Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spartacus! (talk | contribs) at 07:00, 23 April 2016 (self rv. It is fine"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

TripWire

Monochrome Monitor

HughD

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 HughD

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Safehaven86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

HughD (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

"You are now banned from editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed until August 28, 2016"

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

1. April 15 edits Institute for Energy Research, which he was warned for editing in a previous AE filing because it contains content on Koch brothers.
2. April 15 edits American Petroleum Institute, an article which contains information about conservative U.S. politics/advocacy/lobbying
3. April 15 Edit wars against consensus on API

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Oct 11, 15 Violation of topic ban resulting in warning.
2. Oct 29, 15 1 week block for violation of ban. Appeal of block was rejected
3. Jan 7, 2016 1 week block for violation. Appeal of block was rejected

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

HughD currently has a broad topic ban in place that is supposed to prevent him from editing about conservative U.S. politics, 2009-present. The topic ban started out as a tea party/Koch brothers ban, but was broadened. HughD has been blocked multiple times for failure to comply with the ban. Today, he edited Institute for Energy Research, even though in a previous AE filing in October 2015, he apologized for editing that article in violation of his topic ban and got off with a warning. The diffs of complaints against and violations against HughD are too numerous to assemble. Suffice it to say, previous sanctions have clearly not worked. I think I speak for a large part of the community when I say we've lost our patience. I don't know what should be done, but I do know that the current topic ban is not working, and HughD is wasting a lot of peoples' time, and none of this is improving the encyclopedia. I even gave him a chance to self-revert today's violations, but he didn't take it. Instead, he attempted to badger me into explaining why I thought it was a topic ban violation. He'd already been warned by an admin for editing the very same article, for crying out loud. Maybe I should be posting this to ANI, I don't know, but something needs to be done. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The topic ban was broadened, not narrowed. When you say "The earlier issue involving the Institute for Energy Research was under a earlier, Koch topic ban, since superseded; the topic area was changed from Tea Party Movement to American Politics," understand that the Kochs and Tea Party movement are part of U.S. politics. They are encompassed within it. So since you were reprimanded for editing the IER article while under the Koch/Tea Party ban, after your ban had been broadened (made more comprehensive, not less), certainly areas previously forbidden to you would remain so. Surely you are not under the impression that when your Koch/Tea Party ban was expanded to include all of U.S. politics, that you would be allowed to once again edit Koch/Tea Party articles? That would be a reduction in scope, not an expansion. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

HughD writes that "Important context for this AE filing is that complainant is our project's leading patroller and sanitizer of articles on conservative American organizations." Is this an admission that he considers IER and API to be "conservative American organizations"? Because that seems to be an admission of violating the topic ban. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

HughD: This is an AE complaint about your editing. If you have complaints about my editing, as you seem to, I suggest you find a more appropriate venue to discuss those complaints. This isn't the place. Please don't hijack this legitimate AE complaint as a way to air your many grievances against my editing. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Re. "It would be illegal for Institute for Energy Research to operate as an instrument of American conservative politics given its status," take a look at the IER article. It literally says "The Institute for Energy Research has a political arm, the American Energy Alliance (AEA). According to its website, the AEA engages in 'grassroots public policy advocacy and debate' regarding energy and environmental policies." The article further says it is funded by the Kochs, petitioned John Kerry, advocates for the Keystone XL, and opposes a wind energy credit. Those are all political activities. Further, a reference in our article is titled "Conservative Spotlight: Institute for Energy Research". The NPOV dispute you mentioned on the talk page says IER is "a right wing organization presenting themselves as a 'research institute'". This article on IER and its political arm, AEA, says the groups targeted politicians who supported a carbon tax and "The timing of the IER and AEA operation is designed to get energy issues on the agenda when lawmakers meet with voters in their congressional districts." That's conservative, and that's political. Bloomberg describes IEA as a "free-market think tank." The Washington Times calls IER "conservative" and "a leading critic of the Obama administration’s spending on renewable fuels and of the president’s energy policy more broadly." There's much more where that came from. If you're unable to see how your editing of this page, in light of a topic ban on conservative U.S. politics, is problematic, than your ability to ever successfully and voluntarily adhere to a topic ban is highly suspect. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of AE filing

Discussion concerning HughD

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 HughD

No topic ban violation, no edit warring, no disruptive editing.

The topic ban scope is "conservative US politics from 2009 to the present" under WP:ARBAP2. I understand the scope and respect it. Complainant argues "previous sanctions have clearly not worked." Let us together examine this claim. Since the topic ban I have refocused my volunteer work on the environment and global warming. I am proud of my contributions in this area including a recent good article review and a pending good article nomination.

