Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive229

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Captain Occam (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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review#Remedies
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review#Amendments by motion
• I am unable to find the record of the discussion by which Captain Occam was unbanned
• Wikipedia:Editing restrictions - Search for "Captain Occam" shows this topic ban:

Captain Occam is topic-banned from the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. He is subject to a two-way interaction ban with Mathsci (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log). If he behaves disruptively in any discussion, any uninvolved administrator may ban him from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the R&I case page.

This is, I believe, a condition of the unbanning

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

I cannot supply many diffs, because this complaint concerns Captain Occam using the Wikipedia-provided e-mail service to contact me in violation of his topic ban against Race and intelligence.

The timeline:

• I received a "Wikipedia email" from Captain Occam time-stamped at 11:17 PM EDT, in which Captain Occam criticized my editing on Race and intelligence. I do not believe I'm allowed to make the entirety of the e-mail public without Captain Occam's explicit permission, but it begins

  I'm still under a topic ban, so I can't participate in the race and intelligence article directly, but I'd like to call your attention to a mistake you made...

  Whether my edit was a "mistake" or not is irrelevant to this case.

• I responded to Captain Occam by e-mail:

  I need neither correction nor advice from the likes of you. You are specifically directed not to email me again. If you do, I will bring the matter to ArbCom.

  I will forward my portion of this e-mail to whomever wants to see it.

• I then posted this same text to User talk:Captain Occam. [1]

• Captain Occam's answer on his talk page was measured: "Well, I'm curious to see how that works out for you." [2]

• But Captain Occam's response in his second e-mail (time-stamped 11:29 PM EDT) to me was not so measured: "Ha, ha, ha, really? You'll bring it to ArbCom? Please go ahead. I'd say its about time that ArbCom took a look at your behavior."

• Since Captain Occam's second e-mail was in direct violation of my instruction not to e-mail me again, I believe he has abrogated any privacy rights hemight have had in it, and I will forward it to whomever wishes to see it.

• I posted this information to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, and the clerks there advised me to come here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I've been here for over 12 1/2 years now, and I've managed to avoid filing an AE complaint, or being the subject of one. I guess there's always going to be a first time.

Obviously, my complaint against Captain Occam hinges completely on whether his use of the Wikipedia-provided e-mail system to discuss Race and intelligence, a subject he is topic banned from, in an unsolicited e-mail to an editor he considers to be an antagonist [3], is a violation of his topic ban or not. My contention is this: I provide my e-mail to the Wikipedia system in order to facilitate communication to me from editors that would be better off not spread out publicly on Wikipedia, but one can only get to me at that specific e-mail address by way of the Wikipedia system. Therefore, it is part and parcel of the Wikipedia system, and Captain Occam's use of it to discuss Race and intelligence with someone he should have know would be an unwilling recipient of his message is perforce a violation of his topic ban.

His then continued use of the email system to contact me after I had specifically told him not to do so again, is also a direct violation of my right of privacy. Captain Occam has no inherent right to write, talk, whisper, sing, or emote at me through a private e-mail gateway once he has been told by me not to do so. If he had my personal e-mail address, I couldn't stop him from using the (quasi-)public Internet to do so, but since the only way he could contact me was through Wikipedia's e-mail system, Wikipedia is responsible for the proper regulation of that system, and to see that it is not being misused. In this case, since the topic ban in question was related to an Arbitration case that resulted in a site banning, and then an unbanning, AE is the proper authority to decide whether there has been a violation.

In my view, the first proper remedy in this situation is to cut off Captain Occam's access to e-mail. Further, I would argue that his topic ban's statement "If he behaves disruptively in any discussion, any uninvolved administrator may ban him from further participation in that discussion", which does not in any way specify where the discussion might take place, is pertinent to his unsolicited "discussion" with me via e-mail, regardless of the faux politeness of his response on his talk page. I suggest that in regard to this portion of his topic ban, he be re-blocked for a substantial period of time, considering that his unbanning was conditional on good behavior.

