorance, as well analysis and consensus building on specific topics in several discussions (only 2 discussion sections were opened by me), enabled to make several and still on-going, but secure, editing which is according to the Wikipedian policy and principles like WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Thus the wonderment that mine revision of the paragraph is similar and according to guideline to the one which was rashly pushed and edited in the article, although the discussion was not finished (the two "perfect" paragraph versions were not created), held RfC, and reached a consensus, something Jytdog proposed himself and everbody agreed upon. I have only constructive and neutral intentions, and begin to consider that the previously experienced warnings as well this AE, are a threat and abuse of Wikipedian policy (WP:OWN) to intentionally remove a good faith contributor from editing and discussions, in which he profoundly and constructively discussed, contributed to content change, and especially opposed and warned on the violation of Wikipedian editing principles and facts which can not be ignored due to their defamatory effect in the article. If such activity and points are of not enough validity and worth of consideration, then I have nothing else to say, but hope for reason and understanding to prevail. --JoyceWood (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Jytdog's response to my reply - I can hardly defend my intentions and actions when even the answer itself is ignored for being "long" and labeled "incomprehensible", that it did not "approach answering the question". This is my first discussion in an Arbitration, thus I am sorry if I made a mistake replying with such a "long" comment. I simply did not know. I think it can only be long or incomprehensible when there is lack of will to listen and understand both sides. The case above is nor basic nor simple as it is made up with constructions based on subjective presumtion of mine activity. Such case I can not answer with simple reply of "yes" or "no" because it will not clarify the situation, as well then it would be labeled as "short" and that I lack understanding. The position I am dragged in with such reasoning is a vicious cirlce I can hardly comprehend and defend myself.--JoyceWood (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Admin note: Comments exceeding 500 words removed. Sandstein* 21:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)* @Sandstein:, with the removal of my comments in which I debunked the false remarks and false accusations, explained them, you and everyone else, who will not read my removed replies, will base their result on their assumption of comments by Jytdog and My very best wishes, as well admin JzG. This is literally one of the most insane situations I will probably witness in my whole life.--JoyceWood (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes The "DNA genealogy" by Klyosov has no scientific following and was described as pseudoscience, as becomes clear after looking at the literature. JoyceWood looks to me as a strange contributor who is not really a supporter of Klyosov, but creates disruption for the sake of disruption, at least on the page Anatole Klyosov. Here is why: After making very few edits unrelated to science/pseudoscience this account switched to editing Klyosov page , where they made enormous amounts of comments, exactly as Jytdog tells above. Their first edit was revert on the page. Their second edit was pinging me. Well, if the purpose was to engage me to unhelpful discussions, they succeeded. JoyceWood demonstrated no interest in improving non-controversial content about Klyosov, even after receiving such advice . Comments by JoyceWood on the article talk page show no real understanding of the subject. The version they edit war about (even after receiving AE warning) was nearly identical to the current version. I can not imagine that a genuine supporter of Klysov (if there are such supporters - I doubt) would edit war about something like that. In combination with other details, this looks to me as intentionally creating disruption. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Given that, I think that a topic ban at least from the page Anatole Klyosov might be helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC) @Jytdog. Yes, I agree that the downplaying of "pseudoscience" has been consistent issue in the whole discussion. One can also see it from the diffs provided by you in this request. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC) However, I think that JoyceWood had a valid point: the "pseudoscience" issue is currently overemphasized on the page, which I think is not consistent with WP:BLP policy. I think so because: (a) 99% of scientific work by the subject was in the area of mainstream science, highly cited and never disputed, (b) I think his latest "DNA genealogy" work was simply of no significance (published in a single Russian Biochemistry paper), and (b) many sources on the page can be questioned, such as using lab web site, an opinion piece by a journalist about science, and non-standard terminology ("pseudoscience", "parascience", etc.) by his critics. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken @My very best wishes: Scientists who stray outside their specialty field of study to make pronouncements about other scientific fields often end up in WP:FRINGEy areas. Science is more than simply applying the scientific method to whatever one is doing, one also has to possess a wealth of knowledge of the field, and the lack of this can lead good scientists astray when they roam. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning JoyceWood This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @JoyceWood:, did you read the arbitration case decision found above? Are you aware of its findings and significance? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC) JoyceWood, you need to review this section of the Pseudoscience decision: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles Especially these: Obvious pseudoscience 15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Modified by motion at 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Generally considered pseudoscience 16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Questionable science 17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Alternative theoretical formulations 18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC) From where I am sitting, either 15 or less likely 16 applies, and your attempts to resist this are exactly in violation of the case findings. Those are the Misplaced Pages standards for handling pseudoscience topics and have been for nearly 11 years. If you are not willing to abide by them, the sanctions have to be applied. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC) I am aware of the Klyosov article due to the infiltration of predatory open access journals, removal of which is one of my hobbies. There has been problem editing by IPs and WP:SPAs including Plehwik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 208.91.195.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 71.233.211.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). JoyceWood is the latest of these. I concur with the analysis above: her edits to this article are disruptive and indicative of an external agenda, failing to properly distinguish the weight that should be given to fringe versus mainstream theories, and her comments on Talk lack coherence and specificity. Her comments above indicate a lack of awareness of the extent to which these beliefs are fringe. I do not really see how this user can contribute meaningfully to this topic without causing further disruption. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Hm. At first glance this looks more like a content dispute than a conduct issue to me. Yes, there is some reverting and long-winded talkpage usage, but frankly not very much out of the ordinary. As far as I can tell JoyceWood's (latest) edits do not even remove the assessment of this person's theories as pseudoscience, but simply disagreee with others about how to describe the theories. She may well be misguided in her approach or at odds with others, but that's a content issue, and arbitration (enforcement) does not decide these. I remain open to be convinced that there is a serious conduct issue here, though. Sandstein 10:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC) All right, looking at this some more it does seem that JoyceWood's style of difficult-to-understand and excessively lengthy contributions makes it overly cumbersome to work with them productively. They also do not have a record of good, substantial contributions. I do not object to a ban from the article at issue. Sandstein 21:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC) I agree with Jytdog that this is the kind of situation discretionary sanctions are for. They don't exist to punish editors but to save articles from disruption and constructive editors from wearing out. It's my impression that JoyceWood is editing in good faith and has a lot of knowledge of the subject, but, going by Jytdog's talkpage diffs, is pretty much impossible to work with — or as Sandstein says, overly cumbersome. I recommend an indefinite topic ban from Anatole Klyosov and related pages, with the option of appealing this restriction after six months. Bishonen \| talk 23:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC). I agree with the suggestion by Bishonen. The edit warring and wall of text style of discussion on the talk page are concerning. If in six months we see improvement, we can always consider an appeal at that time. Seraphimblade 12:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC) The editing style is tendentious and there are possible CIR issues, which can be extremely wearing on other editors and disruptive to the project. I think an article ban is appropriate here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC) This request should be closed soon, since it's been open for five days and appears blatant. I'd favor a ban of User:JoyceWood from the topic of Anatole Klyosov on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards, with the right of appeal in six months. If no one else does so, I'll close this request within 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Please close as indicated, EdJohnston! Bishonen \| talk 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC). Closing. User:JoyceWood is indefinitely banned from the topic of Anatole Klyosov on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards, with the right of appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Banned from the topic of Anatole Klyosov on all pages of Misplaced Pages, with the right of appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Request concerning JoyceWood