The Institute for Energy Research and the American Petroleum Institute are not in scope of the topic ban. Thomas Mann said, "Everything is politics." In no sense are the above reported edits violations of a topic ban from "conservative US politics from 2009 to the present." The above reported diffs have to do with environmentalism, and have nothing to do with conservative American politics, or the Kochs for that matter. The topic of the environment is not subsumed by the topic of American conservative politics.

Institute for Energy Research

The Institute for Energy Research is an explicitly non-political, non-partisan, non-profit, 501(c)(3) charity that conduct research into energy issues. Let us together consider the lede paragraph of our article Institute for Energy Research:

The Institute for Energy Research (IER), is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization that conducts research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that the free-market provides the most inexpensive solutions to global energy and environmental challenges.

It would be illegal for Institute for Energy Research to operate as an instrument of American conservative politics given its status.

Let us together examine the edit of 15 April 2016 which complainant deems worthy of sanction, changes bolded for emphasis:

In 2009, an article in Mother Jones magazine said IER was among the most prominent organizations promulgating climate disinformation.

...with edit summary "WP:SAY, more accurate, neutral paraphrase of source." The edit as well as the article are unrelated to conservative American politics. No political parties or ideologies are mentioned in our project's article Institute for Energy Research. The only politician mentioned is John Kerry.

Complainant argues "none of this is improving the encyclopedia." The edit is an improvement in compliance with policy and guideline in neutrality, accuracy, and completeness. The consensus of a talk page discussion at Talk:Institute for Energy Research is that our article has serious neutrality issues. Complainant has the most edits on our project's article Institute for Energy Research, but is third in terms of adding content; most of complainant's edits are deletes. Important context for this AE filing is that complainant is our project's leading patroller and sanitizer of articles on conservative American organizations (please see for example Club for Growth, State Policy Network, her top two articles, and about a hundred articles affiliated with the State Policy Network), and seems to consider Institute for Energy Research as part of her beat (please see for example 28 October 2014, 09:42 4 December 2015, 09:50 4 December 2015); ownership issues may have contributed to motivating this filing.

Let us together examine the impact of this edit. Complainant reverted, without talk page discussion or alternative proposed. There was no edit war. There was no disruption to our project.

Mother Jones (magazine) is a progressive publication; sourcing to it is not in and of itself a violation of a ban on conservative politics; the contended content is drawn from an article on climate change.

Complainant argues "he attempted to badger me." This is false.

October 2015

Let us together examine the October, 2015 edit at our project's article Institute for Energy Research. I read the talk page consensus on WP:NPOV concerns, and on 8 October 2015 tagged three promotional statements in the lede of the article sourced only to the organization's website, requesting improved sourcing from third-party sources, three statements unrelated to the Tea Party or the Kochs. The edit was an improvement to the encyclopedia in terms of verifiability and neutrality. Complainant reverted within minutes without discussion.

At the time, I was topic banned from "Koch-related" topics under WP:ARBTPM, and the ban was new. Complainant noticed that the body of article mentioned that Politico said that the Institute for Energy Research was partly funding by the Kochs, the owners of the world's largest privately-held fossil-fuel company, and filed at WP:AE. I apologized for the tagging.

Complainant here in this AE filing attempts to portray the above reported edit to Institute for Energy Research reported as a some kind of continuation of disruption, which it is not.

American Petroleum Institute

The American Petroleum Institute is a similarly an explicitly non-political, non-partisan, non-profit, 501(c)(6) trade association. API advocates for its members on environmental regulation issues, not in favor of conservative American political agendas. Let us together consider the lede paragraph of our article American Petroleum Institute:

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the largest U.S trade association for the oil and natural gas industry. It claims to represent about 400 corporations involved in production, refinement, distribution, and many other aspects of the petroleum industry.

Although the American Petroleum Institute is permitted limited legislative activism in support of its industry, it would be illegal for political activity to be its focus, and it may not endorse any politicians or engage in partisan politics. Complainant argues that our project's article American Petroleum Institute "contains information about conservative U.S. politics/advocacy/lobbying." The American Petroleum Institute is an industry trade association, and employs lobbyists in opposition to environmental regulation, and so is clearly in scope of environmentalism, but clearly not an agent of conservative American politics. Congress is mentioned, but no politicians or political parties or ideologies are mentioned in our project's article American Petroleum Institute. No funding of the American Petroleum Institute by conservative American politics or vice versa is mentioned. No connection between the American Petroleum Institute and conservative American politics is made.

Disruption at American Petroleum Institute including disruption of dispute resolution

Involved commenter below urges uninvolved administrators to thoroughly review recent editor behavior at American Petroleum Institute. Above, "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." Before taking at face value the noticeboard claims of involved commenters of disruptive editing at American Petroleum Institute, kindly perform due diligence, and please review the edit history of the article and talk page. Please see who is who is engaging at talk versus who is reverting on sight, who is laying out proposed edits supported by reliable sources and policy and guideline, who is editing other's talk page comments, who is edit warring versus who is pursuing dispute resolution through broadening community discussion through avenues such as requests for comment, who is disrupting attempts at dispute resolution, and who is talking about content and who is talking about editors. Thank you.

• 18 August 2015 HughD 1st edit to American Petroleum Institute
• 12 November 2015 Springee followed HughD to American Petroleum Institute; Springee's 1st edit at American Petroleum Institute was to revert HughD after 13 hours;
• 11 April 2016 Springee vexatious topic ban violation report at AE against HughD
• 14:45 17 April 2016, 16:51 17 April 2016, 17:07 17 April 2016, 17:08 17 April 2016, 17:09 17 April 2016, 17:10 17 April 2016, 14:35 18 April 2016 William M. Connolley edits the talk page contributions of others WP:TPO at Talk:American Petroleum Institute
• 15:49 18 April 2016 More Springee campaigning. Hugh (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• 15:33 18 April 2016 Springee deletes an RfC from an Talk:American Petroleum Institute; a characteristic of Springee's editorial contributions to our project is disruption of dispute resolution; many additional diffs available on request.
• 10:53 18 April 2016 Springee deletes a "please see" template from a project talk page, calling for broadening community participation in an RfC, disrupting dispute resolution, after the RfC has attracted just two new editorial voices to the discussion
• 19 April 2016 Complainant and Springee campaign coordination
• 20 April 2016 More Springee campaigning, more Springee disruption of dispute resolution, campaigning to close an RfC

Conclusion

Missed the notice, sorry, no one is thumbing their nose at anyone, thanks.

No topic ban violation, boundary testing, or other disruptive editing is reported here. The above reported edits are good faith efforts at improving our project's coverage of environmental issues and wholly respect the topic ban. Sincerely, I have no intention of boundary testing, and I respectfully requested that my edits be viewed in good faith in the context of a demonstrated productive editorial involvement with environmental topics.

Refining arguments is not disruptive, it is the editorial process; requests for comment are not disruptive, they are dispute resolution. Attempts to broaden community discussion beyond a local consensus of one or two should not be feared or reported to noticeboards as disruptive. I should not be sanctioned for disagreeing with a local consensus of one or two by civilly pursuing legitimate dispute resolution steps. I have respected the community, I have been civil, I have pursued dispute resolution where necessary, I have justified every edit with policy and guideline and sourcing; I am part of the solution.

Complainant claims "I speak for a large part of the community"; I think this is false, she speaks for herself and a very few, who view noticeboards as the backstop for content disputes; I would respectfully recommend we move this to a case to assess this claim more broadly and more thoroughly examine the behavior of involved commenters.

Responding uninvolved administrators are respectfully requested to comment on any potentially actionable editor behavior of commenters to this filing they may or may not have encountered during the investigation phase of their due diligence in their evaluation of this filing. Thank you.

I would prefer that sanctions not be expanded or extended. Respectfully request clarification of the boundary if any between WP:ARBAP2 and WP:ARBCC and a warning. I respectfully offer to self-revert the above reported edits if a consensus of colleagues agree they are in scope. Hugh (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Springee

Because of my long and disagreeable history with HughD I'm not going to offer an opinion but I will note that HughD continues to edit American Petroleum Institute and the associated talk page including 4 reverts in 27 hours and continued abuse of the RfC postings by revising old arguments which didn't go his way. . Springee (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hugh, as I understand it, Ricky81682 expanded the Koch related ban into the current ban. Springee (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning HughD

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

• I see evidence here of breach of topic ban and am inclined to issue a two-week block. HughD, your statement is needed as to why you think you did not violate your topic ban. --Laser brain (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• HughD, your statement thus far is unsatisfactory as you've spent very little time explaining how you didn't violate your topic ban (compared with excessive time pointing to the behavior of other editors, which is irrelevant to this filing). I'm willing to support the proposal of a month block and extended topic ban. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Seems very clear that he violated the ban, knew at least the one article was off limits based on the outcome of a previous AE. In fact, he continues to edit Talk:American Petroleum Institute instead of make any type of statement here. These aren't obvious articles, as far as the scope goes, but when I look at his edits (part of a 3rd revert war, it seems) and , I see a problem. That problem is that the edit's aren't focused on the core of the article, but instead, the political ramifications of the topic. That makes it pretty clear (when you consider the bias in the edits) that he is violating the topic ban, willingly, knowingly and as we speak. I would recommend extending the topic ban for up to 6 months and up to a 30 day block, with the hope that would get the point across and serve to prevent future disruption. If one doesn't like the sanction, there is a system in place to appeal it (and I think it was already appealed unsuccessfully). That isn't a license to thumb your nose at the sanction itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Dennis Brown's block and topic ban extension suggestion. As the admin behind the escalating topic bans, this is clearly part of the long-standing pattern of a refusal to clearly object and respond to any sanction (which do not succeed) and instead to play around the edges of each sanction as a way of protest. Again, the topics themselves are not related to conservative politics but the nature of HughD's edits are within them related to conservative politics (Mother Jones categorizations at the very are conservative politics even if you don't consider climate change issues per se related). Note that I came here due to Springee's ping so feel free to move me if I'm not considered uninvolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• I am enacting Dennis Brown's topic ban extension, and explicitly expanding it to include addressing conservative politics on non-conservative-politics articles. I am not convinced a block is necessary but going to leave the formal close open to let another admin make the call on that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  I can see the logic in not blocking, as he is engaging now and in good faith. While he disagrees, he has every right to as long as he isn't being disagreeable. and the behavior is reasonable. Blocking might actually be a bad thing at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• I endorse GWH's extension of the topic ban to Jan 1 2017 and recommend quite prompt enforcement with blocks if there are any more violations. HughD, please note specially that the ban from "conservative US politics from 2009 to the present" is (still) broadly construed. The kind of playing round the edges of the previous ban (which was for the same area, but shorter) that led to this AE filing won't be tolerated. If you're in doubt whether the ban allows you a particular edit, please ask an admin before making it. There's a kind of logic in not blocking now, yes, but it also means the user has got away with a lot. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC).

FreeatlastChitchat

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 FreeatlastChitchat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

FreeatlastChitchat (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/India-Pakistan

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

1. 4/18/2016 A comment which compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers". Obviously WP:BATTLEGROUND, obviously personal attack. A quite odious personal attack at that.
2. 4/18/2016 Response to request to strike the above mentioned PA. Some kind of unbacked accusation of meat puppetry or something. Even putting WP:ASPERSIONS aside, this speaks to the fact that the user has a battleground mentality and is WP:NOTHERE.
3. 4/18/2016 Doubles down on the personal attacks with further personal attacks and further accusations that other editors are equivalent to "Holocaust deniers"

Per this also it appears the user is under a 0RR restriction, which would mean that these edits and are a violation of it.

Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by User:Spartaz .

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Blocked for a week for similar. Note closing admin's admonishment: "Imposition will depend on behaviour after return from block. Patience levels noticeably low so recommend keeping nose clean."

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

Basically the user's whole talk page is a billboard for warnings and sanction notifications.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1RR didn't work. One week block didn't work. 0RR didn't work. Unless the user dramatically changes their approach to editing it's time for a topic ban at the very least.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to SheriffsinTown's accusations (which are actually sanctionable as well since they fall under WP:ASPERSIONS) what I did is remove a whole bunch of POV text which looked like an attempt to turn the article into a WP:COATRACK. It's funny to be accused of "battleground" when I'm actually probably the one person on that article that is more or less uninvolved (I've edited it before in passing just in the course of my regular editing) and doesn't have a dog in this fight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh and Sheriff, can you point to exactly where "ARBPIA specifically prohibits such behavior"? Where does it do this "specifically"? And what behavior? I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel compelled to also point out that despite FreeatlastChitchat's comment, no one ever said that "Biharis were just killed in the process". Go to the article talk page. Press Ctrl-F, search for "killed in the process", all you find is FreeatlastChitchat making that false accusation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ffs. To those who are claiming that FreeatlastChitchat didn't accuse anyone of being a Holocaust denier - well, I guess you're right. He accused other editors of being the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Which is what I said above in my statement (to quote myself: "compares editors who disagree with them to "Holocaust deniers"") . If you really think that makes it better than please, WP:WIKILAWYER to your hearts' content. Here is their statement:

"We have the same with Holocaust deniers ... So it is quite clear that some deniers are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) I ask only this".