• Just to note that Captain Occam conveniently overlooks these edits, [4] which postdate the ones he complains of below, and which are still on his talk page under the heading "Apology".
  My interactions on the Race and intelligence article are entirely no business of Captain Occam's, as he has been banned from that topic "broadly construed", and would be best advised to stay away from it completely. I also reject the preposterous notion that Captain Occam was "concerned" for me in some way. (Incidentally, all this "concern" was prompted by one single edit. [5] I am not a prolific contributor to the article Race and intelligence, having made a total of 16 edits to it, all between October 2017 and 2 April 2018. [6] Only one of these -- the latest-- concerned Captain Occam's "collaborator", yet he was so deeply bothered by it, that he sent unsolicited e-mail on a topic he is banned from to a person he doesn't get along with.)
  I stand by my evaluation of Captain Occam's behavior and character. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding Sandstein's question: I did not know about the ability to block e-mails from individuals earlier -- or, rather, I had read on AN that such blocking abilities for e-mails and pings and such were under development -- but not only did I not know that they had become available, I wouldn't have held on to the information for long because I generally don't receive e-mails of the sort I received this evening om Captain Occam.
  However, Captain Occam's suggestion seems to imply that I should have been responsible for blocking him in advance of his e-mails, as well as each and every person on Wikipedia who I might not want to get emails from, Such an idea is silly on the face of it, and blames the victim rather then the perpetrator.
  However, to return to the land of the rational again, yes, Sandstein, now that I've been made aware of its existence, I will block Captain Occam from sending me e-mail. However, while I understand the desire of AE admins to not have to wrestle with the problem of e-mail generated by Wikipedia and whether it should be considered part of topic bans or not, let me point out this: if some editor had been using Wikipedia to send me death threats, or child pornography, I guarantee you that that ediors's email access would have been shut down faster than you can say "Would the Real Donald Trump report to the guidance counselor?" If Wikipedia does that -- and it most certainly does do that -- then it has already ceded that it has jurisdiction over Wikipedia-initiated e-mail, and can shut it off or otherwise regulate it in any way that it chooses, including by making it part of topic bans. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a lot to say additionally:

• @Newyorkbrad: Thank you for instructing Captain Occam on the noticeboard talk page not to e-mail me again, I was unaware of this, probably because I was preparing this complaint at the time you posted, and hadn't returned there except to check the history to get the diff of Captain Occam's initial response to me. I have already, having now learned of its existence, taken advantage of the new facility provided in "Preferences" to block e-mails from Captain Occam.
• @GoldenRing: Your question about whether it was the content of the e-mail that I found problematic per se or the contact from Captain Occam is surprisingly hard to answer. The tone of the e-mail was superficially polite (much like his response to me on his talk page), and there was nothing in it that was egregiously offensive. I would provide it to whomever not as proof that I was being personally insulted or defamed by Captain Occam, but instead as proof that the entire e-mail was firmly within the scope of his "Race and intelligence" topic ban. However, I found the fact that Captain Occam thought he could contact me to and upbraid me for an edit that was within his topic ban to be in and of itself offensive, on the order of "How dare he!". So, it's a bit of both, really.
• @Sandstein: I know that EdChem has now provided for you the basis and wording of the topic ban, but I do want to point out that I did list it in my initial complaint as the fourth item under the sub-heading "Sanction or remedy to be enforced", where I quoted the language of the topic ban as logged at WP:Editing restrictions.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realized the sheer chutzpah of Captain Occam writing, in his initial response to this complaint, "If there is anything AE admins can do to address the more general issue of the battleground environment surrounding this topic" now that a number of editors have exposed the fact that he is attempting to gather a "task force" of like-minded editors on the "Race and intelligence" subject. Presumably we're meant to believe that this task-force would work to keep things calm and rational in this subject area, and that their intended purpose is not to push for a particular viewpoint, such as the one that Captain Occam was pushing when he was topic-banned. Oh, and not to mention "... the battleground environment ... to which I think Beyond my Ken is contributing," when I've made all of 16 edits to the Race and intelligence article in my entire editing career, as opposed to the 177 edits by Captain Occam from July 2009 until he was topic-banned in 2010. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also remind the admins here that Captain Occam is no stranger to editing by proxy. In the Arbitration Motion by which Captain Occam was un-site banned [7], the Committee at that time specifically found that Captain Occam and User:Ferahgo the Assassin "shared an IP and who were found to be proxying for one another". The Motion goes on to say "Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin are reminded that tag-team editing, account sharing, and canvassing are not permitted." (emphasis added) Canvassing via Wikipedia e-mail is canvassing nonetheless, so here is another specific condition of Captain Occam's un-site banning conditions that he has explicitly and admittedly violated. I submit that the proper sanction here is not a one month block, but a reinstatement of Captain Occam's indefinite site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I am a bit hobbled here by the fact that the discussion which led to Captain Occam being un-site banned was a private one, something I complained about at the time [8], so although we known the terms of the topic ban that replaced the site ban, we don'tknow the intent of Arbitration Committee at that time in un-site banning Captain Occam. If, for instance, the Committee intended that Captain Occam should follow the topic ban, or else have the site ban restored, then Captain Occam's current violations of the topic ban should, obviously, lead to his site ban being restored.

I'm not certain why the Committee at the time allowed the un-banning discussion to take place in private, nor do I suggest that private discussion be made public, but I do think that the current Committee should take a close look at the intent of the Committee at the time and report the results to the admins contributing to the discussion here.

I do know that one arbitrator, Drmies, responded to me on the noticeboard talk page by saying "...we can't always do everything out in the open, but that's a general statement, as you know. Strictly speaking the ArbCom route is a valid route--the community may well come back in if future behavior is troubling." [9] Well, we're back at the place where Captain Occam's behavior is "troubling", and if the community can "come back into it", cannot the admins at AE also do so as well?

What I'm saying is that in this particular case, I think we're little beyond the "standard enforcement" protocols, which only allow a maximum 1 month block for a first offense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message for the Arbitration Committee on their noticeboard talk page, [10] asking them to read and comment on my comment above, and on EdChem's second comment in his section below. [11] Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

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.

I sent Beyond My Ken e-mail a few hours ago expressing concern about him showing what appears to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. In retrospect I suppose that doing so was a mistake, but his threat to go to ArbCom over it seemed so ridiculous that I didn't think he was serious about it. I'm willing to describe the contents of my e-mail, but only with AE's permission, since it involves an article from which I'm topic banned, and I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to discuss that here.

I also should note that the Wikipedia e-mail function has a feature to block e-mail from specific users, which Beyond my Ken appears to have not used. If he really cared about not receiving e-mail from me, blocking me from sending him e-mail would have been a much easier solution than reporting me at AE.

The background of this situation is a trio of edits that Beyond My Ken made directed against me shortly after I was unbanned. [12] [13] [14] (Note that I am not, in fact, a creationist.) These edits are what initially made me concerned about his attitude, and how his attitude potentially affects other editors.

I e-mailed BMK because I was concerned about his behavior towards user:Deleet, who is currently helping me with a separate on-Wiki project related to the measurement of personality and intelligence in general (but not to the R&I topic). It will be a loss for Deleet's and my collaboration if Deleet eventually quits Wikipedia out of frustration, which is something I've seen happen to other editors as a consequences of their bad experiences on R&I articles. In general, BMK's reaction to my e-mail is confirming my concerns. In his response here, he referred to me as a "massive discredit to Wikipedia" and a "son of a bitch".

I have no intention to participate in articles related to race and intelligence as long as my topic ban is in effect. However, it's happened in the past that the toxic editing environment on those articles has spilled over into other areas, and this is a situation where that outcome has the potential to affect an area that I'm currently involved in. My understanding is that if an area I'm currently editing is potentially affected by a situation on an article from which I'm topic banned, trying to resolve the situation by e-mail is the correct course of action. I've e-mailed ArbCom about these sorts of issues arising from the R&I topic a few times since my unban, and they've consistently indicated that I was allowed to do so.