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: JoyceWood (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

Per their contribs, the user started out editing on some related things but soon homed in and became a WP:SPA for the subject of Anatole Klyosov, a Russian-born scientist who since 2008 has been creating what he calls "DNA geneaology" and characterizes as a "patriotic science" which is a version of human evolutionary genetics (including linguistics, anthropology etc as much work on the subject does) that claims for example that the human race originated in Northern Russia and that has been described by Russian scientists as "DNA demagoguery" (per BLP, refs:
- Antonova, Maria (November 29, 2016). "Putin's Great Patriotic Pseudoscience". Foreign Policy. and
- Balanovskaya, E. V.; et al. (2015-01-13). "ДНК-демагогия Анатолия Клёсова" (in Russian). TrV-Science.)

Specific diffs in the article
- First instance of edit warring

02:23, 30 December 2016 First edit, adds inaccurate WL to Genetic genealogy and removing term "pseudoscience"
23:27, 5 January 2017 Removing term "pseudoscience"
00:02, 6 January 2017 Removing term "pseudoscience"

- Second instance of edit warring for which I warned them, as did Doug Weller here, to which the user replied that they are well aware of 3RR (diff)

03:25, 9 January 2017 Removing reference to humans originating in Russian north, tries to force in WL to Genetic genealogy, and made it less clear that Klyosov himself called his work a "patriotic science"
04:17, 9 January 2017 as above

- Third instance of edit warring, for which I again warned them:

[11:58, 12 January 2017 Removing changes agreed to on Talk page by others, with which they didn't agree, restoring version with which they also don't agree (!)
16:26, 12 January 2017 Again
16:37, 12 January 2017 Again

Per the Article revision statistics has WP:BLUDGEONed the talk page with 50650 bytes of commentary. Most of this commentary is almost incomprehensible, not based in policy or guideline or independent, reliable secondary sources but rather primary sources, OR, and personal opinion. The killer thing is that even if you work through all the BLUDGEONing, it appears that the version that JoyceWoods would have at the article is very close (even using the same sources) to what everyone else there would want. See their proposal here for example - you can see that even more clearly in this section I set up at the Talk page that shows the versions. As far as I can tell the focus of the BLUDGEONing and contorted argumentation has pretty much all been about removing the "humans originated in Northern Russia" thing and trying to downplay the description as "pseudoscience". Examples:

03:56, 6 January 2017 extremely long, incomprehensible "analysis"
11:53, 6 January 2017 Making the argument that some papers on which he is a middle author (and which are actually all letters commenting on the work of others) have been cited by others, so therefore the work he actually drove (the "patriotic science" stuff) cannot be pseudoscience. Convoluted and a huge distraction.
20:15, 6 January 2017 more of same
20:42, 6 January 2017 more of same
12:22, 7 January 2017 more of same
10:32, 10 January 2017 arguing that Klyosov did not say that humans originated in N Russia, citing papers he wrote about other things... (oy)

When I let them know that their last round of edit warring made no sense - they either agreed with the version they were restoring or they were being WP:POINTY (diff), and then told them I would be filing at AE (diff), they unilaterally launched an RfC, again with an incomprehensible argument (see their post in the discussion section) (diff) Their proposed version of course leaves out the "Northern Russia" thing. In my view this is further disruption.

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)

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

This is a user who blazed into this article with extreme passion and has just been disruptive. We get folks like this, and this is what DS are for. Between their advocacy and their weak grasp of policy I don't believe they can contribute productively on the topic of human evolutionary genetics which includes Klyosov, genetics, linguistics, and anthropology.

JoyceWood's response to Gerogewilliamherbert was par for the course. Long, incomprehensible, and in all that, didn't even approach answering the question that Georgewilliamherbert asked, which called for a simple yes/no response. There is some language issue, but the problem is more basic than that. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
User:JoyceWood, Georgewilliamherbert asked you two questions and you have ignored them. You should answer the two questions. Georgewilliamherbert is going to decide what happens, not me. If you don't understand the questions, you should ask, but by "the arbitration case decision" they mean this: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision, including the discretionary sanctions remedy: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. They are asking if you read it and understand it. The decision was linked-to, in the Discretionary sanctions notice I gave you on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Responding to User:My very best wishes, thanks for weighing in. I agree it is hard to figure out but the two themes i identified - the "Northern Russia" hypothesis of human origins and the downplaying of "pseudoscience" have been consistent issues. With all the walls of text it is hard to tease that out. But I agree on the disruption, and the usefulness of the TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Responding to User:Sandstein, thanks for your comment, but please do spend fifteen minutes and try to make sense of the discussion in say Talk:Anatole_Klyosov#Analysis and please do see the article-editing diffs above. Between the uncooperative, fierce, argumentative walls of text on the Talk page and the POINTY editing in the article, it is very difficult to make progress, and I for one am fed up. This is not just a content dispute, or I would not have posted here. This is a matter where PS DS should be applied. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, everyone. Sandstein thanks for taking more time to review. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning JoyceWood

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 JoyceWood

@Georgewilliamherbert: I do not agree and accept these accusations, and consider them as false in respect of my intentions and actions. I will not comment the behavior by Jytdog, however I must say that he showed lack of good faith toward me from the very beginning (i.e. since when he joined the discussion(s) on 7 January) which culminated with this AE. The case above is a cherry-picked construction in which my intention is twisted, and ignored the simultaneous development of understanding of the several topics which were raised, from content and content change, to sources and sources reliability, within these several days, from 5th to 12th January. This profound discussions, which were prolonged due to contributors mutual misunderstanding due to lack of English language or lack of concise replies or simple ignorance, as well analysis and consensus building on specific topics in several discussions (only 2 discussion sections were opened by me), enabled to make several and still on-going, but secure, editing which is according to the Wikipedian policy and principles like WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Thus the wonderment that mine revision of the paragraph is similar and according to guideline to the one which was rashly pushed and edited in the article, although the discussion was not finished (the two "perfect" paragraph versions were not created), held RfC, and reached a consensus, something Jytdog proposed himself and everbody agreed upon. I have only constructive and neutral intentions, and begin to consider that the previously experienced warnings as well this AE, are a threat and abuse of Wikipedian policy (WP:OWN) to intentionally remove a good faith contributor from editing and discussions, in which he profoundly and constructively discussed, contributed to content change, and especially opposed and warned on the violation of Wikipedian editing principles and facts which can not be ignored due to their defamatory effect in the article. If such activity and points are of not enough validity and worth of consideration, then I have nothing else to say, but hope for reason and understanding to prevail. --JoyceWood (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog's response to my reply - I can hardly defend my intentions and actions when even the answer itself is ignored for being "long" and labeled "incomprehensible", that it did not "approach answering the question". This is my first discussion in an Arbitration, thus I am sorry if I made a mistake replying with such a "long" comment. I simply did not know. I think it can only be long or incomprehensible when there is lack of will to listen and understand both sides. The case above is nor basic nor simple as it is made up with constructions based on subjective presumtion of mine activity. Such case I can not answer with simple reply of "yes" or "no" because it will not clarify the situation, as well then it would be labeled as "short" and that I lack understanding. The position I am dragged in with such reasoning is a vicious cirlce I can hardly comprehend and defend myself.--JoyceWood (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Admin note: Comments exceeding 500 words removed. Sandstein 21:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein:, with the removal of my comments in which I debunked the false remarks and false accusations, explained them, you and everyone else, who will not read my removed replies, will base their result on their assumption of comments by Jytdog and My very best wishes, as well admin JzG. This is literally one of the most insane situations I will probably witness in my whole life.--JoyceWood (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

The "DNA genealogy" by Klyosov has no scientific following and was described as pseudoscience, as becomes clear after looking at the literature.

JoyceWood looks to me as a strange contributor who is not really a supporter of Klyosov, but creates disruption for the sake of disruption, at least on the page Anatole Klyosov. Here is why:

After making very few edits unrelated to science/pseudoscience this account switched to editing Klyosov page , where they made enormous amounts of comments, exactly as Jytdog tells above.
Their first edit was revert on the page. Their second edit was pinging me. Well, if the purpose was to engage me to unhelpful discussions, they succeeded.
JoyceWood demonstrated no interest in improving non-controversial content about Klyosov, even after receiving such advice .
Comments by JoyceWood on the article talk page show no real understanding of the subject.
The version they edit war about (even after receiving AE warning) was nearly identical to the current version. I can not imagine that a genuine supporter of Klysov (if there are such supporters - I doubt) would edit war about something like that. In combination with other details, this looks to me as intentionally creating disruption. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that, I think that a topic ban at least from the page Anatole Klyosov might be helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog. Yes, I agree that the downplaying of "pseudoscience" has been consistent issue in the whole discussion. One can also see it from the diffs provided by you in this request. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

However, I think that JoyceWood had a valid point: the "pseudoscience" issue is currently overemphasized on the page, which I think is not consistent with WP:BLP policy. I think so because: (a) 99% of scientific work by the subject was in the area of mainstream science, highly cited and never disputed, (b) I think his latest "DNA genealogy" work was simply of no significance (published in a single Russian Biochemistry paper), and (b) many sources on the page can be questioned, such as using lab web site, an opinion piece by a journalist about science, and non-standard terminology ("pseudoscience", "parascience", etc.) by his critics. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

@My very best wishes: Scientists who stray outside their specialty field of study to make pronouncements about other scientific fields often end up in WP:FRINGEy areas. Science is more than simply applying the scientific method to whatever one is doing, one also has to possess a wealth of knowledge of the field, and the lack of this can lead good scientists astray when they roam. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JoyceWood

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

@JoyceWood:, did you read the arbitration case decision found above? Are you aware of its findings and significance? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- JoyceWood, you need to review this section of the Pseudoscience decision: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles
- Especially these:
  - Obvious pseudoscience
  - 15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  - Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Modified by motion at 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  - Generally considered pseudoscience
  - 16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  - Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Questionable science
  - 17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  - Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Alternative theoretical formulations
  - 18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
  - Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- From where I am sitting, either 15 or less likely 16 applies, and your attempts to resist this are exactly in violation of the case findings. Those are the Misplaced Pages standards for handling pseudoscience topics and have been for nearly 11 years. If you are not willing to abide by them, the sanctions have to be applied. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of the Klyosov article due to the infiltration of predatory open access journals, removal of which is one of my hobbies. There has been problem editing by IPs and WP:SPAs including Plehwik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 208.91.195.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 71.233.211.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). JoyceWood is the latest of these. I concur with the analysis above: her edits to this article are disruptive and indicative of an external agenda, failing to properly distinguish the weight that should be given to fringe versus mainstream theories, and her comments on Talk lack coherence and specificity. Her comments above indicate a lack of awareness of the extent to which these beliefs are fringe. I do not really see how this user can contribute meaningfully to this topic without causing further disruption. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hm. At first glance this looks more like a content dispute than a conduct issue to me. Yes, there is some reverting and long-winded talkpage usage, but frankly not very much out of the ordinary. As far as I can tell JoyceWood's (latest) edits do not even remove the assessment of this person's theories as pseudoscience, but simply disagreee with others about how to describe the theories. She may well be misguided in her approach or at odds with others, but that's a content issue, and arbitration (enforcement) does not decide these. I remain open to be convinced that there is a serious conduct issue here, though. Sandstein 10:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

All right, looking at this some more it does seem that JoyceWood's style of difficult-to-understand and excessively lengthy contributions makes it overly cumbersome to work with them productively. They also do not have a record of good, substantial contributions. I do not object to a ban from the article at issue. Sandstein 21:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog that this is the kind of situation discretionary sanctions are for. They don't exist to punish editors but to save articles from disruption and constructive editors from wearing out. It's my impression that JoyceWood is editing in good faith and has a lot of knowledge of the subject, but, going by Jytdog's talkpage diffs, is pretty much impossible to work with — or as Sandstein says, overly cumbersome. I recommend an indefinite topic ban from Anatole Klyosov and related pages, with the option of appealing this restriction after six months. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC).
I agree with the suggestion by Bishonen. The edit warring and wall of text style of discussion on the talk page are concerning. If in six months we see improvement, we can always consider an appeal at that time. Seraphimblade 12:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The editing style is tendentious and there are possible CIR issues, which can be extremely wearing on other editors and disruptive to the project. I think an article ban is appropriate here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
This request should be closed soon, since it's been open for five days and appears blatant. I'd favor a ban of User:JoyceWood from the topic of Anatole Klyosov on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards, with the right of appeal in six months. If no one else does so, I'll close this request within 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please close as indicated, EdJohnston! Bishonen | talk 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC).

Closing. User:JoyceWood is indefinitely banned from the topic of Anatole Klyosov on all pages of Misplaced Pages including talk and noticeboards, with the right of appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Towns Hill

Towns Hill is blocked for one week and indefinitely topic-banned from the WP:ARBIPA topic area plus Bangladesh. The user may appeal the topic ban after six months have passed. Bishonen \| talk 20:14, 18 January 2017 (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 Towns Hill User who is submitting this request for enforcement Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Towns Hill (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:ARBIPA : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 06:51, 15 January 2017 Created new article fundamentally concerned with the Indian-Pakistan border: Pashtun Atrocities against Kashmiris. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 15:12, 15 May 2016 Topic banned from "Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh." by EdJohnston. Can be appealed after 6 months. Date Blocked 72 hours for breaching DS. 16:50, 18 November 2016 Blocked 1 week per this AE complaint. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) 15:12, 15 May 2016 Notified of DS. Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Re: below. 'Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan' seems rather comprehensive, and not particularly constrained by dates; but, in any case, an article that stops (somewhat artificially) the day before the historical date the restriction kicks in seems to be pushing the envelope, to say the least. I'd never want to stop antone writing an article (which after all is exactly what we are here for) but this one, seeing how tendentious it is, seems to be deliberately flaunting the spirit if not the letter of the restriction. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Towns Hill notified of this filing. Discussion concerning Towns Hill 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 Towns Hill Hello. I intended to make an entry dealing specifically with the topic of violence and atrocities committed against Kashmiris by the Pathan raiders in October 1947 (preceding the actual Indo-Pak conflict). I did not intend to open up an Indo-Pakistan conflict topic. I wished to restrict it to the topic of atrocities since we also have a page on Misplaced Pages called 1947 Jammu Massacres. In fact, I was thinking of a way to include all historical atrocities committed by Pashtuns (from the 18th century) against Kashmiris-hence the original title used was 'Pashtun atrocities' (in other words it was not supposed to be solely about the events of 1947) My bad. Sorry if this is actually a violation of the topic ban. Towns Hill EvergreenFir I have never had any problems with anyone in relation to my contributions on the Afghanistan related pages. Towns Hill EdJohnston Clarification: This was not about the Pashtun 'invasion'. This article was solely intended to describe atrocities committed at the hands of Pashtuns, in fact I was thinking of extending this article to include all historical atrocities from the 18th century Afghan rule in Kashmir. Hence, the original title of my page was originally simply called Pashtun atrocities in Kashmir (just like there is an article page called Soviet war crimes). It was not meant to deal with Indo-Pak conflict at all-though I added those parts in by mistake because I thought the atrocities needed context as I couldn't just write about atrocities as if they happened out of the blue. Towns Hill Spiff How do those two edits violate the topic ban? Towns Hill I ask for a self-sanction for all topics related to Kashmiri history and politics related to events post the date 1st January 1946. (I firmly think this date will definitely preclude me from tripping into any controversies on the Indo-Pak conflict area of the topic ban. The two nations came into existence in August 1947 so I will ask for a sanction to be applied on topics post that date. I will also be taking permission from EdJohnston each time I make an edit on Kashmir-related pages since he was the one who originally imposed the topic-ban and will know its limits best. Towns Hill Statement by Kautilya3 I think it has been ok so far. As per the guidance given by EdJohnston, the Kashmir conflicts that happened before India/Pakistan got involved are not covered by the topic ban. This topic is on the verge of India/Pakistan involvement, and I have advised Towns Hill to stay out of it. But he mainly tried to cover the events of 22–26 October 1947, before India got involved on 27 October. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC) In reply to FIM, it is clear that the editor was trying to document the Kashmiri grievance against the Pashtuns, which is somewhat independent of India/Pakistan. However, treating the topic fully would involve India/Pakistan, which is why I advised him to stay away. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Dear admins, I think a hasty decision is being made here. I agree that the article created by Towns Hill was narrowly focused, unencyclopedic, and quite inappropriate. I was the first to raise an alert about it. However, I do not believe it violated Towns Hill's topic ban. The Pashtun invasion was launched, allegedly by Pakistan, to free Kashmir from the Maharaja's rule. There was no India involved at that point. As I mentioned above, India entered the conflict on 27 October and, then, the invasion turned into an India-Pakistan war. But the "atrocities" that Towns Hill was trying to write about happened before that point. (The "atrocities" are quite real by the way. They are well-documented and almost universally acknowledged.) I believe there was no intent on Towns Hill's part to violate the topic ban. If you look at his edit history, he has been trying to document Kashmiri grievances throughout history, and this is part of that effort. After his last block, he has certainly stayed off all India-Pakistan conflicts. I do watch almost all the pages that he edits and know that to be the case. For whatever reason. EdJohnston has issued a finely worded topic ban, dealing only with conflicts between India and Pakistan. I personally favoured that because Towns Hill's POV-editing has caused major problems in the India-Pakistan conflicts. Many editors react violently and all hell breaks loose. That kind of thing has not happened with his edits to Kashmir pages, even though the POV problems still exist. Only a handful of editors operate in this space, and we more or less know how to deal with the problems. Even though I recognise that Towns Hill's editing is far from NPOV, I would also say, to his credit, that it is usually well-sourced. That is already far above the average level of editing in India/Pakistan articles. If any of you want to take a fresh look at his editing and decide what cautions/penalties/sanctions it warrants, I wouldn't mind that at all. But to characterise his latest contribution as a violation of his topic ban is unfair in my opinion. Kashmiris have taken a lot of beating throughout their history, from Indians, Pakistanis, Afghans, and most of all from their own ruling classes. We can't look at all of that through an India-Pakistan prism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC) I think Vanamonde93 and Sitush have effectively countered my arguments. So I will support your decision. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by EvergreenFir @Sandstein: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions would be the remedy... EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC) @Vanamonde93: the Bangladesh part was challenged in a previous AE as it doesn't fall under the DS in the decision by arbcom. Only Afghanistan does. But extending the tban to all edits related to Pakistan and India might help the "apparent confusion" Towns Hill has over the scope of the tban. EvergreenFir (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC) G'day EvergreenFir. You realise Bangladesh was part of Pakistan until 1971? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Just saying it was challenged is all. I can see the argument for it's inclusion, as you mention it was part of Pakistan. But that might be something for the clarification board. Frankly I'd like to see it included. EvergreenFir (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by User:SpacemanSpiff This edit while this ARE is going on suggests that in addition to a block, the topic ban should be expanded to what EdJohnston suggests. I'm commenting here and not below as I once reverted Towns Hill's edits on India (where I'm an editor, and the content has gone through FA review too). Unlike Vanamonde93, I fail to see how this is just good faith, it's essentially testing the boundaries to see how far one can go. —SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC) That's justification for increasing the scope of the topic ban. In addition, these edits are obvious violations of the topic ban. —SpacemanSpiff 10:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Sitush Towns Hill now wants a limited sanction relating to events post-1 January 1946. I'm not convinced that will be enough, even in the context of India-Pakistan rivalries. Regional rivalries long preceded state formation, and there have been far too many instances of problematic editing. Just having a decent grasp of sources is not enough and, indeed, can sometimes enable problematic behaviour in a POV-pushing way. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Towns Hill This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I would decline to take action because the request does not link to a specific remedy or sanction that this edit is supposed to have violated. Sandstein 18:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC) A user banned from India-Pakistan should not be creating articles that are squarely in the centre of the India-Pakistan topic area, especially using heavily nationalistic titles. I would say this is an unambiguous violation of that topic ban. I await comments from Towns Hill. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC) @Vanamonde93: That might make sense of the article title was not so heavily POV. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC) @Future Perfect at Sunrise: The only thing holding me back form closing this as a one month block is Sandstein's comments, which are measured as always and make a good point re asking the sanctioning admin. So I will put my hand up for a 1 month block on this. The more I look, the more it seems like a particularly unconvincing attempt at gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Well, is telling. Towns Hill wants to reshape the topic ban post hoc to narrow its scope. Nope. The time to do that was before stepping over the boundary. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC) It looks pretty clear to me from the prior AE case that EdJohnston was making anything to do with the Partition explicitly included under the TBAN. Topics under DS are usually defined broadly, and this just looks like an attempt at gaming the TBAN by playing at the very edges. It appears Towns Hill is not getting the message. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Given EdJohnston has confirmed the Partition is included, and Bangladesh was part of Pakistan until India intervened in 1971, I think a short block and a broadly construed indef TBAN from anything India-Pakistan-Bangladesh-related is in order. If Towns Hill can contribute constructively elsewhere for six months, an appeal could be considered. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Strictly speaking, this is a TBAN violation. That said, after having glanced over Towns Hill's contributions, it is my gut feeling that there is no bad faith involved here: they misunderstood. A little bit of rope might be appropriate. Towns' Hill, regardless of the result of this discussion, do not skirt the edges of your topic ban. That rarely ends well. Find something entirely unrelated that you are interested in. Edit constructively there. Demonstrate that you can stay within the bounds of policy without frequent reminders. If you want to get back to editing things in your core area of interest, that is the way to go: not by dabbling at the fringes and trying to get away with it. Vanamonde (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Okay, I took a deeper look, and that, combined with the diff provided by SpacemanSpiff, is making me change my mind. I think they are quite deliberately pushing the envelope. My earlier advice to Towns Hill still stands, of course. In addition, though, I would support sanctions. I actually don't favor an extended block, because this sort of axe-grinding does not abate with a cooling off period. Instead, lets give them a short block, but extend the band to all of IPA+Bangladesh right now. That will create a greater separation from the topic, and will hopefully help them avoid the issues exhibited here more easily. Vanamonde (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Oh dear. As EvergreenFir points out, Bangladesh is a problem. I did know that, I guess I'm off my game in this particular discussion. In that case: give them a week's block, and an indefinite IPA topic ban. Vanamonde (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC) @Bishonen: I have already said above that I'd support a broadening of the TBAN over an extended block. What problems this user has are not, in my view, going to be solved by removing their ability to edit for a while: but if they were required to confine their editing to other areas, I do hope that they can learn our policies well enough to be a constructive contributor, even to the point of lifting the TBAN someday. @Kautilya3: I held more or less the same view when I first looked at this request, but I'm afraid I don't buy that argument any more. Here's why. As you point out yourself, one of the things Towns Hill appears to have an understanding of is the source material: and I cannot believe that somebody can know the source material well, but still consider the Pashtun invasion to be unrelated to the India-Pakistan conflict. Again, if a block is made at all I would prefer that it be short. Vanamonde (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC) I'd appreciate a comment by EdJohnston as the banning admin about whether this violates the topic ban. Sandstein 10:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Looks like a violation of the topic ban to me. The Pashtun invasion was a part of the Indo-Pak war of 1947 (it's all there in the paragraph on that war here). But I will wait for EdJohnston. --regentspark (comment) 17:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC) @Bishonen: My inclination is to issue an all encompassing India, Pakistan, Bangladesh topic ban, broadly construed. Looking at the diffs linked to by spacemanspiff, TownsHill is clearly trying his/her best to push the envelope on the current TBAN and anything other than the broad topic ban is going to see them back here in a few weeks. Better to give the editor the chance to demonstrate fealty to the broader project and then, once they've done that, ask for the ban to be lifted. --regentspark (comment) 13:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Come on, people, why are we even discussing this? This is as blatant a breach of the restriction as it gets. Evidently a thoroughly tendentious editor, who should be removed from the topic area for good. (I've also deleted the article under WP:CSD#G5). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC) I agree with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise that this is a topic ban violation. The wording of the ban that I enacted was '"Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh." Later I clarified that anything to do with the Partition of India was included. Regentspark has pointed out that the Pashtun invasion that Towns Hill wanted to write about is already covered in Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts#Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Obviously the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 is included in the ban, including the Pashtun invasion of Kashmir even if it is not described in the deleted article as an official act of the Pakistani government. (The trucks who brought the fighters were presumably official trucks). I would favor a one-month block as suggested above by User:JzG. Towns Hill seems to have trouble adhering to this ban, so if there are further violations the next step should logically be a complete ban from all of ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Sounds reasonable to me. Sandstein 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Note: Towns Hill has replied to @EvergreenFir, EdJohnston, and SpacemanSpiff: and attempted to ping them. Unfortunately the ping function only works if you write on a new line and sign again, so it hasn't worked. Now they're pinged. Unless somebody objects here in the next 24 hours, I'm planning to block Towns Hill for a month for clear violations of the topic ban, with a warning that the topic ban will be extended to all of ARBIPA and Bangladesh if they violate it again. But I thought they should have a chance to get replies from the pinged admins and possibly discuss some more here first. Bishonen \| talk 11:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC). In view of Kautilya's renewed plea for leniency, I'll hold off a little longer with closing. It doesn't look to me like the POV-pushing is acceptable, but I'll certainly defer to people who know more about the area than I do. Would anybody like to respond to Kautilya's points? Vanamonde, regentspark, User:SpacemanSpiff? Bishonen \| talk 11:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC). I support JzG's proposed ban. If this had happened in isolation, then I'd be willing to offer a slap on the wrist. But this is the third time that this user has attempted to push the envelope on the ban, and I think that it is clear they have no intention of stopping. Lankiveil 12:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC). (Putting this at the bottom, since it's another proposal to close.) I note that Sitush has also commented now, indirectly responding to Kautilya's point about sources. Lankiveil, JzG didn't propose a ban, but a one-month block; you support that, am I right? Taking the temperature of uninvolved admin commentary so far, it looks to me like Peacemaker, Vanamonde, Regentspark, and probably Fut Perf support an indef ARBIPA + Bangladesh topic ban right now (i. e. a broadening of the user's current topic ban), while Ed and I have recommended this broadening in the future, if the user violates their current topic ban again. (But I'll change my mind, I think broadening the topic ban right now is a good idea.) JzG and Lankiveil haven't addressed the topic ban but recommended a one-month block. Some other admins recommend that block-time too, while Vanamonde wants a shorter block, if any, and several admins haven't mentioned blocking at all. My sense of the discussion is that we can agree on a one-week block plus an immediate broadening of the topic ban to an indef ARBIPA + Bangladesh topic ban. Are people OK with that? EdJohnston, you issued the original T-ban, will this work for you? Bishonen \| talk 16:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC). I agree with widening the ban to all of WP:ARBIPA, with or without a block of some duration. We have faced this kind of thing before at AE, where someone has potential of being a good content contributor (in the future) but in the present keeps going off the rails. If Towns Hill can contribute outside of ARBIPA maybe they will acquire the skill of editing neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC) If as it seems this is indeed a topic ban violation, as determined by the admins who know the topic area, then I think an enforcement block is in order. I'm indifferent as to the length but something between a week and a month is probably appropriate depending on the perceived likelihood of repeated violations (which seems high because Towns Hill doesn't really seem to understand the idea of a topic ban). I would recommend a broadening of the ban only after misconduct (apart from topic ban violations) has been observed outside the currently delineated topic ban area, which I'm not sure is the case here. Anyway, somebody can go ahead and close this, as far as I'm concerned. This is not, as far as I know, a consensus-gathering exercise, but (theoretically) a one-admin show. I'm only not doing it myself because I don't want to do the paperwork for too many of these things in a row. Sandstein 18:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Towns Hill is blocked for one week and indefinitely topic-banned from the WP:ARBIPA topic area plus Bangladesh. The user may appeal the topic ban after six months have passed. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 18 January 2017 (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 Towns Hill

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Towns Hill (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:ARBIPA :

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

06:51, 15 January 2017 Created new article fundamentally concerned with the Indian-Pakistan border: Pashtun Atrocities against Kashmiris.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

15:12, 15 May 2016 Topic banned from "Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh." by EdJohnston. Can be appealed after 6 months.
Date Blocked 72 hours for breaching DS.
16:50, 18 November 2016 Blocked 1 week per this AE complaint.

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

15:12, 15 May 2016 Notified of DS.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re: below. 'Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan' seems rather comprehensive, and not particularly constrained by dates; but, in any case, an article that stops (somewhat artificially) the day before the historical date the restriction kicks in seems to be pushing the envelope, to say the least. I'd never want to stop antone writing an article (which after all is exactly what we are here for) but this one, seeing how tendentious it is, seems to be deliberately flaunting the spirit if not the letter of the restriction.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Towns Hill notified of this filing.

Discussion concerning Towns Hill

Statement by Towns Hill

Hello. I intended to make an entry dealing specifically with the topic of violence and atrocities committed against Kashmiris by the Pathan raiders in October 1947 (preceding the actual Indo-Pak conflict). I did not intend to open up an Indo-Pakistan conflict topic. I wished to restrict it to the topic of atrocities since we also have a page on Misplaced Pages called 1947 Jammu Massacres. In fact, I was thinking of a way to include all historical atrocities committed by Pashtuns (from the 18th century) against Kashmiris-hence the original title used was 'Pashtun atrocities' (in other words it was not supposed to be solely about the events of 1947) My bad. Sorry if this is actually a violation of the topic ban. Towns Hill

EvergreenFir I have never had any problems with anyone in relation to my contributions on the Afghanistan related pages. Towns Hill

EdJohnston Clarification: This was not about the Pashtun 'invasion'. This article was solely intended to describe atrocities committed at the hands of Pashtuns, in fact I was thinking of extending this article to include all historical atrocities from the 18th century Afghan rule in Kashmir. Hence, the original title of my page was originally simply called Pashtun atrocities in Kashmir (just like there is an article page called Soviet war crimes). It was not meant to deal with Indo-Pak conflict at all-though I added those parts in by mistake because I thought the atrocities needed context as I couldn't just write about atrocities as if they happened out of the blue. Towns Hill

Spiff How do those two edits violate the topic ban? Towns Hill

I ask for a self-sanction for all topics related to Kashmiri history and politics related to events post the date 1st January 1946. (I firmly think this date will definitely preclude me from tripping into any controversies on the Indo-Pak conflict area of the topic ban. The two nations came into existence in August 1947 so I will ask for a sanction to be applied on topics post that date. I will also be taking permission from EdJohnston each time I make an edit on Kashmir-related pages since he was the one who originally imposed the topic-ban and will know its limits best. Towns Hill

Statement by Kautilya3

I think it has been ok so far. As per the guidance given by EdJohnston, the Kashmir conflicts that happened before India/Pakistan got involved are not covered by the topic ban. This topic is on the verge of India/Pakistan involvement, and I have advised Towns Hill to stay out of it. But he mainly tried to cover the events of 22–26 October 1947, before India got involved on 27 October. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC) In reply to FIM, it is clear that the editor was trying to document the Kashmiri grievance against the Pashtuns, which is somewhat independent of India/Pakistan. However, treating the topic fully would involve India/Pakistan, which is why I advised him to stay away. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear admins, I think a hasty decision is being made here. I agree that the article created by Towns Hill was narrowly focused, unencyclopedic, and quite inappropriate. I was the first to raise an alert about it. However, I do not believe it violated Towns Hill's topic ban. The Pashtun invasion was launched, allegedly by Pakistan, to free Kashmir from the Maharaja's rule. There was no India involved at that point. As I mentioned above, India entered the conflict on 27 October and, then, the invasion turned into an India-Pakistan war. But the "atrocities" that Towns Hill was trying to write about happened before that point. (The "atrocities" are quite real by the way. They are well-documented and almost universally acknowledged.)

I believe there was no intent on Towns Hill's part to violate the topic ban. If you look at his edit history, he has been trying to document Kashmiri grievances throughout history, and this is part of that effort. After his last block, he has certainly stayed off all India-Pakistan conflicts. I do watch almost all the pages that he edits and know that to be the case.

For whatever reason. EdJohnston has issued a finely worded topic ban, dealing only with conflicts between India and Pakistan. I personally favoured that because Towns Hill's POV-editing has caused major problems in the India-Pakistan conflicts. Many editors react violently and all hell breaks loose. That kind of thing has not happened with his edits to Kashmir pages, even though the POV problems still exist. Only a handful of editors operate in this space, and we more or less know how to deal with the problems.

Even though I recognise that Towns Hill's editing is far from NPOV, I would also say, to his credit, that it is usually well-sourced. That is already far above the average level of editing in India/Pakistan articles. If any of you want to take a fresh look at his editing and decide what cautions/penalties/sanctions it warrants, I wouldn't mind that at all. But to characterise his latest contribution as a violation of his topic ban is unfair in my opinion. Kashmiris have taken a lot of beating throughout their history, from Indians, Pakistanis, Afghans, and most of all from their own ruling classes. We can't look at all of that through an India-Pakistan prism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Vanamonde93 and Sitush have effectively countered my arguments. So I will support your decision. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

@Sandstein: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions would be the remedy... EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: the Bangladesh part was challenged in a previous AE as it doesn't fall under the DS in the decision by arbcom. Only Afghanistan does. But extending the tban to all edits related to Pakistan and India might help the "apparent confusion" Towns Hill has over the scope of the tban. EvergreenFir (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day EvergreenFir. You realise Bangladesh was part of Pakistan until 1971? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Just saying it was challenged is all. I can see the argument for it's inclusion, as you mention it was part of Pakistan. But that might be something for the clarification board. Frankly I'd like to see it included. EvergreenFir (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by User:SpacemanSpiff

This edit while this ARE is going on suggests that in addition to a block, the topic ban should be expanded to what EdJohnston suggests. I'm commenting here and not below as I once reverted Towns Hill's edits on India (where I'm an editor, and the content has gone through FA review too). Unlike Vanamonde93, I fail to see how this is just good faith, it's essentially testing the boundaries to see how far one can go. —SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That's justification for increasing the scope of the topic ban. In addition, these edits are obvious violations of the topic ban. —SpacemanSpiff 10:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

Towns Hill now wants a limited sanction relating to events post-1 January 1946. I'm not convinced that will be enough, even in the context of India-Pakistan rivalries. Regional rivalries long preceded state formation, and there have been far too many instances of problematic editing. Just having a decent grasp of sources is not enough and, indeed, can sometimes enable problematic behaviour in a POV-pushing way. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Towns Hill

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

I would decline to take action because the request does not link to a specific remedy or sanction that this edit is supposed to have violated. Sandstein 18:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
A user banned from India-Pakistan should not be creating articles that are squarely in the centre of the India-Pakistan topic area, especially using heavily nationalistic titles. I would say this is an unambiguous violation of that topic ban. I await comments from Towns Hill. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: That might make sense of the article title was not so heavily POV. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: The only thing holding me back form closing this as a one month block is Sandstein's comments, which are measured as always and make a good point re asking the sanctioning admin. So I will put my hand up for a 1 month block on this. The more I look, the more it seems like a particularly unconvincing attempt at gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, is telling. Towns Hill wants to reshape the topic ban post hoc to narrow its scope. Nope. The time to do that was before stepping over the boundary. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks pretty clear to me from the prior AE case that EdJohnston was making anything to do with the Partition explicitly included under the TBAN. Topics under DS are usually defined broadly, and this just looks like an attempt at gaming the TBAN by playing at the very edges. It appears Towns Hill is not getting the message. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Given EdJohnston has confirmed the Partition is included, and Bangladesh was part of Pakistan until India intervened in 1971, I think a short block and a broadly construed indef TBAN from anything India-Pakistan-Bangladesh-related is in order. If Towns Hill can contribute constructively elsewhere for six months, an appeal could be considered. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is a TBAN violation. That said, after having glanced over Towns Hill's contributions, it is my gut feeling that there is no bad faith involved here: they misunderstood. A little bit of rope might be appropriate. Towns' Hill, regardless of the result of this discussion, do not skirt the edges of your topic ban. That rarely ends well. Find something entirely unrelated that you are interested in. Edit constructively there. Demonstrate that you can stay within the bounds of policy without frequent reminders. If you want to get back to editing things in your core area of interest, that is the way to go: not by dabbling at the fringes and trying to get away with it. Vanamonde (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I took a deeper look, and that, combined with the diff provided by SpacemanSpiff, is making me change my mind. I think they are quite deliberately pushing the envelope. My earlier advice to Towns Hill still stands, of course. In addition, though, I would support sanctions. I actually don't favor an extended block, because this sort of axe-grinding does not abate with a cooling off period. Instead, lets give them a short block, but extend the band to all of IPA+Bangladesh right now. That will create a greater separation from the topic, and will hopefully help them avoid the issues exhibited here more easily. Vanamonde (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. As EvergreenFir points out, Bangladesh is a problem. I did know that, I guess I'm off my game in this particular discussion. In that case: give them a week's block, and an indefinite IPA topic ban. Vanamonde (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I have already said above that I'd support a broadening of the TBAN over an extended block. What problems this user has are not, in my view, going to be solved by removing their ability to edit for a while: but if they were required to confine their editing to other areas, I do hope that they can learn our policies well enough to be a constructive contributor, even to the point of lifting the TBAN someday. @Kautilya3: I held more or less the same view when I first looked at this request, but I'm afraid I don't buy that argument any more. Here's why. As you point out yourself, one of the things Towns Hill appears to have an understanding of is the source material: and I cannot believe that somebody can know the source material well, but still consider the Pashtun invasion to be unrelated to the India-Pakistan conflict. Again, if a block is made at all I would prefer that it be short. Vanamonde (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a comment by EdJohnston as the banning admin about whether this violates the topic ban. Sandstein 10:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a violation of the topic ban to me. The Pashtun invasion was a part of the Indo-Pak war of 1947 (it's all there in the paragraph on that war here). But I will wait for EdJohnston. --regentspark (comment) 17:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bishonen: My inclination is to issue an all encompassing India, Pakistan, Bangladesh topic ban, broadly construed. Looking at the diffs linked to by spacemanspiff, TownsHill is clearly trying his/her best to push the envelope on the current TBAN and anything other than the broad topic ban is going to see them back here in a few weeks. Better to give the editor the chance to demonstrate fealty to the broader project and then, once they've done that, ask for the ban to be lifted. --regentspark (comment) 13:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Come on, people, why are we even discussing this? This is as blatant a breach of the restriction as it gets. Evidently a thoroughly tendentious editor, who should be removed from the topic area for good. (I've also deleted the article under WP:CSD#G5). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise that this is a topic ban violation. The wording of the ban that I enacted was '"Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh." Later I clarified that anything to do with the Partition of India was included. Regentspark has pointed out that the Pashtun invasion that Towns Hill wanted to write about is already covered in Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts#Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Obviously the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 is included in the ban, including the Pashtun invasion of Kashmir even if it is not described in the deleted article as an official act of the Pakistani government. (The trucks who brought the fighters were presumably official trucks). I would favor a one-month block as suggested above by User:JzG. Towns Hill seems to have trouble adhering to this ban, so if there are further violations the next step should logically be a complete ban from all of ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Sandstein 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Towns Hill has replied to @EvergreenFir, EdJohnston, and SpacemanSpiff: and attempted to ping them. Unfortunately the ping function only works if you write on a new line and sign again, so it hasn't worked. Now they're pinged. Unless somebody objects here in the next 24 hours, I'm planning to block Towns Hill for a month for clear violations of the topic ban, with a warning that the topic ban will be extended to all of ARBIPA and Bangladesh if they violate it again. But I thought they should have a chance to get replies from the pinged admins and possibly discuss some more here first. Bishonen | talk 11:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC).

In view of Kautilya's renewed plea for leniency, I'll hold off a little longer with closing. It doesn't look to me like the POV-pushing is acceptable, but I'll certainly defer to people who know more about the area than I do. Would anybody like to respond to Kautilya's points? Vanamonde, regentspark, User:SpacemanSpiff? Bishonen | talk 11:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC).

I support JzG's proposed ban. If this had happened in isolation, then I'd be willing to offer a slap on the wrist. But this is the third time that this user has attempted to push the envelope on the ban, and I think that it is clear they have no intention of stopping. Lankiveil 12:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC).
(Putting this at the bottom, since it's another proposal to close.) I note that Sitush has also commented now, indirectly responding to Kautilya's point about sources. Lankiveil, JzG didn't propose a ban, but a one-month block; you support that, am I right? Taking the temperature of uninvolved admin commentary so far, it looks to me like Peacemaker, Vanamonde, Regentspark, and probably Fut Perf support an indef ARBIPA + Bangladesh topic ban right now (i. e. a broadening of the user's current topic ban), while Ed and I have recommended this broadening in the future, if the user violates their current topic ban again. (But I'll change my mind, I think broadening the topic ban right now is a good idea.) JzG and Lankiveil haven't addressed the topic ban but recommended a one-month block. Some other admins recommend that block-time too, while Vanamonde wants a shorter block, if any, and several admins haven't mentioned blocking at all. My sense of the discussion is that we can agree on a one-week block plus an immediate broadening of the topic ban to an indef ARBIPA + Bangladesh topic ban. Are people OK with that? EdJohnston, you issued the original T-ban, will this work for you? Bishonen | talk 16:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC).
I agree with widening the ban to all of WP:ARBIPA, with or without a block of some duration. We have faced this kind of thing before at AE, where someone has potential of being a good content contributor (in the future) but in the present keeps going off the rails. If Towns Hill can contribute outside of ARBIPA maybe they will acquire the skill of editing neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

If as it seems this is indeed a topic ban violation, as determined by the admins who know the topic area, then I think an enforcement block is in order. I'm indifferent as to the length but something between a week and a month is probably appropriate depending on the perceived likelihood of repeated violations (which seems high because Towns Hill doesn't really seem to understand the idea of a topic ban). I would recommend a broadening of the ban only after misconduct (apart from topic ban violations) has been observed outside the currently delineated topic ban area, which I'm not sure is the case here. Anyway, somebody can go ahead and close this, as far as I'm concerned. This is not, as far as I know, a consensus-gathering exercise, but (theoretically) a one-admin show. I'm only not doing it myself because I don't want to do the paperwork for too many of these things in a row. Sandstein 18:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)