Now obfuscate and battleground' onward.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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 FreeatlastChitchat

I freely accept my comments. Any person denying a genocide should be compared with denying holocaust and he should not have any trouble with that, rather he/she should be topic banned from the said article immediately. I specifically targeted the comment that During the atrocities thousands of Biharis were just "killed in the process" and that it was not a genocide. The internet is rife with sources which point to atrocities committed against Biharis and term it genocide so it's not a content dispute. This is 100% clear pov editing. Furthermore it is highly biased to sanction someone who denies holocaust but anyone can deny Bihari genocide and walk away scot free. We cannot even compare them to holocaust deniers because ofc biharis were just "killed in the process". To be frank if someone bans me , he should be kind enough to tell me how hundreds of thousands of people killed and raped just "get killed in the process" FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies I have already said that I stand by my comment and accept any enforcement resulting from it. I commented on the fact that VM and ghatus were denying Bihari Genocide. You can peruse the TP and the article to find ample evidence of their repeated attempts to simply delete any reference to Bihari genocide from this article by claiming that it is coatrack and the article should deal with bangla genocide only and the Bihari Genocide did not even occur. This editing pattern of Ghatus and VM is a fact, not some conspiracy theory I am sprouting, you can check the TP to confirm, they both are denying that Biharis were killed in genocide, and Ghatus has gone as far as to say that they were just "killed in the process". With this in view I gave my opinion that wikipedia should not be biased and any person who denies a genocide should be sanctioned and T-banned from the said topic. I compared their "denial" of which there is ample evidence, to holocaust denial. It is a simple comparison, some deny holocaust and are sanctioned on wikipedia, these guys deny Bihari genocide and are therefore comparable to the aforementioned people and should be sanctioned as such. Saying that it is all right to deny Bihari Genocide is highly biased to be frank.(I have yet to see any sanctions for denying Bihari genocide, If there have been any do link the DS logs here and I will remove this part of my comment). It is quite true that calling a person a holocaust denier is an attack, but when a person is denying a genocide it is within an editors rights to tell him/her that what he/she is doing is comparable to holocaust denial, for is it not? Is denying one genocide not the same an denying another? I fail to see the logic behind this report, so I will just accept the enforcement, I am not going to strike my comments, I stand by what I said. Any person who denies as genocide should be sanctioned and t-banned immediately from the said topic, not the other way round, that he comes to AE asking for T-bans on others. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG as User:Volunteer Marek have been displaying battleground behavior which involved large-scale removal of sourced content from 1971 Bangladesh genocide and restoration of unsourced content. I am not sure what Misplaced Pages policies he is following to do all this. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits such battleground behavior. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Drmies: If you see comment by Freeatlast, he did not call Marek a "holocaust denier", he just mentioned in the context that if someone denies holocaust then they are banned for that then why it is so that if someone denies genocide against Biharis then they are not banned? I don't see any accusation or blame towards another editor and i do not see him calling another editor a "holocaust denier". Marek is taking it "out of context" here! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Volunteer Marek: Ghatus did say that "in that process some Biharis were killed". I am sure Freeatlast did not mean that you said it when he mentioned that. Please don't think that all replies are directed towards you, especially when multiple people are participating in a discussion. I think Freeatlast made a general statement about the whole discussion after seeing Ghatus's comment. You clearly don't think before you make an accusation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

Just a comment to clarify. I have no issue with the case or parties, but I don't think anyone called anyone a Holocaust denier. The statement was "we have the same with Holocaust deniers." In other words, the issue is similar to those who deny the Holocaust, not that anyone here is a HD. Sir Joseph 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TripWire

A simple glance at Freeatlast's comment will tell the reader that he did not call anyone "holocaust denier" nor did he display any WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. So, that's that. But I am compelled to point out that the way VM is accusing everyone around him of WP:ASPERSION, he should be careful as he commonly violates this policy himself in routine:

• Accuses editors commenting on a RfC of tag-teaming despite the fact that OP invited editors on this RfC at "Notice board for Pakistan-related topics" diff

"And so far I don't see any un-involved editors (except perhaps myself), just the usual WP:TAGTEAM"

• Again call editors commenting against him at the RfC of being 'friends', implying that they are tag-teaming:

"That's why your and your friends' attempts at hijacking this article"

• Even casting aspersions right here at the AE board on editors for tag-teaming, even though all the editors are the same who were already involved in the RfC which caused this report:

"I'm sorry but it looks like you're here just to support someone who shares your POV. And *that* would fall under WP:TAGTEAM"

• And this really has to end. VM is continuously, despite being reminded and cautioned is casting aspersions and accusing everybody of everything that comes into his mind. It seems he is so sure that he'll get away with it that he consider himself immune to sanctions. I think he should be told that he isnt.