If there is anything AE admins can do to address the more general issue of the battleground environment surrounding this topic, to which I think Beyond my Ken is contributing, I'd appreciate that. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has been very clear what the scope of the "race and intelligence" topic is. As per this motion, it is defined as "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". Arguing that my topic ban covers all individual differences in psychological traits, even when they have nothing to do with race, is interpreting this topic area far more broadly than how ArbCom interprets it. I also should note that until my topic ban is lifted, I intend to limit my involvement in the task force to organizational tasks such as making sure the templates work properly--I don't intend to make any substantive edits to the articles themselves. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Could you please address my point about how ArbCom has defined the scope of the "race and intelligence" topic area? As I pointed out to Maunus above, they have defined it as "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". I haven't read Oliver James' book, so I don't know whether it discusses race or not, but race also isn't mentioned in any of the reviews of his book that I've read (for example: [15] [16]). I am skeptical of Maunus's claim that this book "features the race and iq question prominently". If it does, why is that not mentioned in either of these reviews?

If AE wishes for me to avoid editing anything related to the heritability of psychological traits in general, I'll follow that restiction, but I don't believe that my topic ban as it currently stands applies to the heritability of psychological traits if race isn't involved. This distinction isn't splitting hairs--there is something like ten times more research (and coverage at Wikipedia) about genes and psychology in general than there is about group differences. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Can you accept that I honestly believed the scope of my topic ban to be the same set of articles that are covered by discretionary sanctions? I think this would be a natural thing for most editors to assume, whether it's correct or not. If in your view this assumption was incorrect, and you close this report with a warning for me, I'll avoid all articles related to the heritability of psychological traits for as long as my topic ban remains in effect. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: and @GoldenRing: I've just remembered one other important line of evidence about how ArbCom interprets the scope of the R&I topic bans. In September 2016 user:Ferahgo_the_Assassin, who is covered by the same topic ban as me due to our history of sharing an IP address, appealed a set of additional editing restrictions she was under. In her request, she stated that if these restrictions were lifted she intended to edit the mental chronometry article, which is a topic related to the measurement of intelligence. (There also is a fair amount of research about mental chronometry and genetics, although the article doesn't currently mention that.) So ArbCom was fully aware that Ferahgo intended to edit this article if her additional restrictions were lifted, but they still granted her appeal.

This decision doesn't seem consistent with your view that topic bans from the R&I topic extend to articles about the measurement and genetics of intelligence in general. If ArbCom intended the scope of R&I topic bans to be that broad, then they would have considered the mental chronometry article to be within the scope of Ferahgo's topic ban, and would have either denied her appeal, or at least granted it with the instruction to not edit that article. (They didn't give her any such instruction.) --Captain Occam (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: @GoldenRing: For the record, my contacting of other editors who I thought would be interested in joining the task force was something suggested to me by Everymorning. [17] However, I don't blame Everymorning for my making this mistake; I should have realized that my doing this would look like canvassing. Whether I get blocked or not, I'll be more careful in the future to abide by the spirit of my topic ban, rather than just the letter of the law. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been subjected to the same type of attempts to influence my editing in the R&I topic area in the period before Captain Occam's ban was lifted. Here he also used an odd combination on flattery and thinly veiled threats to attempt to make me try to reverse edits he disliked. He implied that he had been instrumental in influencing the process that lead to the banning of Mathsci, and that he could do the same to me or other editors that he didn't find to be "reasonable". It seems to be the same kind of implied threat he uses when he tells BeyondMyKen that "it is about time Arbcom takes a look at your behavior". Captain Occam has neither been willing or able to leave the R&I topic area but monitors it regularly and writes about it off-wiki, in what could be seen as attempts at canvassing. Occam has himself published part of an email he sent to me in an off-wiki forum, for which reason I also would not mind sending the email to arbitrators as evidence. It seems very odd to me to enact a topic ban, but not react to evidence of off-wiki attempts to influence wikipedia's coverage of that topic. It seems even odder to allow a topic banned user to use wikipedia's email system to influence other users' edits in the topic area.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Furthermore I am highly concerned that Captain Occam is editing in the area of psychometrics - since this is exactly half the topic of R&I from which Captain Occam is topic banned. His banning was specifically related to attempting to misrepresenting the relative prominence of views within psychometrics regarding the measurement of variation of IQ between populations and the causes of variation and it seems extremely likely that his coverage of psychometrics in general will be similarly skewed towards the specific controversial hereditarian viewpoints that Occam has favored in the R&I debate (a debate that Deleet is also personally involved in with clear pro-race views off-wiki). It seems clear to me that psychometrics would fall under the R&I topic ban broadly construed, just as the topic of Race would, should he decide to edit there. I would argue that Captian Occam has clearly and knowlingly violated his topic ban, not only in his emails to BMK, but also in his collaboration with Deleet on a "psychometrics task force". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The strict definition of the R&I topic ban as being only the "intersection" of race and intelligence adopted in the motion referred to by Captain Occam in effect renders the topic ban useless since that would mean that he can freely edit both the "Race" and the "intelligence" topics only being banned from the very few instances in which these topics explicitly intersect. It is of course possible to advocate for heredity of racial differences in IQ without actually editing those topics or mentioning that specifically, for example by overemphasizing the support for biological heredity of IQ in articles on psychometrics and simultaenously overemphasizing the support for biological inheritance in racial categorization. The sum of such edits would be to give undue weight to the arguments that support hereditarian cuases for the IQ disparity in race, without actually editing the R&I topic. This situation is untenable. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is amazing to me that arbitrators seem unable to see how working to influence the editing of other editors within the topic area that Captain occam is banned from is problematic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein (talk · contribs): Here is the evidence that Occam is editing in the topic of pscyhometrics (he supplied it himself in his statement above) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Psychometrics_task_force. I of course cannot provide evidence for Occam's knowing that his editing is counter to the topic ban - the unfortunate amendment of the topic ban to only being the "intersection of race and psychometrics" suggests that he had reason to believe that psychometrics is not covered by the topic ban - though for the reasons stated above it clearly should be. The gfact is however, that Occam has never not during is original ban, nor during this topic ban, left the topic but has worked intently to influence the topic through off-wiki means.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein (talk · contribs) I have made no "allegations" that require diffs. The evidence for his work in psychometrics is at hand. If it is not included under the topic ban then that is not a breech - though I reiterate that it should be, since the topic ban is in effect useless if it is not. The other "allegations" I have made are about off-wiki conduct and I can therefore not supply diffs, but will be happy to supply links privately to avoid any accusations of "outing". I would really like you and the other arbitrators to make a principled statement about the permissibility of using private commmunication (including threats of appealing to administrative action) to influence contributers in a topic area from which one is topic banned.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein (talk · contribs) here are your diffs:Captain occam adding himsel to the Psychometrics taskforce.[18]. Captain Occam adding the taskforce banner to the aricle on psychometrics.[19], Captain Occam inviting users who have previously edited in the field of R&I arguing for hereditarianism to the Psychometrics taskforce using wikipedia email[20]. Captain occam editing about hereditability of IQ[21]. This last diff alone is in my view a violation of the topic ban because it pertains to James' book "not in your Genes" in which James argues against a genetic component of the racial IQ gap - and Occam specifically removes a statement that would defend James' conclusion against the hereditarian view posed by his critic. The article about James does not specifically mention race or IQ, but James book which is being described and critiqued features the race and iq question prominently and its conclusions are directly relevant to the R&I question because it champions an environmental explanation for ability and behavior.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that clarifying the scope of the R&I topic ban is in order. Can Captain Occam under the scope of his topic ban edit articles that are about race, but which do not include anything on racial differences in intelligence? Can he be part of a "race task force" that seeks to exert some sort of organized effort on wikipedia's coverage of the topic of race? Can he interact with other editors and discuss the coverage of race related topics and intelligence related topics, as long as he does not himself make edits to those articles where the two intersect? Is he allowed to seek to influence other editors who edit in the R&I topic area through off-wiki communication as long as he himself does not make the actual edits? Is the spirit of the topic ban not to require the topic banned editor to cease any efforts to influence the coverage of the topic whether directly or indirectly? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee lists the restrictions on Captain Occam.
• Captain Occam was unbanned on 1 January 2017 with restrictions including a topic ban from "the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed".

I have not looked at Captain Occam's psychometrics edits but that topic is part of the race and intelligence battle which focused on differences in the IQ scores achieved by people from various "races". For example, consider this July 2010 permalink which included:

"Intelligence is most commonly measured using IQ tests. These tests are often geared to measure the psychometric variable g (for general intelligence factor)."

Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, Captain Occam is most definitely still under a topic ban that was imposed as a condition of unbanning on 1 January 2017. Here is the WP:ACN notification of the conditions and here is the related WT:ACN discussion. For the record, I share the concerns about Captain Occam editing on psychometrics when that area has been an integral part of R&I discussions / debates. I also note that, whether the use of email was explicitly prohibited or not, Captain Occam using emails to discuss the R&I area with WP editors and potentially seeking to influence content is very much something that a topic ban should be preventing. EdChem (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts... I agree with Mastcell and others that this situation is more serious than is reflected in the AE-authorised actions. I think a discussion is needed where the AE-allowed actions are considered, but not as the only options. I ask that no one take action and close this report before consideration is given to moving the discussion to ARCA or AN. ArbCom could re-impose the site ban or tailor other restrictions which it sees as a fit response to canvassing / lobbying via email near to / in the R&I area. Alternatively, the community could ban or place restrictions in line with consensus. A discussion lacking consensus would not preclude an AE action, but if a site ban is seen by others as a reasonable response then CO should have the opportunity to participate in the discussion. EdChem (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also have received numerous emails from Captain Occam recently regarding intelligence, most of which I have replied to myself. The gist of these emails (the first of which I received on March 15) was that Captain Occam wanted me to start a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology dedicated to intelligence, which I thought was a good idea; as a result, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Psychometrics task force. As it happens, the issue of whether Captain Occam might be violating his topic ban in doing any of this was raised by me in an email I sent him in which I wrote "Not that you can join [the task force] anyway of course since youve been topic banned." to which he replied, "I'm allowed to edit pages that are about human intelligence in general, I just can't edit them if they're about race differences. I probably will be joining the psychometrics task force eventually, but I'll have to limit my involvement to aspects of the task force that aren't covered by my topic ban." In short, I was aware he had been topic banned from race/intelligence but also thought he was avoiding such topics to the extent that it was necessary to avoid violating his topic ban. Every morning (there's a halo...) 13:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: So to clarify, you think he has been pushing the envelope on what is and isn't covered under his topic ban, and that's counter to Wikipedia's goals? (Disclosure: I am the other editor, in addition to Captain Occam and Deleet, who was/is collaborating on the aforementioned task force.) Certainly, insofar as his ban was "broadly construed" with regard to race/intelligence, this kind of sneakiness seems unacceptable. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that I created the task force that Captain Occam suggested I create because I thought it would be a good idea to keep articles related to intelligence up to date, well-written, and reliably sourced. I certainly did not want to push any particular viewpoint, nor did I have any desire to help Captain Occam or anyone else push a hereditarian viewpoint on these issues in any way. I myself disagree with many arguments regarding the purported genetic factors that underlie racial differences in intelligence, and the concept of a fixed intelligence that cannot be changed by environmental factors, so I don't want bogus hereditarian views to be spread. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite not editing in close to a decade, I also received an email from Captain Occam asking me to "help improve Wikipedia's articles related to personality and intelligence". I've given up trying to understand WP's rules, but going off-wiki to recruit a strike force to outnumber people you disagree with seems more than a little shady, even if the target weren't an area you were banned from. This isn't the first time Captain Occam has asked me off-wiki to publicly support him on the pretence that it was my own independent idea. Rvcx (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't secret mass-recruitment of (only) like-minded editors a blatant violation of WP:CAN? