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 VictorD7 (talk | contribs) at 19:01, 22 September 2015 (→Statement by VictorD7: Tweak.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:01, 22 September 2015 by VictorD7 (talk | contribs) (→Statement by VictorD7: Tweak.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages: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 A Quest For Knowledge

    Topic ban has expired. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    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
    A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Topic ban from Climate change denial
    Article ban from Anthony Watts (blogger)
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Penwhale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator

    Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

    I'm appealing the first part of the sanction on the grounds that I have not edited this article for at least 5 years,, nor was a single diff presented in the original WP:AE request demonstrating any problematic conduct on this topic.

    I'm appealing the second part of the sanction on the grounds I edit-warred to remove negative, contentious WP:BLP content. As everyone knows, it takes at least two to edit war. Indeed, numerous editors had also edit-warred on this article yet, many of whom edit-warred to include contentious WP:BLP material, yet I was the only one sanctioned.

    • Akhilleus
    • ArtifexMayhem
    • Capitalismojo
    • DHeyward
    • Gnncmac
    • Joel B. Lewis
    • JzG
    • Mann jess
    • Nomoskedasticity
    • Peter Gulutzan
    • PeterTheFourth
    • Stephan Schulz
    • Tillman
    • Ubikwit

    My "crime" was to remove negative, contentious WP:BLP content, not the other way around. Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines provide exemptions for those who remove contentious BLP content. There are no exemptions as far as I know for those who edit-war to include contentious BLP content into articles. Further, I'd also like to state that I'm not even a BLP Nazi. But when we start sanctioning editors for removing contentious BLP content while looking the other way at editors who edit-war the same content into an article, something is seriously wrong with the project.

    @Zero0000: I interpreted the the topic ban to be on the topic in general, not the article specifically. But since I rarely, if ever, edit anything related to the article or the topic, I think the distinction is mute. There was no evidence presented in the original WP:AE request which demonstrated any problematic conduct on the article in specific or the topic in general. The actual dispute centered upon the issue about whether it was acceptable to edit-war contentious negative WP:BLP information into an article. I believe that the community supports my position that edit-warring contentious negative content into a BLP is not acceptable conduct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    @Gamaliel: I'm not going to make any apologies for defending WP:BLP. If you can point to any specific problematic behavior, I'm more than willing to re-examine my conduct, and improve upon it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    @EdJohnston: If an editor raises a good faith concern regarding a WP:BLP violation, under no circumstance should editors edit-war to include WP:BLP violations back into the article. Discussion should continue on the article talk page, WP:BLPN or some other appropriate venue. I am not aware of any policy, guideline or even an essay which advocates edit-warring contentious BLP content into articles. EdJohnston, I think you're one of the more level headed AE admins, and I will continue to support you regardless of the outcome of my appeal, but what I am saying is that edit-warring to include contentious negative content on a BLP is not acceptable behavior. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    @Nomoskedasticity: I am (or at least was) a frequent patroller of WP:BLPN so I understand WP:BLP perfectly well. Even now, there's a glaring BLP violation in the very first sentence of Anthony Watts (blogger). Per WP:LABEL, we are not allowed to use value-laden labels such as denier unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Further, WP:BLP requires that the burden of proof lies on those restoring the BLP violations, not the ones removing the BLP violations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    @Zero: This has nothing to do with climate change. The issue here is whether it is acceptable to edit-war WP:BLP violations into an article (or whether it is acceptable to edit-war contentious, negative BLP content into an article).
    I state the following:
    1. It is not acceptable conduct to edit-war WP:BLP violations into a Misplaced Pages article.
    2. It is not acceptable conduct to edit-war contentious negative WP:BLP content into a Misplaced Pages article.
    3. Either way, the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.
    Does anyone here seriously disagree that edit-warring WP:BLP violations and/or contentious negative WP:BLP content isn't acceptable conduct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    @JzG: Ummm....no. WP:BLP doesn't say that BLP applies to all topic spaces except climate change. BLP applies to all of Misplaced Pages. We cannot simply throw out the rules just because of one's own personal opinions about a topic. In fact, your post helps illustrate the core of the problem. Misplaced Pages is a not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for editors to carry on ideological battles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Penwhale

    @Zero0000: No, the sanction I applied was TBAN from both Anthony Watts (blogger) and Climate change denial; the latter was not intended to be for the page itself only. - Penwhale | 13:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Nomoskedasticity

    AQFK appears to have a significant misunderstanding of BLP. What it actually says is not that someone may edit-war to remove "contentious BLP content" -- rather, it is "contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced" that must be removed. The difficulty for AQFK is that the material he was edit-warring over (and hey, at least he admits it) was properly sourced. It strikes me as important to know (in connection with this request) whether this misrepresentation of BLP policy is deliberate or simply incompetent. Either way, I get the sense that AQFK's main goal in making this request is to get a green light to resume edit-warring over this material; note also that he hasn't really done any editing on other topics since the topic ban was imposed. As for the list of other editors who restored the material AQFK deleted -- what that list really shows is the extent of consensus regarding the way the article should be edited. So let's hope my prediction proves to be wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

    • This edit is quite revealing of AQFK's difficulty and indicates an on-going problem re working in a collaborative editing environment. I'm really quite curious to see what will happen now that the sanction has expired, i.e., will we soon see a resumption of the behavior that led to the sanction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by User:Akhilleus

    I don't edit much in the climate change area, but I see I'm listed first on AQFK's list of edit warriors on Anthony Watts (blogger). So I guess I'm "involved." Anyway, AQFK seems to find no fault with the behavior that led to his temporary ban from climate change articles; is there any change that the topic ban could be extended? Because otherwise I think that he will continue the problematic behavior, and we'll be back here soon. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

    According to their statement User:Penwhale apparently meant "climate change denial" in a broad sense, but linked to the article Climate change denial when writing up the result. This apparently led to confusion. If this is correct it would obviate the first part of AQFK's appeal (and the record should be clarified accordingly). In any event both restrictions will expire a week from Wednesday and so the appeal seems almost-but-not-quite pointless given the usual pace at which requests here are decided. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by JzG

    It's time to start closing down the climate denial apologia on that article. The fiction that reality-based criticism is "negative material" has been used as a magic talisman for too long. We do not need warriors for truth whose truth runs counter to the scientific consensus, and since AQFK seems to think he never edits in this area I fail to see why the appeal was lodged in the first place.

    We have reliable mainstream sources that describe Watts and especially his blog as part of the climate change denialist movement. I have yet to see a single reliable source that credibly identifies those who accept anthropogenic climate change as denialists of anything. The science is overwhelming: the climate is changing (virtually nobody qualified to venture an opinion disputes this at all any more), it's largely due to atmospheric CO2 (ditto) and we are the dominant cause (wcih view has vanishingly few credentialled dissenters). Climate change "skepticism" became pseudoskepticism a while back and is, by now, simply denial. We need to get past the stupid attempts to deny the science - largely a US issue anyway, most countries are over this - and focus on the things where reasonable people can differ, such as what to do about it and how soon. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by MONGO

    As this is a BLP issue and we are supposedly an encyclopedia we don't have to reiterate exact words used about persons made by those person's scientific opponents. We should avoid such hotbutton terms especially if the subject of the BLP has claimed that that descriptive is not true or accurate. My take on Watts is he is not a denialist but is adversarial to the mainstream view on climate change in terms of its severity or future prospects for doom and that he disagrees that humans are the sole cause of this phenomenon. Watts has stated he believes climate change is fact...his disagreement is with the alarmist stance. The term "denialist" is a poor comparative analogy to Holocaust Denial....and is misused to silence any discussion inappropriately. Much like the suffix "gate" is misused to compare relatively minor issues to the notorious Watergate Scandal, it's simply not necessary to refute Watts in our encyclopedia in the same manner his detractors do. Would also appreciate if some of the condescending comments about the U.S. cease. With that said, edit warring is unacceptable and sadly if the concensus is that we should misuse this website to call someone something they themselves deny, then that's a shame, but that's the way it goes I suppose. For the record, the opening and title of the article Climate change denialism really is lousy. If you want science them all these scientists can help me with my slow update of the FA Retreat of glaciers since 1850...and stop fretting about labelling a skeptic as a denialist.--MONGO 09:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Peter Gulutzan

    MONGO is correct to refute JzG but there is no consensus to misuse the article. That being the case, A Quest For Knowledge was right to point out that the majority of known reliable sources say skeptic not denier, and to oppose those who insist on inserting denier in the lead and removing skeptic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by DHeyward

    Topic ban is over, correct? That said, the pejorative "denier" is a political term, it's negative, not widely used and the source for it is not a political expert. JzG accurately states the scientific consensus. What he doesn't seem to understand is expressing the understanding as he did is a "denier" position. "Most" in IPCC terms means "more than half." (IPCC is 95% confident that of the 0.8C of observed warming, at least 0.4C is attributable to humans). However, Mann and others believe virtually all the observed warming is attributable to humans. They believe natural causes, such as volcanoes, have lessened the footprint. If, like Watts and JzG, a person doesn't attribute all the observed warming to human activity, instead of "most", they are "deniers" per Mann and others. The label is purely political and it is at odds with consensus when it can be applied so broadly that it would include IPCC's own statement. We should not be advocates for a political position and this sourcing for "denier" is not from science, it's from political advocacy by someone that is a political advocate. --DHeyward (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by A Quest For Knowledge

    The original AE was here. I won't vote on the appeal since I participated in the original ban discussion. But the case for lifting appears weak. See the Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy. Over a period of two months, AQFK removed the same quotation from the article on Anthony Watts (blogger) 22 times. This is a pattern of long-term edit warring. In the domain of ARBCC there are few examples of good behavior, and the 'denier' terminology should raise our eyebrows. But AQFK's behavior was (in my opinion) disruptive. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal by A Quest For Knowledge

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'm sure lots of other editors have engaged in problematic behavior in this topic area, that's why we have the sanctions in place. But your appeal should address your behavior, and does not appear to beyond the statement "My "crime" was to remove negative, contentious WP:BLP content". It should also address the concerns raised in the initial request which resulted in the sanction. At that request (where I participated, for the record, though I don't remember it - it's been a long summer) other admins raised concerns about your "battleground approach" and stated that you have "engaged in long-term edit warring". Gamaliel (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to understand the BLP argument. In the "climate debate" world, the epithet "denier" is something of a dirty word. The mainstream and the fringe sides use it against each other to imply that the other is merely refusing to admit the truth, rather than being "skeptical" as good scientists are supposed to be. This essay now featured on Watts' site shows it used against the mainstream. In this climate (oops) I don't believe that Misplaced Pages should use the label in its own voice. However what is being debated is inclusion of an attributed opinion that appeared in a "reliable source". That is not a BLP violation. On the other hand, since it is a negative opinion that the target doesn't accept, it should continue with something like "though Watts contests that description". If Quest was fighting for that, rather than deleting the whole sentence multiple times as if it accuses Watts of murdering his mother, I'd have more sympathy. Zero 01:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Soham321

    Appeal declined. EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Appealing user
    Soham321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction being appealed
    Six months' topic ban from all pages related to India
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator

    Statement by Soham321

    I wish to continue participating in a debate with another editor in the talk page of Voltaire. In doing so i would like to make use of quotations about races and "racism" of Voltaire that have been given in secondary sources. Since these quote or quotes also make a reference to India and Indians i would like a free pass on the talk page of Voltaire and also on the main article of Voltaire about mentioning India and Indians with specific reference to Voltaire's views on races and his alleged "racism". My objective is to defend Voltaire from the racism claim; however i am not going to be dogmatic about it. I will lay out the evidence and i am prepared to listen to the evidence which says Voltaire was a "racist". This kind of a discussion on the talk page of Voltaire would also be useful for future editors of the WP page. For this purpose i am invoking a WP guideline, whose name i forget, which says that any action which leads to the betterment/improvement of Misplaced Pages trumps all other rules. Soham321 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

    Dear EdJohnston, many things were said in that Arb discussion and there were editors supporting me also, claiming i had been provoked and claiming that i had been behaving like a "saint" when interacting with a senior editor who has a reputation of being cantankerous. Let us not cherry pick what one person said in that discussion. It is true though that i ought to have been more cool both before and during that Arb discussion. My defense in this connection is that i was (and still am) going through a divorce proceeding. But do please consider giving me some respect in view of the fact that i have been a content creator on WP; take a look at the new WP pages i have created in the recent past: Paradox of the Actor, On the interpretation of Nature, Letter on the Deaf and Dumb,Philosophical Thoughts, and Dialogues: Rousseau, Judge of Jean-Jacques Soham321 (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

    This is a reply to Future Perfect at Sunrise: Please see diff3 with respect to Future Perfect at Sunrise's accusation that "in a rather stunning display of Wikilawyering, he seems to be first lambasting the author of a secondary source for not providing direct citations to primary sources for a statement he makes, and then accuses a fellow editor of OR because that editor showed, with his own citations on the talkpage, that the secondary author's statement actually did agree with the primary sources he talked about." I stand by the note i placed since i examined the source, the exact page of the book, and i did not see any reference to either Voltaire's writing or to any other authority (any secondary source) when Cohen made the following claim: ""More commonly polygenists argued, as did Voltaire, that blacks, because they were separately created did not fully share in the common humanity of whites". I was stating something factual in my note; i was not drawing any inferences. Consequently in my opinion what i did does not constitute OR. Soham321 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

    In view of Future Perfect's claim that my editing has been of poor quality (an allegation also made by Abecedare on the talk page of Voltaire) i would like to add a general comment about my editing by giving a link showing what some other editors think of it. link Ghatus writes that "I do not know about Soham's offence. But, I saw his edits in Maharana Pratap on 12th and 13th June,2015. It was of high class." Twobells writes "All his work has been of the highest class, albeit wordy". Mohanbhan writes "Most, if not all, of your disputes concerned the use of certain writers who were (and are) being systematically excluded from wikipedia. Since ArbCom was not engaging with the subject (they traditionally don't, and perhaps can't, since they have a lot of other responsibilities) and were only looking at whether your interactions were "friendly" nothing that we said about the real nature of the dispute mattered to them. Content disputes should be settled by subject-experts IMO, and content disputes should not be turned into conduct disputes." Soham321 (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

    In view of what i said in my original statement: "My objective is to defend Voltaire from the racism claim; however i am not going to be dogmatic about it. I will lay out the evidence and i am prepared to listen to the evidence which says Voltaire was a "racist". This kind of a discussion on the talk page of Voltaire would also be useful for future editors of the WP page." i am not sure why Gamaliel should think that i have some kind of agenda. I have reached certain conclusions based on my reading which i wish to share on the talk page. And i clearly state that i have an open mind and will not be dogmatic about my conclusions. I only wish to share my knowledge on the talk page but for some reason which i can't understand that is being perceived as being unacceptable. In my opinion if i am not permitted to share my knowledge of Voltaire vis a vis his alleged racism, it would be WP's loss and violative of the WP guideline which says that anything that improves wikipedia trumps all other rules. And i am only asking for the waiver on the Voltaire page, not on any other page. Soham321 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

    This is a response to Dennis Brown who apparently thinks i am guilty of ad hominem attacks on the talk page of Voltaire. Dennis, i went to dictionary.reference.com to obtain the meaning of "ad hominem". I got two results:

    • appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
    • attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

    I do not believe i am guilty of any of the two meanings of the term as defined by dictionary.reference.com. I did not make any personal attack or make any emotional appeal either when interacting with Abecedare or when interacting with Carlstak. Dennis, if you disagree please give me an instance of when i made any ad hominem attack on the Voltaire talk page (where the meaning of "ad hominem" is defined by dictionary.reference.com or any other dictionary.) Soham321 (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

    Reply to JzG: Just so that we are clear i am not asking for a lifting of the topic ban. I am only asking for a waiver on the Voltaire page for reasons already stated. Voltaire was a contemporary of Diderot and Rousseau and i have made many contributions to pages about and related to the French Enlightenment thinkers. One can ascertain from my contributions that i have something to contribute to the discussion. I fail to see why i am not being permitted to freely discuss Voltaire's alleged "racism" on the Voltaire talk page. Is this not a violation of WP:NORULES? Recently i have been involved in an ongoing Requested Move discussion: here, here, and here. I would like an uninvolved Admin to decide whether i have been "rude" or cordial in this discussion. Finally, I am not a single purpose account; earlier, prior to my topic ban, i was primarily editing WP pages related to India. Soham321 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Bishonen

    Since Soham321 hasn't mentioned his appeal to me on my page today, with my replies declining that appeal, I'll link to our conversation: . There are interesting comments by other people there too. I think I responded fully at that link, and won't repeat myself here on AE. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Soham321

    • This is a very curious matter. I am not cognisant of the original cause of the topic ban. However it seems that this request, on its face, reasonable, is in danger of being turned down not on the basis that it will lead to issues based on the reasons for the original ban, but on a general dislike of Soham's modus operandi.
    If it is contended that Soham, due to their manner of conducting themselves, is, or should be, persona non grata then that is a matter for blocking, AN/I or an arb case. To refuse an otherwise reasonable request, merely because one does not like the cut of the appellant's gib does not seem like due process.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC).

    Result of the appeal by Soham321

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • After reading Bishonen's original ban notice as well as User:Soham321's talk page, my opinion is that the topic ban should remain in force. You were lucky to get off with only a six-month ban. You already took the original ban to Arbcom (July 2015), where one of the arbitrators said "Soham321's response to the topic ban (to fight it tooth and nail in any available venue, and to argue from the outset that the problem lies with other editors) is for me ample indication that this was a sensible call by Bishonen." If you were hoping to impress us with your good behavior, you have a long way to go. So I would decline this appeal, which gives no convincing reason why an exception is needed. Your statement above includes no evidence that your editing of Misplaced Pages has become more cooperative since the ban was imposed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    • At first sight, and without knowing much about the backstory, I would have said that the topic of Voltaire is sufficiently far from the intended scope of the topic ban that a cursory connection between them made in the course of a talkpage discussion there wouldn't bother me too much. And seriously, just how relevant could a discussion related to India possibly be to the topic under discussion (Voltaire's apparently well-documented negative views on Africans)? So, my first gut reaction was, good for Soham for playing it safe and asking here for this limited exception, before doing something that could have been seen as "testing the boundaries" even though in itself it would likely have been harmless. On a closer look at the actual context of the Voltaire discussion, however, I am distinctly underwhelmed by the quality both of Soham's article editing there (see this rather bad instance of tendentious OR) and his behaviour on the talkpage (where, in a rather stunning display of Wikilawyering, he seems to be first lambasting the author of a secondary source for not providing direct citations to primary sources for a statement he makes, and then accuses a fellow editor of OR because that editor showed, with his own citations on the talkpage, that the secondary author's statement actually did agree with the primary sources he talked about.) As I am left with the impression that Soham's editing in this field displays many of the same problems he was topic-banned for in the India topic area, I'd have to say now that the Voltaire page will probably be better off with less rather than more importing of India-related argument by Soha§m321. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not impressed with what I see of Soham321's behavior on Talk:Voltaire and this editor has a self-admitted agenda "to defend Voltaire from the racism claim". While I agree with FPaS that it was commendable that Soham321 seek an exception instead of going ahead and just doing it, I don't think their behavior thus far in this area is otherwise commendable. I also agree with FPaS that the article is probably best left alone by Soham321. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I see too much ad hominem and such on the talk page of Voltaire to be comfortable extending an exception here. The risk of problems outweigh the benefits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I fail to see why we should lift a topic ban in order to allow Soham321 to engage in arguments that so clearly lie outside policy. If anything this underscores the problem that led to the restriction. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Unbiasedpov

    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
    Unbiasedpov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Unbiasedpov (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    You are topic banned from 2002 Gujarat riots related articles, talk-pages and discussions anywhere on wikipedia. See .
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Abecedare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator

    Statement by Unbiasedpov

    Background:-

    • 99% of my editorial time was spent on Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots talk-page. I have spent very little in article editing. Majority of co-editors have seen merit in my concerns on at-least 1 occasion. (Clarification added: I have been editing Misplaced Pages for over 10 years. I have edited many many articles. 99% mentioned here is not 99% of time on Misplaced Pages but 99% of time in current article. In other words, Out of total time spent on current article, 99% spent on talk-page-of-article and 1% on editing-of-article. Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC))
    Here are few sub-sections i started on talk-page:-
    Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Proposal:_Make_Godhra_train_burning_sub-section_accurate
    Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Tendency_to_revert_edit_without_using_the_talk-page
    Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Multiple-Issues
    • Despite intimidation and bullying, I have been very civil and respectful on talk page. I was constantly seeking consensus and made updated proposal based on feedback received. In an attempt to seek common-ground. I also started Rfc and Mediation request:-
    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/2002_Gujarat_Riots_2
    Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#RfC:_-Add_series_.22Violence_against_Hindus.22_or_Remove_series_.22Violence_against_Muslims_in_India.22.3F

    Charges against me:-

    • Charge#1 (Talk-Page):-
    Repeatedly making,& updating, proposals on talk-page and failure to find consensus on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/2002_Gujarat_Riots_2 parallel fora example1 and example2 ]
    Explanation of charge#1 example1:
    I am updating proposals based on feedback received. For example:-
    Original proposal:- Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Proposal:_Make_Godhra_train_burning_sub-section_accurate
    Updated proposal:- Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Alternate_Wordings
    Explanation of charge#2 example2:
    As shown in example#2.I did edit,and add extra comments, but i always signed them.I have understood that this might cause confusion;Hence, I will refrain from such practice in future. My intention were to add clarity and accuracy. See the full impact of example#2 edit here Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Proposal:_Remove_quotes_from_Lead
    • Charge#2 (Edit-Warring):-
    edit-warred on the article page without finding consensus and in face of objections
    Background:-
    Edit-warring example, provided in charge#2, is about Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree's statement and two other failed verification citation. I am show-casing Embree statement for sake of simplicity but please read entire subsection Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Alternate_Wordings for clarity.
    I have spent 99% of time time on talk-page. What-ever edit i did were promptly reverted without use of talk page:-
    See" Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Tendency_to_revert_edit_without_using_the_talk-page
    Earlier, I was advised to use WP:BRD policy;Hence, I have tried to use WP:BRD in this edit-warring example provided in charge#2.
    Explanation of charge#2:-
    Current3 Article content:-
    "Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree stated that the official version of the attack on the train, that it was organized and carried out by people under orders from Pakistan, was entirely baseless"
    Problem with Current3:-
    From the talk-page "I,Unbiasedpov, have read citation . Current3 omitted half of Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree's statement. Here is complete sentence from citation "A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire. Fifty-eight people died. The official account declares, without proof, that the attack it was organized and carried out under orders from Pakistan".
    In the book,Embree states that there is no-proof of Pakistan involvement in Godhra train burning and Misplaced Pages:2008_Mumbai_attacks. Embree does not imply "entirely baseless". More-over, "no proof" is not same as "entirely baseless". "No proof" means "Absence of Evidence". "Entirely baseless" is more like "Evidence of Absence". "Absence of Evidence" <> "Evidence of Absence". Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    Edit#1:-
    In edit#1 i Replaced current3 half-statement with full-statement "Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree stated A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire;However, The official account declares without proof that attack was carried out under direct orders from Pakistan."
    My Edit#1 was reverted. So, I used WP:BRD and did Edit#2.
    Edit#2:-
    In edit#2 I left original current3 half-sentence intact and added "Failed verification" tag to it.
    My Edit#2 was also reverted and I was banned from topic.
    I know i am not supposed to comment here but this is the best place to clarify misunderstanding.
    Clarification:- I have been editing Misplaced Pages for several years. 99% mentioned above is not 99% of time on Misplaced Pages. It is 99% of time in current article. In other words, Out of total time spent on current article, 99% spent on talk-page-of-article and 1% on editing-of-article.Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    I hope un-involved admins @Gamaliel, Beyond My Ken, Dennis Brown, JzG, and Liz: will look at the merit of my edits and review at-least 3 edits or talk-page proposals. Most of my edits fall in two categories:-
    correct misinterpretation of cited source.
    point out dubious citations which violate WP:RS and WP:Thirdparty policy.
    For example, My last edit, explained above, is about citation of Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree. Please read the explanation above. Please check the citation here
    https://books.google.com/books?id=u48rUnVEHbEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Routledge+Handbook+of+Religion+and+Security&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAGoVChMI38yA-ZOIyAIVy5eACh325ANP#v=onepage&q=godhra&f=false
    .Ping me for questions.

    Backgroud Information:-

    This article "2002 Gujarat Riots" have 4859 edits]
    The top two contributors to this article are both sock-puppet/abandoned accounts ] ]
    In 07/2013, Top-Contributor & Sock-Puppet accountUser:Darkness_Shines re-wrote the entire article. Even today, Article is practically a Darkness_Shines's version]. This version contains many dubious citations violating several wikipedia policies. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

    What happens to a typical proposal:-

    My proposals resonates with majority of editors but there is always one,or two, editor opposing it.

    For example,User:Kautilya3 agrees with me on proposal2 but if i make that change the disagreeing editor will revert it. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

    On CCT citation discussed by User:Kautilya3:- CCT is a primary source published by Teetsa Setalvad's CJP Citizens for Justice&Peace(not a reputable publisher). Both,Setalval & CJP, are a party to the dispute. Supreme Court of India monitored Investigation report SIT carries adverse remark against both;Thus,CCT citation violates WP:RS, WP:Primary and WP:Thirdparty policy. See talk page of article for details. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Abecedare

    Here is my complete explanation for the topic ban, which I had posted on the userpage when I imposed it:

    You have been sanctioned because of continued disruptive and POV editing, slow but persistent edit-warring, and being unresponsive to feedback despite numerous warnings. In particular, despite earlier advice on how to discuss the issues constructively, you again repeatedly made multiple broad and overlapping proposals , (which inevitably failed to find consensus) in parallel fora; changed the proposals even after others had responded; and edit-warred on the article page without finding consensus and in face of objections , . Your conduct and repetitive arguments are disruptive, consuming an inordinate amount of other editors' time (on either side of the issues), and frankly preventing progress from being made (eg, this section) on a topic that requires more sober, neutral and collaborative editing.

    For context, please see:

    If there are any questions I can help answer, just ping me. Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Kautilya3

    As one of the involved editors that tried to engage with Unbiasedpov, I can vouch for the fact that the editor's participation on this page has been incredibly disruptive and taxing, owing to the poorly thought-out and poorly explained proposals, inadequate understanding of the reliable sources on the subject as well as of Misplaced Pages policies, and just pure tendentiousness. Abecedare clearly told the editor to make one clearly thought-out proposal at a time (Talk:2002 Gujarat riots#Multiple-Issues). But multiple overlapping proposals were again made Talk:2002 Gujarat riots#Proposal: Make Godhra train burning sub-section accurate. Look closely at Proposal3 and see what you make of it! But, after people patiently looked at them and provided their comments, the editor once again altered the proposals . At this point nobody knew what sources he was talking about. Then the editor seems to have added the sources here (which somehow escaped my notice) and then proceeded to make changes to the article without waiting for any further input.

    The essence of the editor's push is that the Government's view should be represented. The CCT (the Concerned Citizen's Tribunal, headed by a highly respected former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India) is labelled as a "dubious primary source", even though it has been cited in pretty much every high quality reliable source on the planet. Ainslee T. Embree, who was again mentioned above to buttress the editor's own view point, states: "Accounts about how the violence began are contradictory. The official account of the Gujarat government provides a starting point..." and then goes on to narrate the official account. The editor wants to pick up the elements of this account and present them as Embree's view point. This is clearly a misrepresentation, and the straw that finally broke the camel's back.

    Even if the editor's proposals had merit, this is clearly not the way to go about implementing them. If Abecedare's advice of one-proposal-at-a-time had been followed, perhaps some progress could have been made, and the editor might have learned something in the process as well. In the Multiple-Issues section of proposals, the editor listed 35 sources, with no mention of publisher or date, and no sense of whether they qualify as reliable sources. These are clearly efforts to overwhelm and intimidate rather than to convince. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Unbiasedpov

    • An editor (any editor) who spends "99%" of their time on one article's talk page is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, they're most likely here to push a POV. (Civil POV-pushing is still POV-pushing.) When the editor has chosen a name such as "Unbiasedpov", it's a good bet that their POV is anything but unbiased. I put this in a class with those editors who choose usernames with "truth" in them - they're generally here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and generally end up getting topic banned from their preferred subject, indef blocked, or site banned. I don't see anything in the specifics here to make me think anything different about Unbiasedpov. Their appeal should be denied. BMK (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal by Unbiasedpov

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • My thoughts are roughly the same as BMK's. I'm not inclined to consider lifting this unless this user is able to demonstrate productive editing outside this topic area. Gamaliel (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    • If I can speak in a very general way: The whole idea of a topic ban (versus an indef block) is that we assume good faith that an editor can in fact contribute in a positive fashion in areas not related to where they have had behavioral issues. If they don't choose to edit significantly in other areas, it really doesn't give us a measuring stick to gauge the likelihood that they can return to full editing without incident. For that matter, if someone is only interested in editing a single thing, that is sometimes a red flag anyway, as their interest may be more about advancing a cause or idea (read: POV) rather than to improve the encyclopedia as a whole. As a rule, I tend to object to lifting a topic ban on anyone that is only interested in editing a single page or a small group of pages, for the reasons stated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, those percentages are wildly incorrect, according to the the edit counter, Unbiasedpov has 36 edits to 2002 Gujarat riots and 49 edits to Talk:2002 Gujarat riots. The question is, were those 85 edits to the discussion and article disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban? Liz 19:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Frankly, the username says it all. This is a Warrior For Truth. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • BMK is right, join us down here Liz. We've got an open bar and leather recliners. Gamaliel (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    I was just contributing an observation as an editor, rather than weighing in as an administrator. I see A/R/E admin decisions as an area for experienced administrators. But I'll accept the comment move as it seems like a neutral change. Thanks for the patience, I'll get my admin-training wheels off in a bit. Liz 05:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    Looking at his other contribs, or a sampling really, shows the numbers aren't that useful. He contributes is somewhat similar areas, and he will be able to do just that then appeal after a few months without incident. And welcome to below the "result" line editing, I'm confident you will do just as well as anyone here. You're always welcome to make observations rather than take a position in any case you are uninvolved with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by BenMcLean

    There is a clear consensus that sanction was appropriate and that WP:INVOLVED is not at stake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    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
    BenMcLean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – BenMcLean (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    User_talk:BenMcLean#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
    A "standard Gamergate ban". I'm a sexist terrorist dedicated to threatening women, and there is a standard ban for being that. That is the situation.
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AGamaliel&type=revision&diff=681818099&oldid=681817839

    Statement by BenMcLean

    • Gamaliel is not an uninvolved administrator. He is very, very involved with an agenda of maintaining the narrative on Gamergate controversy as it currently stands for political reasons.
    • It is a case of the fox being set to guard the chicken coup, as Gamaliel engages in extreme rhetoric saying that dissenting editors want to behead people and parade their heads on spikes while being in charge of enforcing Misplaced Pages:Civility and censoring other people's much less extreme comments whenever he disagrees with them.
    • GamerGate is not, in fact, a terrorist organization dedicated to threatening women, but the Gamergate controversy article currently says that it is. I am also basing my appeal on the factual grounds that this is untrue, that the administrators and editors involved in Gamergate controversy know that it is untrue, and that they are being not merely mistaken, but maliciously dishonest by persisting in this libel. Anyone who disagrees gets banned. I want it on record that I was among their number and pursued every reasonable avenue.
    • He's read it. And that's not move requests plural, that's move request singular.
    • "Maybe stop harassing any administrator who tries until most of them are unwilling or afraid to participate." -- I have never done this. I want to get the controversy covered as a two-sided controversy, with views and quotations from both sides of the controversy, instead of opening with a laundry list of terrorist accusations. The way the opening currently stands is absurd. I don't believe for one second that you haven't read it, but anyone who does read it and has actually paid any attention to the controversy knows it's absurd. The article, like your accusation here, is engaging in the association fallacy.
    • I would like to reiterate that they are, in fact, dishonest. "Cretins" is harder to define. But what we're dealing with here is people who know that what they're saying is untrue, and are saying it anyway because politics.
    • "BenMcLean is free to have his say on the talk page" -- I do not believe that this is the case. A hyper-sensitive rubric for civility is applies to dissenting heretics while "heads on spikes" is fine if you're orthodox. --BenMcLean (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    Brustopher: I am referring to the opening paragraphs. Maybe it was ill-advised for me to use the word "terrorist." Perhaps "harrassers and threateners who inspire terror for political ends" would have been better ... no wait, that is the definition of a terrorist isn't it. --BenMcLean (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

    This certainly is battleground editing. A battleground implies two sides, as does a controversy. --BenMcLean (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

    You won't find battleground editing from the far Left, because Misplaced Pages always leads with their views as facts, and sandwiches any dissenting views with thread mode.

    And sure, I'm a racist. You're a racist. Under the sociological definition of racism, everybody's a racist. And when everybody's a racist, nobody really is. --BenMcLean (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Gamaliel

    • I have no interest in setting the agenda of an article I haven't even read.
    • You want different administrators policing these pages? Maybe stop harassing any administrator who tries until most of them are unwilling or afraid to participate. Every single time other administrators participate, I let them take the lead until they flee in frustration. Until this stops, you are left with this stubborn admin and his banhammer.
    • BenMcLean is free to have his say on the talk page regarding his own agenda provided he is able to refrain from addressing other editors as dishonest cretins, making pointy page move requests, and other deliberately provocative gestures. Since he is apparently unable to refrain from this behavior, I topic banned him. Gamaliel (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Prove it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

    So far BenMcLean has doubled down on calling other editors dishonest cretins and expands that to call me a liar. This clearly demonstrates that we should immediately lift the topic ban and let him insult editors with impunity. Gamaliel (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

    Most of Rhoark's statement is irrelevant and should be struck. There's maybe one sentence related to the matter at hand. Using AE as a sopabox is a common problem, on both sides, in this topic area, and AE should crack down on this. If Rhoark agrees with BenMcLean's point, the appropriate response is to make that point on the talk page, not here. I absolutely agree with Rhoark when he writes "there needs to be some clear communication about where the line is drawn on off-wiki statements", but I have no idea what this has to do with BenMacLean, it seems related to the current discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard instead. Gamaliel (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Brustopher

    GamerGate is not, in fact, a terrorist organization dedicated to threatening women, but the Gamergate controversy article currently says that it is. Can you point me to the bit in the article where Gamergate is referred to as a terrorist organisation? If what you are saying is indeed true and I have somehow missed it due to poor reading comprehension please tell me and I'll remove it immediately. If not dial down the hyperbole. Brustopher (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Aquillion

    Going over Ben's recent additions to the talk page...

    • Here and here he begins his involvement on the page with sweeping accusations against other users; while he later edited out parts of it when people objected, the gist of his assumption of bad faith, which he repeats above, is still there; he's clearly implying that, as he puts it above, "...this is untrue, that the administrators and editors involved in Gamergate controversy know that it is untrue, and that they are being not merely mistaken, but maliciously dishonest by persisting in this libel." Putting aside the WP:AGF violation, this is clearly unproductive; he doesn't discuss any serious changes, he doesn't talk about any of the sources or the wording, he just says that the article makes the subject look like ISIS and that it's because of a sinister agenda on the part of everyone else.
    • He then immediately follows this up with a WP:POINTy move request, here and here; it's hard to accept that he actually thinks that that is a good name for the article. (This is immediately below a discussion about the numerous frivolous move requests the article received in the past.) When this is hatted, he revert wars to keep it open. Note the edit summary for that one, where he declares an intent to keep warring until he gets a response that satisfies him or he gets banned.

    Given that his only contributions to the article's talk page seem to be these things, and especially given the WP:POINT violation and edit-warring to keep it on the talk page, I think it's reasonable to conclude that he's engaging in the disruptive editing that the standard sanctions on the article refer to, here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


    Statement by MarkBernstein

    Gamergate has avidly sought to remove Gamaliel since the original announcement of Project Five Horsemen (a project which is currently celebrating yet another site ban today). They’ve also engaged in a virulent and dangerous campaign of harassment off-site, which has included possible threats to his employment, and which he has borne with apparent equanimity.

    Editors are regarding this appeal as merely an extension of the underlying bad behavior. I call your attention to two important facts:

    • This is not an isolated case: assaults by editors with exactly this sort of contribution history, using precisely these tactics, and adopting very similar language, have occurred at frequent intervals.
    • The charges leveled here against Gamaliel -- of misrepresenting innocent behavior as a threat of violence -- is in fact very serious. It is also preposterous. I repeated the same claim in alliterative verse on a formal ARBCOM page .
    • In reply to Agualion, BenMcLean wrote
    Look at the opening paragraphs of Gamergate controversy. Now look at the opening paragraphs of Black Lives Matter. Which one encouraged riots?
    This extremist, right-wing charge is undeniably partisan and racist: I am astonished that it has not been redacted. However, this appeal now brings BenMcLean into the purview of AmericanPolitics as well as Gamergate.

    I have certainly had differences -- very strong differences -- with Gamaliel, but his patience in this topic area is exemplary. I continue to believe that admins really must come up with some solution to Gamergate and that it must be solved effectively and soon, lest this plague spread throughout American Politics in the midst of a bitter presidential election. I see scant hope for half measures. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Rhoark

    Uncivil and POINTy. I see no reason to reverse Ben's ban. His point is still a good one, even if he made it in a bad way. If Gamergate is a controversy, it should not be described from the POV of one side of that controversy. This has all been discussed before, as the WP:STEAM faction will readily point out. Well, if you don't like having your noses rubbed in your own poop, develop some continence. Don't be evasive about what Gamergate is, and people can't be POINTy about your evasiveness.

    Gamaliel has consistently defended and enabled this STEAM faction, but there's no reason to believe this has been improprietous. I think Gamaliel's been overindulgent, but even-handed. I suspect they have been affected by Vogon poetry. The off-wiki harassment of Gamaliel doesn't relate to Ben or indeed any registered editors that I can tell, but it needs to be discussed on this page. Since the about-face from the Lightbreather case to Tarc's ban there needs to be some clear communication about where the line is drawn on off-wiki statements. I don't care where it's drawn as long as its a fairly bright line. We could do without these canards on talk pages.

    Oh and MB, though Gamergate has always been related to American politics, if that bothered you, you shouldn't have added Gamergate to the page of your congressional representative. Rhoark (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by BenMcLean

    • Please tell me there will be something different besides the usual suspects going out to these enforcement requests. At the very least some administrators uninvolved with the subject matter looking into this. GamerPro64 19:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm concerned a rather involved admin (that should take a break from GG pages) took AE action without an AE request especially in light of the recent AE Arbcom decision. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    This particular gamergater has decided to spend some time going around reverting my edits to other pages. Help would be appreciated. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    "Twat" "piss off" "Gamergater" - you need to learn how to interact civilly. I believe the editor is referring to this page Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia where I noticed his first edit was to revert the filer of this appeal (towards whom he left disparaging comments) and his next, having been reverted by another editor, was to revert that editor as well. I reverted, as this appears to be a case of WP:HOUND. 104.200.154.11 (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you, Slakr. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Although I have made a few comments on how Misplaced Pages covers the Gamergate matter over the past year, I am not heavily involved except to defend BLP policy and do not believe that I have interacted with BenMcLean previously. I find the editor's conduct in this appeal to be combative and dedicated to righting perceived great wrongs instead of building an encyclopedia. We need far less battleground behavior, not more, so I oppose the appeal. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • BenMcLean, you would make a better case if you actually provided evidence/diffs that supported your claims, especially regarding those regarding another editor's motivations. Liz 18:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal by BenMcLean

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • This appears to be an attempt to double down on previous disruptive behavior. The sanction is appropriate and necessary, and BenMcLean's conduct here confirms the appropriateness of sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Looking through the archives (and the editing of archives) plus the battleground attitude shown around the topic by BenMcLean, I would say this was a rational and carefully measured application of Arb sanctions, and consistent with what we would do with any other editor displaying this behavior, so I don't see any abuse or misuse of authority here and in fact would agree with Gamaliel's actions. As an aside, Ben's claim that Gamaliel has an agenda while failing to substantiate it with a single diffs or example is at best, incivil. He would be wise to strike the comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    • As stated above by User:Acroterion, BenMcLean's conduct here in the appeal shows the appropriateness of sanctions. This isn't a subtle or borderline case; it's more like a 'please block me' case. In this edit summary BenMcLean stated "I am going to fight this until I get an actual response, outlining User:Gamaliel's reasoning or I get banned, whichever comes first." All this talk of fighting suggests we are in the presence of battleground editing. I recommend that BenMcLean's ban not be lifted. I am one of the admins who is grateful that User:Gamaliel is willing to stay active in this area of enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Not even close to a borderline case. Textbook examples of battleground behaviour, which clearly justify the sanction. Accusations of involvement on the part of the sanctioning administrator have not been substantiated, so I see no procedural problems with this sanction, either. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

    Gob Lofa

    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 Gob Lofa

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Gob Lofa (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/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case : for double violation of 1RR restriction on Troubles related articles within the past day.
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    At The Troubles:

    1. 10:40, 20 September 2015 - changed Northern Ireland to "the Northern Ireland polity", a subjective term that they have been trying to put into articles mentioning Northern Ireland.
    2. 21:58, 20 September 2015 - restores after I partially reverted their edit. They also use a misleading edit summary to justify it.

    At Provisional Irish Republican Army:

    1. 12:39, 20 September 2015 - likewise adds in subjective term "polities".
    2. 22:09, 20 September 2015 - restores "polities" under the reasoning of "Adopting part" of my edit.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 02:38, 14 August 2015 - blocked for 24 hours for breaching 1RR at Protestantism in the Republic of Ireland.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    1. 06:19, 13 August 2015 - notified of Discretionary Sanctions in regards to Troubles article.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This editor has known for a good while that their intent to either change Northern Ireland's description to "polity" or add it in when it is not even needed is contentious and that it has previously been contested on various articles, yet they continue to do it. Examples being 31 August 2015 and at Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 (30 July 2015, 1 August 2015, 5 August 2015, 6 August 2015) - where they were reverted by three different editors and got no agreement for their edit on the talk page.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Gob Lofa

    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 Gob Lofa

    Statement by User:Mabuska

    Hi. From what I understand and have seen, articles to do with the Troubles are subject to a 1RR restriction regardless of article talk pages and what exactly is disputed, and the user in question knows of the restriction and breached it twice in one day. There was no talk page discussion on the revert that led to Gob Lofa's previous ban for violation of 1RR, and that was simply over a page move template. The talk pages on the last two articles I provided diffs on above have discussions on the matter prior to these edits meaning the editor knows the edit is contentious yet still make them. But I am not complaining here about the content but the double violation of 1RR in a 24 hour period.

    The use of the term "polity"/"polities" has been flagged as contentious by the fact that three editor including myself, and all of us of different political viewpoints, at Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 reverted Gob Lofa. There is no consensus on what term to use, however the editor has been trying to push their own adjective, and one that demeans the status of Northern Ireland, which is commonly called many things (country, statelet, state, province etc.) but polity is not one of them, and when it does make an appearance it is usually in Irish nationalist circles as a degrading term. Mabuska 15:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    To clarify, any breach of 1RR in the Troubles restriction area, regardless of the exact content or whoever is right or wrong, or even if it was well-intentioned, results in near immediate sanctions especially if an editor, such as myself and Gob Lofa, already know of the restriction. Mabuska 18:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    Result concerning Gob Lofa

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Can someone briefly explain is contentious about the word "polities"? Where is the talk page discussion with this editor about this matter? I really don't want to sanction someone for violating a consensus when no one has tried to explain this consensus to this editor, outside of some edit summaries. That said, this editor does not have an impressive record in this area and has a long block log. Gamaliel (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Nobody's questioning whether or not it is appropriate to violate this restriction. It obviously is not. But it is just as obviously not appropriate to refuse to engage in discussion during an editing dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    Lanlan lanwan

    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 Lanlan lanwan

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Lanlan lanwan (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:ARBPIA2

    ARBPIA sanction: 1RR on all articles related to the Palestine-Israel conflict

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 3:55 Sep 20 First revert
    2. 12:49 Sep 20 Second revert
    3. 10:45 Sep 21 Third revert
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13:37 Sep 20
    Notified
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    There are two 1RR violations here. After the first violation I put an alert on the editor's talk page plus the comment "Note that the sanctions include a 1RR restriction on all articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. You just broke it at Hizma and I invite you to revert yourself to avoid being reported." The editor deleted the alert 21 hours later without comment, and then did the same revert a third time (the second one having been undone meanwhile by someone else). Editor clearly needs to learn that these sanctions are for real.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Lanlan lanwan

    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 Lanlan lanwan

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Lanlan lanwan

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

    VictorD7

    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 VictorD7

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    EllenCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    VictorD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    discretionary sanctions for all topics involving post-1932 American politics established by WP:ARBAP2.
    Note: I am copying VictorD7's WP:AN3 complaint and the three responses including mine verbatim here because an administrator instructed to do so as shown below. EllenCT (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    Seeking a block for EllenCT. While being careful to avoid violating 3RR, EllenCT has repeatedly edit warred against consensus and several different reverting editors over the past couple of weeks to install the same changes she wants in two sections in the United States article, Government finance and Income, poverty, and wealth.

    Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21): , , , , , , , , , ,

    On several occasions she has made these reverts with a misleading edit summary. For example, in this recent edit she states, "revert to restore correct tag link to talk page section, among other things, per talk", and leads off her edit with an unrelated tag deletion and small tweak to a political party segment at the top of the edit. But if you scroll down you see the "other things" she sneaks in are the massive, contentious changes against consensus she has repeatedly tried to impose. In this example she says she's merely replacing the "undisputed portion of the statement", when the change she makes is clearly very much disputed and opposed. She also frequently says "per talk", implying that a talk page discussion resulted in consensus for her change, leaving out the fact that she made an argument and most or all respondents rejected it.

    EllenCT has already recently been given a warning by another editor on her talk page involving edit warring on a different article , and should be familiar with the rule.

    When warned on the US talk page to cease edit warring, she claimed her edits weren't edit warring and indicated she would continue to make such reverts, "I will continue to do so as often as is the custom for as long as is necessary." She followed through on that with today's multiple reverts.

    This occurs in the context of her serial ideological Soapbox crusade on the issue of economic inequality, and never ending attempts to insert POV material while deleting material she doesn't like, along with misrepresenting sources, RFC results, and other editors. I'll add that she has initiated four overlapping RFCs in recent weeks along these themes ( ), which went or are going against her. While less egregious than the edit warring, it's still disruptive to flood the page like that and derail discussion on other topics in an attempt to throw as much as one can at the wall and get something to stick or fatigue the opposition. I don't think article sanctions are in order. The page has been relatively civilized lately for being such a high traffic article. The problem is really one enormously disruptive editor. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

    The vast majority of VictorD7's diffs are not reverts but constructive attempts at compromise, all of them were interspersed with relatively lengthy talk page discussion, none of them come close to violating 3RR, very few of them breach 1RR, and most if not all of the diffs that are bona fide reverts both correct a broken link from an inline dispute tag to a talk page section which has since been archived, and replace the results of four separate RFCs, the outcome of which Victor disagrees: (1) This RFC outcome was endorsed (2) unanimously here, (3) here, and (4) here. Victor was the subject of an inconclusive WP:BOOMERANG proposal after another editor complained about me on ANI, and many editors noticed Victor's years-long pattern of trying to replace peer reviewed mainstream economics sources with his favored non-peer reviewed right-wing WP:FRINGE paid advocacy "think tank" sources from e.g. the Heritage and Peter G. Peterson foundations. EllenCT (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    diff

    Discussion concerning VictorD7

    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 VictorD7

    I'm not sure what sanction EllenCT is seeking against me or what precisely I'm even being accused of here. I reported her to the Edit Warring noticeboard after days of her persistently edit warring against multiple editors and promising to keep doing it and now she's seeking action against me here as if in retaliation and/or to distract and deflect. The ANI attempt to sanction me she mentions was months ago, opposed by a majority of respondents for being partisan nonsense, and allowed to fall into the archives (one editor finally closed it but the close was reverted by the agenda driven initiator; after that people largely ignored it). EllenCT is actually guilty of the serial POV pushing she falsely accuses me of. But I only mentioned that in the above report to provide context to the very real and recent edit warring she's been conducting on the United States article. That's a clear, disruptive behavior violation, not a content dispute, and it's laid out in the evidence she helpfully quoted.

    In response to the pertinent portion of her comments, of course I led off by acknowledging that she hadn't violated 3RR, but, as the warning another editor posted on her talk page says, one can be guilty of edit warring without violating 3RR. Surely the 11 diffs of reverts of the same material (in two sections) over a week and a half through yesterday qualify as edit warring. And she disregarded almost unanimous talk page opposition (when her proposals had been discussed at all; sometimes they hadn't) and previous reverts by multiple editors. Click through the diffs. They weren't "constructive efforts to compromise". She repeatedly removed/replaced the same info, sometimes even being sneaky about it with misleading edit summaries. That she denies these were even reverts is mind boggling. Fixing a broken link is a poor excuse to make highly contentious changes against consensus. As I told her on the US talk page , if she really cares about fixing a link then do it separately.

    It shouldn't matter here but for the record her claim about me removing "mainstream" sources and replacing them with the two she mentioned is completely false, which is probably why she provided no evidence. In fact I've only edited the article at all twice in the past month. But the segments she's removing (that I and others added long ago; established consensus) are sourced by peer reviewed academic journal articles (she's at least deleting those sources too), the CBO, the OECD, the Tax Policy Center, the Washington Post, The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, etc..

    What should matter more here is that anyone can click her own links above and see that she's not even telling the truth there. She says, "(1) This RFC outcome was endorsed (2) unanimously here, (3) here, and (4) here." She calls these "four separate RFCs", with the latter three endorsing the results of the first one "unanimously".

    Only the first link is even to an RFC. The second link is to a brief discussion with four respondents that was split 2-2 ("unanimously"?). The third is to a discussion she started where I was the only respondent (and I opposed, not endorsed her proposal). The fourth is to another sparsely participated in discussion that was inconclusive with multiple editors on both sides.

    I'll be happy to comment in detail on the content dispute if someone requests it. But since it may only be a frivolous distraction, for now I'll just say that her claims are false. I accepted the RFC close, which only said the material could be included "in some form" and wasn't an endorsement of her POV wording, which became even more untenable after I provided scholarly sources directly disputing her sources (at that point what support she had enjoyed vanished). The ensuing debate over wording had spilled out over multiple sections, and when she sought a close for all of it from the close request noticeboard the closer informed her that an actionable close across the various sections wasn't possible . She's recently started a fresh RFC to determine consensus on precise wording and, given the evidence I've since posted, the results so far see 6 opposing her proposed wording with only 1 supporting, with even that 1 saying the other side should be represented as well.

    The tax segments she keeps changing and some of her other changes aren't related to the above discussion at all, though a separate ongoing discussion sees majority opposition to the attempted tax change too. This is the material she's been edit warring over in recent days, despite the strong talk page opposition.

    This isn't "convoluted". There should be no fog of confusion. Please ignore the distracting content dispute and focus on her edit warring over the past week and a half, along with her promise to continue it. VictorD7 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    Sanctions request by EllenCT

    I ask that Victor be required to follow the reliable source criteria by only including statements with sources supported by the secondary literature, which means no think tanks paying to manufacture supply side trickle down fabrications unless they pass peer review in an academic journal and agree with the literature reviews when the conclusive peer reviewed literature reviews are unanimous, along with the cadre tag team who support such views. The requirement should be enforceable by requiring administrators to enforce it in proportion to the severity of the transgression. EllenCT (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by Capitalismojo

    I am not aware of any requirement that refs or sources be "peer reviewed". Reliable sources are the requirement, not academic peer review. I also don't see any diffs that show what (if any) violation Victor is supposed to have committed that needs enforcement or review. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    The only diffs are of the OP edit warring? This confuses me. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning VictorD7

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

    Arbitration enforcement request by IP editor

    Per the standing consensus, IP addresses and new users can not submit AE requests. (Also a malformed request and un-actionable due to the privacy policy.) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I'm requesting that uninvolved checkusers clean up the massive sockpuppet and meatpuppet problem in the Gamergate articles. The most obvious sockpuppet is PetertheFourth. If you look at his oldest contributions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth&dir=prev&target=PeterTheFourth ) he started editing the Gamergate arbitration page (as a new user) when it was clear Ryulong was going to get topic banned. Since then he has been a SPA who is clearly Ryulong's sockpuppet.

    Second, there is Tarc, another topic banned user, who said on twitter he's been active in the Gamergate article all along ( https://archive.is/r3nK2 ). He has admitted to sockpuppetry.

    Since yet another of the self-named "5 horsemen of wikipedia", The Red Pen of Doom, also sport a topic ban on the subject, then I recommend that the only one of their little group that hasn't, NorthbySouthBaronof, be subject to checkuser as well - especially since he has a long history of using multiple accounts.

    Of course all this is obvious and a competent and uninvolved admin would've stopped this long ago. I recommend that Gamaliel be removed from the topic area for not only failing to deal with a serious sock and meatpuppet problem that continues to generate drama - but curiously enabling every single one of them.

    I'm no administrator, but I would humbly suggest you might consider withdrawing the majority of this request and perhaps looking to WP:SPI for the gravamen of your complaint. Just a thought. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    I think the scope, length, persistence and coordination of the involved parties puts this beyond normal measures. These editors are clearly quite obsessed with the topic and their socking will continue to be a serious problem until we get some decent administrates in their who aren't going to ignore their constant violations. 70.56.26.237 (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    Of course, as a relatively new account who seems to edit Gamergate almost exclusively I can understand why you may be concerned about people checking for sockpuppets. 70.56.26.237 (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    Someday I'll have the Kussara article in shape! Dumuzid (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
    Every good sock pretends to be useful on some obscure corner of wikipedia. 70.56.26.237 (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)