Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Misplaced Pages

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thryduulf (talk | contribs) at 22:04, 14 February 2016 (→Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ollie231213: closing. Appeal declined). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:04, 14 February 2016 by Thryduulf (talk | contribs) (→Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ollie231213: closing. Appeal declined)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For for the policy regarding the letters æ or ae, see WP:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ollie231213

    Appeal declined
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    Ollie231213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ollie231213 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Topic Ban from Longevity broadly construed, imposed at
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#Ollie231213, logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#Longevity
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator

    Statement by Ollie231213

    The reason that I was topic banned was because, in the admins' words, I am "clearly here to advocate for a specific position on longevity articles rather than following our long standing policies and guidelines" and that I am "consistently editing articles, and voting in AfDs, to favor the position of the Gerontology Research Group is incompatible with the goals of Misplaced Pages."

    These are accusations which I strongly deny. The implications here are that I am not following Misplaced Pages policy and am affiliated with the Gerontology Research Group, both of which are false. I explained very clearly in my statement why I believed I was following Misplaced Pages policy, but these arguments appear to have been ignored.

    Let me use an example here: we can probably all agree that an organisation like the New York Times is, generally speaking, considered a reliable source for many things on Misplaced Pages. However, what if we're dealing with a specialist topic area - astronomy, for example? Are you going to argue that the NYT is an equally reliable source on that topic as NASA is? What normally happens is that, for stories about astronomy, news organisations simply report what NASA has said. They don't do the research themselves. If the NYT published a story claiming that a new star had been discovered, but no authoritative bodies such as NASA had verified the claims, would we just add that to Misplaced Pages without even a footnote?

    Well, the GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy. Just look at how many times you see news organisations say "...according to the Gerontology Research Group" in stories about the world's oldest people - these are just a few: . Lots of other sources clearly consider the GRG to be an authority in the topic area. All I am saying is that Misplaced Pages should reflect this and base its articles on longevity primarily on this source and not on other less-reliable ones.

    For example: Yasutaro Koide, recognised by the GRG and Guinness World Records as the world's oldest man, died recently aged 112. However, the previous day, a man named Andrew Hatch died at the claimed age of 117, according to this source (which might generally be considered reliable). However, he was not able to prove his age so was not recognised by Guinness and the GRG. So what happens here? Do we treat both sources as equally reliable and say that both were the oldest man?!? No, Guinness and the GRG are clearly more reputable and widely-recognised as authorities in this topic area than the Contra Consta Times. I'm not saying don't include Andrew Hatch at all on Misplaced Pages, but include him as a "longevity claim" and not as if his age is definitely true.

    So, just to summarise: I made it very clear in my statement in the initial request that I am following Misplaced Pages's policies. I just want Misplaced Pages's articles on longevity to based on the best sources, and don't want unverified information to be included as if it is fact. My edits in the past have been in line with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:NOR, and WP:RSCONTEXT. I don't see how I can be justifiably topic-banned when I've clearly explained why I am following policy and am acting in good faith. And, should the ban be repealed, I promise to act in a more civil manner in the future. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

    • Comment Ollie's assertion that we should "base its (Misplaced Pages) articles on longevity primarily on this (GRG) source and not on other less-reliable ones." goes right to the heart of why he must stay topic banned. GRG is not a super source of absolute WP:TRUTH that must be used to the general exclusion of all other RS. --> I have explained very clearly what my point of view is here and explained why it is in line with policy. I am not suggesting that other sources be excluded, just that they are not given the same weight as sources which are considered authorities on the subject according to mainstream consensus. It should be clear to anyone wishing to write good encyclopedic articles that you cannot treat all sources as if they are equally valid. Again, how on earth can I be topic banned for simply suggesting that the most reputable sources on a specialist subject should be the primary source used to write articles on Misplaced Pages? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    P.S. I don't understand how this works - how is this a "fair trial" if just some editors turn up and comment but not others? Am I allowed to request input from someone who will likely defend me? (And a number of respected users have, by the way). If not, how do we get both sides of the argument? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Spartaz If the only opinions that matter are those of the uninvolved admins, then why is anyone else even allowed to comment? I'm not going to canvass support but it seems totally unfair that there is no systematic way of dealing with appeals like this. Where's my lawyer? Other editors have expressed frustration at the behaviour of LegacyPac and others (see here). Now, can you please provide evidence that I am editing to "advocate for the GRG position"? The implication is that there is COI but I've clearly explained why that's not true. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    @The Blade of the Northern Lights: So yet another editor involved in the longevity WP:BATTLEGROUND, clearly biased against me, arguing in favour of a topic ban, who does NOT explain why my edits have violated policy. It's a strawman to claim that I am arguing that the GRG is the "only and only true source"; I am not. I am saying that other sources clearly recognise that the GRG is an authoritative body on the topic of the oldest people in the world and thus, Misplaced Pages's articles should be based primarily, but not solely, on that source. If we want to make an article of the top 100 oldest people ever, then it should be based on verified data from the most reliable source that deals with age verification, not on a mish-mash of other sources like news reports on people claiming to be 135 or whatever and then compiled in a jumbled WP:OR, WP:SYNTH mess. This really should be common sense. How can sourcing articles on a specialist subject primarily to specialist organisations, most reliable on the topic, in any way "degrade the quality of the articles"? It's madness. Are you going to topic-ban people who insist that astronomy-related articles should be based primarily on the WP:BESTSOURCES, like NASA, the ESA, etc.? I should hope not, because those editors are the ones following core policy. Now, I repeat again: how is this a fair trial? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Glrx You're quite right, I don't understand why this sanction was imposed, otherwise I wouldn't be appealing it! You also falsely represent my argument. My argument is that I was editing in line with policy. Do you contest this? If so, can you explain why? So far, no one has done so.
    @Guy: "All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Misplaced Pages in support of an ideology." --> Oh look, YET ANOTHER user who doesn't actually respond to any of the arguments I've made, but instead just accuses me of editing with an agenda. So who is it really who is editing with an ideology? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Glrx:
    • You say "However, not being on the list does not contradict a claimed age. It doesn't even show that GRG investigated a claimed age and rejected it for some reason. So GRG's list is not "the oldest living people in the world" but rather "the oldest living people that GRG found and can document" --> My suggestion for the List of the oldest living people article was to have two separate tables: one table of the oldest people verified by the GRG and another table of other claims reported on by other sources but not included on the GRG table. It's true to say that just because someone is not verified by the GRG that they are not as old as they claim, but equally, there's a chance they may not be. The simple fact is this: if you try to compile one single list of the oldest people by adding in people reported on in different sources but whose ages have NOT been verified, then you will a list containing a number of people who aren't as old as they say they are. It is surely much better to have a list of the oldest people who whose claimed age is definitely genuine than a table of those who might or not be.
    • "Now say the old lady in Pasdena dies, and the coroner issues a death certificate that says she is older than the oldest person on GRG's or anybody else's list. The Los Angeles Times then prints a story that includes the age on the death certificate. The Los Angeles Times may even claim she was the oldest known person in the world because it does not know of anyone older. What should WP do? It has some reliable sources, but apparently Ollie will take issue with the reliability of those sources." --> Well, which source is the authority when it comes to world records? Guinness World Records. And GWR work with the GRG. I think the solution is fairly clear: the titleholder as recognised by Guinness should be treated as the "official" world's oldest person, and any other claimants reported on in other sources should be treated as "claims". That's exactly why I suggested having two tables as mentioned above.
    • "The original AE found that Ollie was violating WP policy in AfDs and articles by continually taking the view that GRG should be the most reliable source. In the appeal above, Ollie makes exactly that claim. There has been no change since the ban." --> And the ban was wrong. I've made my reasoning crystal clear and explained why my actions DO NOT violate Misplaced Pages policy. Plenty of other users (including administrators) share my view. This is a content dispute, nothing more. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    @NuclearWarfare: Neither The Blade of the Northern Lights or JzG are uninvolved. And this is why I repeat my concern: plenty of other users would support me here but they are not voicing their opinion possibly because they don't even know this is happening. It doesn't seem very fair that just any old editor can turn up and give evidence because at the moment we are only getting one side of the argument. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Glrx: "You were topic banned not for your beliefs about GRG's stature as a source but rather for your disruptive behavior with other editors" --> That's clearly not the case. The two admins who voted in favour of a topic ban in the AE discussion both did so on the basis that I was here to "advocate for a certain position", nothing to do with my behaviour. In my original statement in that discussion I addressed the issues that were put forward, and apologised for uncivil behaviour. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Spartaz: "We have had edit wars on BLPs because pro-GRG editors refuse to accept that alternative sources meet the standard to say that a famous Chinese linguist is 110 years old" --> So because someone is famous they should be given special treatment? I'm not saying don't include him at all, but don't include him on the same list as people whose age has been verified. But again, this is a content dispute. It's not "subverting standards" to insist the same rules apply to everyone. And no, the GRG don't charge a fee for someone to be verified, if that's what you're suggesting. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Guy: What utter, utter bollocks. Would you care to provide some evidence to support your assertions? Consensus in outside sources is very different to yours. It's absolutely astounding that senior editors on Misplaced Pages - the place where many people turn first to find information - have no concept whatsoever of the idea that not all sources can be given equal weight in certain contexts. The GRG is an organisation that attempts to build a list of the oldest people in the world, and other sources (news sources, Guinness World Records, etc) turn to them when reporting on supercentenarians. Just because someone goes to their local newspaper and says "I'm 115!" doesn't prove they're 115. From WP:RS: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim." To claim to be 115 years old is an extraordinary claim. The vast majority of such claims are actually false. What happens if a news source reports on someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens? Well, it's in a reliable source, so according to your logic we should write on Misplaced Pages that aliens must exist then! No reputable, scientific organisations recognise the claim as valid, but because we can't treat them as more reliable, that doesn't matter. AND BAN ANYONE WHO OBJECTS! -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Glrx 1. If dozens of newspapers are reporting the Guinness World Records titleholder and a few are reporting questionable claims, then Misplaced Pages's due weight policy would suggest that Misplaced Pages should go with what the majority of sources are saying. It's a total fallacy to think that we have to treat every single bit of information in every source equally, especially when the sources contradict each other.
    2. My behaviour doesn't constitute a topic ban. The incivility issue went both ways with Legacypac and I've promised not to continue to be uncivil.
    3. The issue with the area of longevity is that some editors on Misplaced Pages have a strong dislike of the GRG and the so-called "longevity fanclub" because of past experiences with other editors. But I cannot be held responsible for the actions of others. People like Guy are coming up with all sorts of unfounded conspiracy theories that are unsourced (e.g. that the GRG are peddling pseudoscience) and claiming that I am COI-editing, but I've clearly explained why my actions are well grounded in Misplaced Pages policy, and that actually, it's those who think that due weight and good sources policies shouldn't apply. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to overthrow Wiki policy and rules which apply in other areas, including the three core assertions of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS. No one is saying that the GRG is the one and only source on supercentenarians, but what I am saying is that the larger issue is that science requires extraordinary claims to have extraordinary sources, and there is general agreement outside Misplaced Pages and within the scientific community that age claims to 110+ are enough to require age verification. Someone going to a newspaper and saying "I'm 115!" should be treated the same as someone who goes to a newspaper and says "I was abducted by aliens!". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    You can also run an IP check and see that I was not involved in the Zhou Youguang editing. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Blackmane Did you even bother to read my reasoning? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Blackmane: It is not up to Misplaced Pages to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list" --> It's not Misplaced Pages saying that, it's other sources saying that. It's Guinness World Records saying that. It's numerous media organisations saying that. What you are not appreciating is that the GRG actually attempts to 1. Verify the age of longevity claimants, and 2. Build a list of the oldest people in the world. Most other sources do not do that. Misplaced Pages's policies clearly state that different sources do not have to be given equal weight, and that more extraordinary claims require stronger levels of sourcing. Claiming to be 110+ is an extraordinary claim given the rarity of it, and the area of longevity is littered with fraudulent claims. As Norris McWhirter once said: "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity". If Misplaced Pages's list of oldest living people is to be of any value, emphasis must be placed on age validation. If someone is listed on the GRG website, we can be confident that their claimed age is true. On the other hand, if someone has just gone to their local newspaper and said "I'm 110", but no reasonable attempt to validate the age claim has occurred, then there are clearly some doubts as to whether the claim is true. It's believes that more than two thirds of claims to 110+ are false. All I am suggesting is that we have one list of validated claims (where we know the people are as old as claimed) and another list of unvalidated claims (where there is some doubt). But again - and this is my real point- this is just a content dispute. Whether you agree with me or not, my arguments are based on logic and on Misplaced Pages policy, NOT, as most people would have you believe, because I am trying to "advocate for the GRG position" in some COI situation. All I want to do is make sure that Misplaced Pages's coverage of the subject does not get filled with fraudulent age claims and false information, and I get topic-banned for it? It is absolutely outrageous, and the way in which these appeals are carried out - with no kind of fair judicial system - is frankly quite appalling. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Blackmane: Not going to challenge the arguement I've made then? Just like most others here haven't? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: Saying I'm "POV-pushing" again suggests I am acting in bad faith and/or COI editing. But I'm not. At what point does arguing a point of view "POV-pushing"? It becomes POV-pushing if you are trying to argue a point of view which is not in line with mainstream consensus, but my point of view very clearly is. Ironically, it's those trying to push the view that "longevity isn't notable" and that "age validation isn't important" who are guilty of POV-pushing because their views are not, yet they escape punishment. What an utter shambles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Spartaz

    I don't have anything to add beyond what Ed and I said in the original AE. Ollie, the only opinions that have any weight here are the uninvolved admins. Everything else is just noise. Do not canvass others to come and support you. It won't affect the outcome but would be obvious evidence that you are not editing per our accepted norms. Spartaz 18:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

    • For some reason I didn't get a ping from NW below. The issue with GRG is an entrenched view by a section of editors that the GRG takes precedence over our existing sourcing standards - to the point where we have had edit wars on BLPs because pro-GRG editors refuse to accept that alternative sources meet the standard to say that a famous Chinese linguist is 110 years old. See this previous AE, this discussion of Zhou Younguang's age and this other discussion. By actively promoting a pro-GRG stance Ollie is subverting our existing standards for article inclusion. His removal from the longevity area and the impact of similar AE to reinforce the fact that pro-GRG edit warring and acceptance of wider community norms appears to be allowing a more considered approach to Longevity areas. I have no doubt that without it, we could easily have seen Zhou_Youguang have his birth date excluded because being 110 makes him a super centarian and GRG hasn't (for a fee I believe) verified his age. Spartaz 13:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Legacypac

    Ollie demonstrates a lack of understanding of wikipolicy in his appeal. If, as he say,s "GRG is to gerontology what NASA is astronomy" we can safely treat GRG as just one of many RS. Our Astronomy article does not even mention NASA (that I can see) and the lead says "Astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role" NASA is definitely a great authority but hardly the primary or final authority in astronomy.

    If someone wants to write up Andrew Hatch (super old guy) we have good sources and would report he claimed to be 117, has lots of id that verifies that, but did not have a birth certificate because birth certificates were not issued in his region (just as the contracosta times did), they should write it. For completeness, they should also note that GRG would not validate his age. But Hatch is a total red herring as no editor has tried to include him in any table or assert he was the world's oldest man (that I'm aware of).

    Ollie's assertion that we should "base its (Misplaced Pages) articles on longevity primarily on this (GRG) source and not on other less-reliable ones." goes right to the heart of why he must stay topic banned. GRG is not a super source of absolute WP:TRUTH that must be used to the general exclusion of all other RS. (I commented on the AE request that led to the topic ban, not sure if that makes me involved or uninvolved) Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

    It will be quite unsurprising that I see no reason to overturn the sanctions here. The amount of energy that's been expended arguing that the GRG is The One And Only True Source on this subject is so enormously wasteful that allowing editors back in who want to continue that fight will only degrade the quality of the articles on human longevity. I don't see where the implementation of sanctions violated any policies, nor do I see how lifting them will be in any way helpful. Therefore, I strongly recommend this be closed with no action and a reminder that brevity is actually a virtue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

    In response, 1. Misplaced Pages isn't a court of law and 2. my previous points, especially that one about brevity, are reaffirmed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Glrx has done an excellent job of summarizing the GRG; essentially it's a source which has a good deal of use in this topic, but does not have exclusive domain in the field. The fundamental problem is what I described above, that there has been a depressingly persistent campaign to elevate the GRG's importance as being above that of any other possible source material. Efforts to use the GRG research in proper context (e.g. not using absence on the list as evidence against a particular age, or that happening to be on a table does not inherently confer notability) are met with a massive amount of resistance from a horde of SPAs, and compounding their vigor is that many of these have some connection to the GRG and/or Robert Young (most of which is laid out at this AfD). The original case page lays out the gory details, and while the cast of characters is somewhat different the techniques are exactly the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

    I would also note Mabidex's charming statement below is hardly indicative of an editor who will be useful in this topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by JzG

    I am unsurprised that Ollie rejects the findings of independent admins reviewing his conduct - that is pretty much the definitive rationale for enacting a sanction, since people who accept independent views rarely end up here.

    Ollie, find some other area to edit. Leave this topic completely, forever. All you are doing is reinforcing the impression of an externally coordinated campaign to manipulate Misplaced Pages in support of an ideology. We're bored with it. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

    • @NuclearWarfare: The Gerontology Research Group functions as an off-wiki gathering place for promoters of "agecruft" - they are convinced that achieving the age of 100 makes one inherently notable, and that the GRG is the fountain source of all wisdom on matters pertaining to age. We have had years of disruption by members and supporters of this site pushing their external agenda against Misplaced Pages consensus. Its focus on agecruft is less of a problem than its fringe activities in "life extension" - a field littered with blatantly pseudoscientific claims, playing largely to a market of old rich people whose judgment may not be what it once was (if you are thinking that there will be quite a few actual fraudsters involved, you're almost certainly right). Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a leader of this group and was banninated for repeatedly making anonymous edits evading his topic ban. So: GRG think they are the sole authority on supercentenarians, and the sole arbiters of the notability of same (in practice, they always consider them notable, because that is all they are interested in), and there are also numerous other fields where this group can be considered to be offsite co-ordinators of POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Ricky81682

    NuclearWarfare I'm an involved admin on this matter. To give you a perspective on this discussion about the Gerontology Research Group, see this lengthy RFC. The claim was made by Ollie and others that the GRG needs to be identified and separately marked as a different level of reliable source (along with other sources which by random "luck" are never actually used anywhere). This is was but one of many examples of lengthy and disruptive arguing (including an RFC Ollie proposed to ban all newspapers are unreliable sources but only for reporting the ages of very old people). That is why the "GRG is the equivalent of NASA" is frustrating nonsense. The extent and months and months of arguing and arguing on this topic were enough and we are all better off if we don't have to repeat the same arguments with people who clearly only view the GRG as accurate on these very minor factual points. See Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people where even today yet again there is another lengthy round of arguing by people who simply repeat the idiotic mantra that "all newspapers are unreliable for old people's birth dates" by bringing up complete garbage nonsense and to use the GRG again (the language in flavor now is "international bodies that specialize in longevity research" so there are other sources when pushed about it so they aren't just saying the GRG but everything else then gets deleted so it's really just the GRG yet again). Review the old ARBCOM case and you'll see that it's been a decade of problems like this: the only resolution came when ARE started topic banning the people who simply refused to accept the idea of other sources on the topic being considered reliable on a general level (not that the tables aren't just repeating the GRG anyways). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

    Strike that. I don't need to reiterate the actual discussion. I'm involved here, I'm not going to deny that. The main issue is that it is one of many sources. Note that during this lengthy RFC, Ollie argued for a number of sources but when push came to shove, it is only the GRG that actually matters. Today, we have another, similar argument about the lede sentence at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people where the term is now "international bodies that specialize in longevity research" and again citing numerous organizations which again will ultimately be the GRG. Even if the GRG were the equivalent of NASA, we wouldn't then say that anything the Cosmonauts did should be ignored, we'd treat them as equally reliable sources and lengthy and lengthy discussions to fight that issue again and again are not productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 3)

    • Not sure whether this is the place to put this, but I wanted to react to Spartaz's statement that "promoting a GRG POV is harmful" regarding the Zhou Youguang case: I have searched the GRG website, but have found no comment or statement regarding Mr. Youguang on there. Therefore, I assume that the GRG has no point of view about the man, so I am not sure how anyone can claim that IPs are 'promoting a GRG POV' there; instead, I would rather argue that there are fancrufters who are now being confused with the GRG (or possibly used as its scapegoat). As a result, (by both sides) the GRG is once again dragged into a discussion which should, at its core, be about "validation" versus "reliable source". Fiskje88 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ollie231213

    Statement by Glrx

    Ollie231213's appeal does not show an understanding of why sanctions were imposed. Instead the argument is that GRG should be as respected as NASA and therefore implies the sanctions were improper. The ban should stay. Glrx (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

    @NuclearWarfare:. I have not been following longevity topics, but here's my take.

    Ollie represents that Gerontology Research Group should be the respected authority on the age of very old people. It and the Guiness Book of Records should be given more weight on the topic than other reliable sources.

    Ollie apparently founds that belief in GRG's strict requirements for documenting age. This Smithsonian article describes GRG and its procedures. The article describes GRG's requirements for 2 to 3 pieces of documentation. The article also points out that people often make false claims about age, and GRG's documentation requirements often uncover or prevent such frauds. Unfortunately, the documentation requirements also exclude many potentially bona fide old people. For example, there are good records in Japan, but almost no records in Africa. Even in countries with good documentation, some people are not on the list because they want their privacy. If nobody tells GRG that a very old lady is living in Pasadena, then that lady won't be on the list. Or maybe the little old lady has a birth certificate but she doesn't have her marriage certificate, so GRG won't put her on the list.

    Consequently, if someone is on the list, then there are presumably reasonable supporting documents for the individual's age. Volunteers, not professionals, validate these age claims. Misplaced Pages apparently accepts GRG's Table E as a reliable indication of an individual's age. However, not being on the list does not contradict a claimed age. It doesn't even show that GRG investigated a claimed age and rejected it for some reason. So GRG's list is not "the oldest living people in the world" but rather "the oldest living people that GRG found and can document"; GRG calls the table "Validated Living Supercentenarians".

    Now say the old lady in Pasdena dies, and the coroner issues a death certificate that says she is older than the oldest person on GRG's or anybody else's list. The Los Angeles Times then prints a story that includes the age on the death certificate. The Los Angeles Times may even claim she was the oldest known person in the world because it does not know of anyone older. What should WP do? It has some reliable sources, but apparently Ollie will take issue with the reliability of those sources.

    The original AE found that Ollie was violating WP policy in AfDs and articles by continually taking the view that GRG should be the most reliable source. In the appeal above, Ollie makes exactly that claim. There has been no change since the ban. Glrx (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

    @Ollie231213: Editors don't get topic bans for their beliefs; they get topic bans for their behavior. Your behavioral issue was not following WP policies. You open with the claim that you were following WP policies, but the body of your appeal does not address WP behavior policies at all. You close with "I made it very clear in my statement in the initial request that I am following Misplaced Pages's policies." That is not the case either. The charge in the original AE was "Ollie231213's conduct at various AFD discussions is bordering into uncivil territory with numerous personal attacks." There were four diffs. Your response was not about the uncivil diffs, the original research issue, or your continued engagement at the RFC ("Apologies if I sounded patronising or disrespectful but part of the reason why I'm sounding repetitive is because I keep getting faced with straw man arguments, and I want to make sure we understand where we are both coming from here. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)"). You were not on topic for the AE. You did mention some WP policy, but they were not policies about behavior but rather sources. You believe GRG is the superior source. That's fine. Editors may believe what they want. Editors usually have a right to discuss their beliefs and persuade others to their position, but there are limits because other editors have rights, too. WP does not tolerate edit wars where one group keeps putting its version in an article and another group keeps replacing it with something else. Neither does WP want disruption on its talk pages. When there's disagreement, WP policy wants the groups to discuss the issues reasonably and adopt a consensus view even if that view is wrong. Maybe there is compromise; maybe one side prevails for now. The consensus view today is that GRG is a reliable source for some information but it is not the superior source that you want it to be. You were topic banned not for your beliefs about GRG's stature as a source but rather for your disruptive behavior with other editors. The issue at this board is not whether your viewpoint about weighing longevity sources is right or wrong but whether continued disruptive behavior is likely. You have not addressed your behavior at all. Instead, you continue to argue that GRG is the best source even though this is not the forum for a content argument. The implication is that you want this board to admit the original topic ban was wrong, approve of GRG as a great source (something that it cannot do), and give you license to edit war or demean editors who disagree with you. That's not what is done here.

    I do not see an effective appeal here. The appeal should have addressed behavioral issues raised in the orignal AE. Looking at the original AE proceeding, I could conclude that the allegations were weak. I expect Legacypac has thick skin and some one-off ad hominem arguments can be forgiven. Extended and repetive engagement at any discussion is not desired, but it happens. Furthermore, it takes two (or more) to tango. I suspect NuclearWarfare's has that concern. The question is whether the behavior is typical. Furthermore, longevity has been found to be a contentious area, and discretionary sanctions are authorized. In the original AE, you claim, "I'm not on a pro-GRG campaign, on I'm an anti-anti-GRG campaign, which is not the same thing." For the purposes here, the double-negative distinction makes little difference because WP does not want campaigners. I haven't chased the sub-sub-discussion at RSN, but my guess is it is similar to the RfC. Consequently, I expect there is a long history of edit warring and disruptive engagement on many longevity articles. Spartaz has added colorable post-ban sock allegations. Glrx (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Striking text; I misread Spartaz's implication. Glrx (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Blackmane

    I am somewhat peripherally involved as I've voted on a number of the AFD's that were raised largely by Ricky81682 among others. I think a simple statement would suffice here. Ollie2312 was topic banned because of his advocacy for GRG. Naturally, he refutes the accusation of advocacy but is, in his words, on an "anti anti GRG campaign". However, from his statement above: My suggestion for the List of the oldest living people article was to have two separate tables: one table of the oldest people verified by the GRG and another table of other claims reported on by other sources but not included on the GRG table is precisely advocacy that legitimises his current topic ban. One list that uses other sources and one list that solely uses GRG? This idea is basically asking WP to enshrine GRG. This one statement by Ollie2312 is, in my mind, the iceberg that sinks his appeal. Blackmane (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

    @Ollie231213: I read, re-read and re-read again your reasoning. My view does not change. I would not have written what I did if I hadn't read it. Again, having one list that is only for GRG as a source while another list has all other sources pushes forward the POV that GRG is singularly better or special compared to any other source. It is not up to Misplaced Pages to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list". What any list should say is "here is the claim, here is the source" no more, no less. If the claim is later discredited then the entry is removed. If a claim is weak or variable because sources disagree, then the entry should be adjusted based on a discussion. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

    @Ollie231213: WP has never made any pretenses at having a judicial system. It's a privately owned website and as far as has been discussed this is most obviously not just a content dispute. At this point, I will leave this as my last comment as further discussion will derail this appeal. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Mabidex

    @Ollie231213: I read your reasoning. I do believe that anyone achieving the age of 100 is very notable, as it remains rare. Which brings me to it's exceptional nature: What is more rare to humans who read Misplaced Pages than another of our own human species living longer than most others on this earth? According to the US Census, only 0.02% or 55,000 people in the US in all of the time between 2007 through 2011. To reiterate, being a Super Centenarian is an extraordinary claim, and it surely requires extraordinary proof.

    While the GRG is not the only source that verifies Super Centenarians it is one of the more prominent non-profit ones. I don't disagree that verification should be done, but commercial interests should be known for those on the lists that use the story to sell more newspapers (for example) and benefit the commercial interests because of it. Yes I agree that It is not up to Misplaced Pages to say "this source is better than these other sources so we're giving it its own list" but a verified claim of age should be supported of non-commercial claims over those of a commercial nature. What any list should say is "here is the claim, here is the (Commercial/Non-Commercial) source" no more, no less. I agree, If the claim is later discredited then the entry is removed. If a claim is weak or variable because sources disagree, then the entry should be adjusted. As for the topic ban, it should simply be lifted. I see no reason to continue it as this person should be allowed to make disagreements about weak sources.

    @NuclearWarfare: I also see no reason to consider JzG's words here as an involved admin, as they are clearly of a libel nature and out of line as appeals to spite and ridicule to win over the Admins consideration. Mabidex (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal by Ollie231213

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • @Spartaz, The Blade of the Northern Lights, JzG, and EdJohnston: I know little about this topic area but I respect you all a great detail as uninvolved(?) administrators so that's what I'm directing my initial question to you. I've read Ollie's statement and the original AE request. I take it you all would disagree with his description of this "Gerontology Research Group". Could you please either describe a little more as to why or point me to past discussions? Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks all for replying. I did some reading this morning (apparently, I was the case clerk for the Longevity case way back when; who knew). The given rationale for the topic ban was primarily POV pushing with a dash of incivility and tendentious editing. I haven't read anything that would make me disagree with that analysis. As per policy, a clear and active consensus is required to overturn a discretionary sanction. I would view that as functionally being impossible if one other uninvolved administrator agrees with me and would suggest that the appeal can be closed if that situation occurs. NW (Talk) 18:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The topic ban was applied for pushing a POV (that the GRG is the most reliable source) and tendentious editing to support that POV, along with some incivility. The appeal does not address these issues but continues to advocate for why you (Ollie231213) are right and why you should be allowed to continue pushing your POV. AE cannot determine whether the GRG is or is not a reliable source and if so whether it is more or less reliable than any other source and so I make no judgement about that nor about the comments here addressing this issue. Taking into account the comments that do address the relevant issue, and my own reading of the original discussion I have to agree with NW that the topic ban was correctly imposed. Unless there is any disagreement from an uninvolved administrator I will close this appeal as unsuccessful late Sunday/early Monday (UTC) unless someone else does so before me. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
      • @Ollie231213: "POV pushing" implies nothing about what POV is being pushed, it could be the mainstream or it could be on the fringe of the fringe. It just means you behaviour regarding your POV is interfering with the improvement of the encyclopaedia, which includes disrupting discussions about consensus and refusing to accept when consensus is against you. Once again though, this is only about your behaviour not about the notability or otherwise of the topic (or specific articles), or the reliability of one or more source. The behaviour of other people is entirely irrelevant here (see WP:WAX) as this appeal is solely to judge whether you were right to be topic banned. If other people have been behaving badly then their behaviour should be brought to a noticeboard (by someone who is not topic banned) so that their actions can be examined. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    References

    1. The Centenarian Population: 2007–2011, from US Dept Of Commerce. US Census Bereau. Brian Kincel, April 2014, pages 1-7 ()

    Darkfrog24

    Persuant to the unanimous consensus of administrators commenting on this request, Darkfrog24 is blocked for one week. He is strongly advised not to further test the bounds of his topic ban. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:01, 14 February 2016 (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 Darkfrog24

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. (12 Feby. 2016)
    2. ″
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. DS topic ban from quotation marks (22 Jan. 2016)
    2. DS topic ban from all MoS matters (4 Feby. 2016)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This is a clear violation of DF's topic ban from MoS matters, and is just another example of his trying to continue the dispute post-ban. Let's not forget that it was not long ago that his topic ban had to be expanded from "quotation marks" to "MoS matters" because of similar actions on his part. This, however, is the worst action yet. I don't think he should be allowed to continue skirting the topic ban.

    To all other parties, please look at the corrected second diff. It is one thing to say "I cannot participate", but it is another thing to directly reference the dispute and cast WP:ASPERSIONS about members of a deletion discussion. Darkfrog24 should not be discussing the MoS at all, should not be writing anything about it, should not be expressing an opinion on "MoS regulars". Darkfrog24 was advised by the uninvolved administrators to avoid this area completely, and was told numerous times not get involved in this dispute again. If he were smart, he would not've responded at all, which is what he was told to do. I have done nothing wrong. "Note the identity of the filer", etc., had a clear subtext. I do not appreciate being subject to WP:ASPERSIONS from topic-banned editors.

    Last comment on this matter: Ivanvector, if you'd like such an interaction ban, I have no objection. I never interact with this fellow. I was not a party to the original dispute that led to the AE filing. It would make absolutely no difference to me if such a ban were imposed, because I have no desire to interact with DF, and don't do so anyway. Such a ban would thankfully keep DF from dragging me into disputes where I have no place.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Darkfrog24

    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 Darkfrog24

    It is not a violation of a topic ban to tell people that I'm not allowed to participate because I'm under a topic ban. Smokey pinged me and said, "I find it odd that Wavelength, Darkfrog24 and Dickylon haven't commented," so I told him why I and possibly Dicklyon haven't commented. I don't remember which admin it was, but I've been actively told, "If someone asks you about X, you have to tell them you're under a topic ban."

    The so-called "similar actions" were going to the talk pages of involved editors and asking them for constructive criticism on how to make the best of the topic ban.

    While we're here, I don't think it's appropriate for SMcCandlish to make such strongly negative and false claims about me in a forum in which I'm not allowed to respond.

    This is the second time since the ban was put in place on January 22 that an uninvolved user has actively requested that I contribute to a MoS-related project or discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

    @Laser brain: @TenOfAllTrades: The edit mentioning "MoS regulars" was immediately self-reverted; both edits are marked to the same minute, and that was the only part of the post that I even thought might come close to skirting the edges of the ban. There is nothing in WP:TBAN or in any of the answers to any of the questions I asked that even suggests that posting a link to the complaint or saying who filed it is in any way undesirable. If that's is what's intended, someone needs to say so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: No, Thryduulf, my attitude has been "I do not understand you. This is vague and does not appear to be written down anywhere, and it's already been established that we do not think about this matter in the same way." Killer Chihuahua said to avoid anything that even looked like it might be covered, and that's what I've been doing. I thought that all MoS issues were covered by the initial ban and so avoided them, even though EdJohnston later told me that they were not covered. This isn't getting as close to the edges as possible; this is just not knowing where the edges are. If you're going to keep making me guess about what I am and am not allowed to do, then you've got to give me some leeway. I can't read your minds. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    As for why I requested detailed clarification, it's because the complainant wrote a gosh-darn book with multiple complaints that were significantly qualitatively different from each other (ranging from an accusation of casting aspersions against his mental health (I'd asked him "Are you okay?") to my talk page MO to accusations of recruiting someone on my talk page (I'd warned him of how nasty those discussions can get) to accusations of WP:OWN.... You'll forgive me if I don't feel like rereading it right now). Not only was there no way I could have refuted that many different things in 500 words, but the involved admins did not say which parts of it they thought were merited and which they recognized as unmerited and there is no way I could have figured it out without asking. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    @Laser brain: I think what's going on here is that you are used to dealing with topic bans. You deal with the details of them on a daily basis and those details are very familiar to you. Sometimes, people who are around a subject a lot don't grasp that the specifics are not obvious to people who aren't. To address one factual matter: No I was never told not to discuss the topic ban, only not to discuss the MoS. It is not remotely obvious from either the ban itself or from any of the answers given to me by Thryduulf or other admins that I am not allowed to say who filed the original complaint. To use your words, I did not put my thoughts out there on a MoS matter; I told SmokeyJoe that I was under a topic ban and posted a link. That seems to me to be an obvious, relevant and nonproblematic part of the process. You guys are expecting me to avoid boundaries, but you need to either be a lot clearer about where they are or accept that I'm going to step on a mine now and then. I will remind you that I have mistaken those boundaries in both directions—I thought the entire MoS was covered under the original ban . Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Only in Death

    Trouts incoming I suspect. Telling an editor who has effectively notified them by alert that 'I cannot talk about this since I am topic banned' is hardly an actionable edit. Talk about being petty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Starke Hathaway

    This is such an obviously unfounded and vexatious complaint that I think the filer ought to face sanction for it. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Ivanvector

    It's difficult to assume this request is in good faith, in fact it's hard to see what the point of it is at all if not to try to cause trouble. The first diff shows Darkfrog24 responding to a direct question with an explanation of why they are not responding, in as neutral and cordial language as would be possible I can only assume. I have to assume the second diff is in error since it's RGloucester's own edit. How in the world this indicates "the worst action yet" is dumbfounding. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

    In fact I agree with Starke Hathaway: if RGloucester cannot explain how this request has any merit at all and is not clearly and obviously vexatious, they ought to be sanctioned for it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

    @RGloucester: I think SmokeyJoe hit the nail on the head here, and in echoing his sentiment I believe I will make the fourth editor (third uninvolved) to tell you this is petty. But you seem to think petty is fine. I think if you were banned from interacting with Darkfrog24 you would have less petty things to do. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by SmokeyJoe

    I think the following two things are unacceptable:

    If Darkfrog24 is not allowed to participate at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support, then I think the page in question (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support) should be referred to Arbs on the question of deletion. Or an Arb should contribute in the MfD in their capacity as an Arb. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

    Result concerning Darkfrog24

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • It appears that the second diff has been updated/corrected since the first round of comments. Darkfrog24's first edit is on its face not a conspicuous violation, but its invitation to "...Please note the identity of the filer and principal complainant and make of this what you will" is getting awfully close to commenting on a dispute at the heart of his topic ban, and has the feel of testing the ban's edges. Darkfrog24's expansion of that comment in the second diff () cements that perception: "... Please note the identities of the filer and principal complainant—and the degree to which other MoS regulars do and do not agree with them—and make of this what you will" is unambiguously commenting on a MOS matter, covered by Darkfrog24's ban. WP:AE takes a dim view of editors who play "I'm not commenting on the dispute, but here are some things you should note about the participants in the dispute"-type games. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Here we go again. Acceptable: "I am not at the moment permitted to share it with you, and neither is Dicklyon". Completely unacceptable: "Please note the identity of the filer and principal complainant—and the degree to which other MoS regulars do and do not agree with them—and make of this what you will." This is exactly why Darkfrog's topic ban was expanded recently. They seemingly cannot grasp the point that carrying on these disputes is disruptive and that making offhand remarks about the topic and people they have previously been in dispute with is a clear violation of the topic ban. Darkfrog24 is still trying to keep this going despite the original and now expanded TB. I can't believe this has to come to further sanctions, but I'm recommending a one-week vacation. Pinging Thryduulf for your feedback. As an aside, RGloucester, can you please find something else to do and leave the monitoring of Darkfrog's behavior to neutral parties? --Laser brain (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Darkfrog24: I don't see how you can continue to claim ignorance about the nature of your Topic Ban after all of the time people have spent explaining it to you. You were told clearly here not to discuss MoS or anyone's opinions or behavior related to it. You were told clearly here not to keep trying to explore the boundary and find edge cases. The only thing you should say when queried is that you can't discuss it. Writing "Please note the identities of the filer and principal complainant" is a bright-line violation. Everything other than "I am not at the moment permitted to share it with you, and neither is Dicklyon" is a violation. It doesn't matter that you partially reverted yourself, as that wasn't the only problematic part of what you wrote. I don't know how to be any more clear about this: Putting your thoughts out there on MoS issues or on MoS editors in any way, is a violation. This simply won't play, and if you continue to test the boundaries you will be subject to blocks of increasing length. --Laser brain (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree with User:Laser brain as to what kind of comment by Darkfron24 would be acceptable. Support LB's proposal to block the editor for one week. Regarding the above comment by User:SmokeyJoe: it may seem illogical but in fact it is a clear consequence of DF24's ban that they can't join in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support. The fate of the MOS:SUPPORT page will be decided by others. AfDs and MfDs are closed every day without dire consequences. User:Wavelength will allow the page to be userfied to his space if that is the decision. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I too completely agree with Laser brain both regarding what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and regarding the remedy for that. DF has been at this board twice in recent weeks, and following both topic bans requested detailed and extensive clarification of exactly what was and was not permitted (see their talk page). Their attitude throughout has been very much "how close to the ban can I get without breaking it" and that needs to stop, so a 1 week block is appropriate.
      @SmokeyJoe: if this was a userspace page or was explicitly intended to be a personal essay then I would consider an exception, as it is neither of those then I am not. Arbitrators may not and will not opine on matters of content in their capacity as arbitrators. You may of course take DF's topic ban and/or topic bans in general to ARCA to get an opinion on whether topic banned editors should or should not be allowed to comment on XfD discussions for pages in the area covered by the topic ban for which they are a primary author. If you do, I predict (and I am no longer an arbitrator so it is just a prediction) that the answer will come back as either "no" or "no, but with case-by-case exceptions possible as determined at AE.". Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)