And before he accuses me of tag-teaming, I'd like to info that I am already involved at this board. A WP:BOOMERANG shall be in order here, I guess.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡   19:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

VM, please stop WP:cherrypicking Freeatlast's words and synthesising a conclusion. What Freeatlast said was:

"Removing this (Bihari genocide) amounts to genocide denial, and I personally think that anyone removing this should be sanctioned (he says that those who deny genocide must be sanctioned). We have the same with Holocaust deniers (i.e. as Holocaust deniers are sanctioned, so must be Genocide Deniers, in this case ho deny genocide of Biharis - he is simply equating genocide deniers to Holocaust deniers and demanding equal sanctions for both), why won't these guys accept that Biharis were killed?"

He further says:

"It is quite clear that no one is removing ANY part of the article (i.e Freeatlast is not denying or removing info related to genocide of Bengalis - hence not denying it). So it is quite clear that some deniers (yeah, some deniers) are trying to whitewash the article by saying "oh, we cannot include biharis here even though they were killed in thousands". To these editors (genocide deniers) (who deny Bihari, not Bengali genocide) I ask only this, where exactly does it say that this article is exclusive to the killing of Bengalis? If Biharis were killed they should most definitely be included."

I dont think he is labeling VM or for that matter anyone as a Holocaust denier. At most what he suggested was that those who deny Behari genocide (i.e. say it didnt happen during the events of 1971), should also be equated with genocide deniers and as such must be sanctioned as is in the case of Holocaust deniers.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡   23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes

Several contributors blame VM of "genocide denial". What genocide? They tell about genocide of Biharis population. However, vast majority of sources tell about genocide of Hindu, not Biharis population (e.g. There is an academic consensus that this campaign of violence, particularly against the Hindu population, was a genocide - from good summary review). Even Rummel expresses concern that the violence against Biharis was a "democide" which is not the same as "genocide": "How much of this was democide (intentional killing by government or its agents) is a question". One can find very few sources which call violence against Biharis a "genocide". Hence the current description of this simply as "violence" was correct. That is what vast majorty of sources tell. It seems that several contributors are trying to push their nationalistic views by including fringe or poorly sourced materials/claims, and blame VM and other contributors of "denying" these materials/claims. This happens on a number of pages, such as Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, and Mukti Bahini. My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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

• Ah, FreeatlastChitchat--one of my favorite battleground editors. Marek, 0R was suggested but not imposed, it seems from the DS log. I think I already blocked FreeatlastChitchat once and I really don't want to do it again, but you can't go around calling someone a Holocaust denier; FreeatlastChitchat, you have been skating on thin ice for a while, and you shouldn't be surprised if you fall through it this time, though I for one will be sad to see it. But calling someone a Holocaust denier does no service to the victims of another genocide. Sheriff, if you want to bring Marek up on charges you will have to do so in a separate section--I doubt that this will go very far, though. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear that Freeatlast was suggesting that VM was to be included among the supposed collection of Holocaust deniers--and that comment itself, pace Tripwire's simple dismissal, is battleground editing. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

ArghyaIndian

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 ArghyaIndian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

ArghyaIndian (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/India-Pakistan :

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

1. 00:50, 19 April 2016 Left a highly nationalistic slur at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Bangladesh using a proxied IP, This was also a bad faith message as well accusing a bunch of editors as Pakistani POV pushers. WP:ARBIPA specifically prohibits use of Misplaced Pages for political propaganda on nationalistic lines and instructs to display good faith to fellow editors while editing Pakistan/India topics. (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox)
2. 12:59, 19 April 2016 Votes in the RfC signed in as ArghyaIndian using exactly the same nationalistic slur and bad faith message as was done using proxied IP at WP Bangladesh (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox)
3. 04:54, 20 April 2016 Left the same message using the same proxied IP with exactly same text as was used in above two edits, difference is this message was left after he was alerted about WP:ARBIPA so this is a clear violation of WP:ARBIPA after him being alerted about that. (Reference: WP:ARBIPA#Assume good faith, WP:ARBIPA#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox)
4. 10:34, 21 April 2016 Continues making highly controversial edits to a highly controversial topic 1971 Bangladesh genocide even though an RfC is going on at Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide to which he participated. Instead of waiting for conclusion, he goes in and removes a huge chuck of text along national lines
5. 16:30, 21 April 2016 Does it again after being told that "Please refrain from major changes while the discussion is ongoing.", gets reverted again by an unrelated editor
6. 16:56, 21 April 2016 But does it again! (Remember others are waiting for talk and RfC but he keeps editing along nationalistic lines

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14:51, 19 April 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Requesting a topic ban for ArghyaIndian in topic area of India/Pakistan broadly construed based on evidence of nationalistic propaganda and assuming bad faith along national lines.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification to the editor

• Note: Requesting @Laser brain: or another admin to restrict ArghyaIndian statement to less than 500 words so i can reply them keeping myself under 500 words. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion concerning ArghyaIndian

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 ArghyaIndian

It's an clear cut case of WP:BITE. This user is continuously harassing me. they also tried to spam my talk page. Infact, this is his latest attempt, reporting me for some vague reasons and connecting me with unknown IP's. Apparently he is leaving no chance to attack users who are opposing him on talk page . One should go and check revision history of the talk page and count the number of personal attacks he did to those users who are opposing (by their votes on RFC) him on the talk page. {{u|SheriffIsInTown}­} is calling others and me nationalist because I don't share his POV I will also like to ask him to enlighten me of what kind of nationalist am i? A quick look at revision history of the page and other related pages will show that this user has a strong Pro-Pakistan Army bias and ba­ttleground mentality (as also noted by other users on article's talk page).

• Now let me reply to all his accusations one by one. He is presenting me as a edit warrior and as a nationalist user here in a sheer bad faith.

1. Administrators please note that this IP is not myn. I just copy and pasted his comment at talk page because the IP was apparently correct and a patrolling user Sminthopsis84 also agreed with the IP. They also suggested a topic ban for {{u|SheriffIsInTown}­}. Again

this IP is not myn as i already explained above.

1. SheriffIsInTown­ is actually distorting and mispresenting edits and diffs. Let me reply to all his accusations.
2. 04:03, 20 April 2016 I created a new section regarding misleading

figures in the lead that was recently added without any discussion whatsoever at talk page . Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes agreed with me and Infact VM also asked me that which older version I have in my mind. Since the editors agreed with my objections, I tried to find out an older stable NPOV version. I waited for a day and finally restored an old version 10:30, 21 April 2016, but by mistake I restored the wrong version and then I asked for the help on the article's talk page can be seen here. And I think User:Kautilya3 was aware of it and that is why he/she reverted me. I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead (as discussed and agreed on talk page) so that is why I made this edit (13:25 21 April 2016) but after realising that I did a mistake, I quickly self reverted this time within a minute (13:36, 21 April 2016). But as I wanted to restore the old stable NPOV lead, I made this edit again () but unfortunately I again made a major mistake while editing but before I could self revert myself, an patrolling user already reverted me (). This time I made this edit correctly () and I was correct too (, ).

1. Administrators please note the

, MASS REMOVAL OF CONTENT by this user (that he doesn't like), large scale POV pushing and edit warring on all Bangladesh related pages (1971 Bangladesh genocide, Bangladesh Liberation War, Mukti Bahini, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War). He is doing this all from a long time now.

1. Administrators also please note that this user was trying to harass other users including me with 3RR templates when they hardly made two reverts but he is edit warring on these pages from many months, as noted by other users (, ). Note to forget he will go and remove mass contents from Mukti Bahini and then edit war against multiple users, same is the case here.
2. This user clearly violated 3RR on Mukti Bahini page just to remove mass contents from lead (that he doesn't like), which is still there.

• 18:16, 20 April 2016
• 18:20, 20 April 2016
• 17:31, 21 April 2016
• 17:50, 21 April 2016 please note the time and date, these 4 reverts are very well within 24 hours (well much more if we count reverts made by this user on same page within 1½ day).

1. He was told by atleast two users in edit summaries that lead material that is sourced in text is considered sourced and some of them are actually sourced

, and that he should stop removing mass contents from lead. He was warned on his talk page by User:Thomas and User:LjL for the same can be seen here .

1. In 1971 Bangladesh Genocide page alone, First this user along with his fellow users will try to hijack and

convert an NPOV article into a POV COATRACK article, promoting fringe and preposterous theories (All uninvolved and experienced editors pointed out this , , & ) please see the revision history of the page to get a better understanding. Then he will go and start an premature RFC (as noted by other users including User:My very best wishes, User:Volunteer Marek, User:Kautilya3 and many more) after he see that other uninvolved editors are opposing him on talk page. He also did not refrain from doing personal attacks directed towards uninvolved users who are opposing him on talk page (like this).

• So this case is pretty much clear, the filing user is trying to present me as a nationalist edit warrior (which I am not) by distorting edit diffs. As the rules mentioned right top at the AE noticeboard.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. based on this, I highly recommend a topic ban for this user (as reasons and evidences provided above). This user has a clear ba­ttleground

mentality with a strong nationalist bias. Note also previous misbehavior right here at WP:AE, as noted by Administrator Spartaz Spartaz also said that they are strongly minded to impose a T-ban for {{u|SheriffIsInTown}­} for making nationalist based slur.

• Being a inexperienced newcomer, I am mistakes but I am also learning very quickly so I will request administrators to pardon me for my mistakes. ArghyaIndian (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note: This seems to be waaaaaaay more than 500 words and 20 diffs. TJH2018 talk 16:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ArghyaIndian

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

TeeVeeed

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 TeeVeeed

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MjolnirPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 17:37, April 14, 2016 User announced their intent to "...keep trolling this topic just because you are being so unreasonable."
2. 08:14, April 14, 2016
3. 08:35, April 14, 2016 Both this and the above dif show him both pushing a POV and disguising false claims as being properly sourced.
4. 11:21, April 14, 2016 Reinserting false, unsourced claim to a sourced sentence.
5. 14:05, April 14, 2016‎ Further revert to reinsert false claims.
6. 10:00, April 21, 2016‎Misrepresenting talk page consensus to further push his POV.
7. 11:17, April 21, 2016‎ Reverting instead of discussing.
8. 11:57, April 21, 2016 Continuing to revert while claiming I said things I explicitly disavowed saying.
9. 12:00, April 21, 2016‎ Responding at talk page with provocative edit summary of "i know you are but what am i".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

none

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

• 09:48, April 14, 2016 Given notice of discretionary sanctions by Jytdog.
• 17:48, April 14, 2016 Warned again by Jytdog.
• 08:52, April 15, 2016 Warned by me.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor doesn't seem to have any real familiarity with the subject, but seems to be stumbling through, intentionally tryign to step on as many toes as possible in order to fight against what they perceive as an unnecessarily skeptical POV, but which no other editor at the page sees.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

15:21, April 21, 2016‎ Given notice by me.

Discussion concerning TeeVeeed

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 TeeVeeed

I am sorry that I ever got involved at the article, because I don't like being drawn into edit-wars. And I really did try to understand the mostly good points involved with FRINGE tropics, and I appreciate what I learned with that. But there remains a problem in that article with WP:OWNERSHIP issues where a certain cabal refuse to understand anyone else's points. I have been harassed and accused of all kinds-of nonsense since a very minor GF edit made there. The very day that I 1st edited and then questioned on the TP, a "warning" was posted on the FRINGE noticeboard calling for editors to help brigade against "anti-vaxxers"--which was NEVER my point and which I did not do. My point was to edit in service to WP and the readers, as it always is. Now this drama after I decided that enough was enough on the TP and I requested comments on the RS board regarding a contentious source. Yeah I could have stayed-off the topic, but I'm feeling like this is a bully situation and have seen other editors with my same questions about why this film article was "different" being blocked, and drama-boarded and basically not playing nice with other editors who have tried to edit this article. And TY-to the uninvolved editor Rhoark , yeah rv me for the consensus that MjolnirPants (seemingly?) agreed-to, is just crazy-making. This should be a Boomerang, just for that imo. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

edited to add

• https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gorski_again_for_article_Vaxxed Reliable Source question I posted immediately before this action was taken against myself.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)

MjolnirPants seems to be edit warring against the wording that MjolnirPants themselves suggested, exactly as TV said. Also, why is it so important to cite the opinion of a non-RS blog about a movie the blogger admits to not having watched? He's an expert in oncology, not a clairvoyant. WP:BUTITSTRUE Rhoark (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Another Statement about why this should Boomerang and editor frustrations by TeeVeeed

Also, this is not the 1st time that a GF editor has been brought here. Please See https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Conzar#Arbitration_enforcement from the TP archive. Also, in trying to reach understanding and consensus, one editor/admin? apparently uses two different names, which is confusing, and I am trying to AGF, so I am not accusing them of anything since they are obviously doing it in an open-fashion, but it has the effect of a SP-(appears like two different accounts in agreement when it is one), on myself at least.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning TeeVeeed

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

• Topic banned. TeeVeeed says they're sorry they ever got involved at Vaxxed, where they have been an unequivocal negative and have wasted the time of experienced editors who could be doing something more useful. The simple solution is to topic ban them from Vaxxed and vaccination-related pages. Done. Teeveeed's comments about article ownership and bullying are without merit AFAICS. Best of luck editing the rest of Misplaced Pages, TeeVeeed. Bishonen | talk 07:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC).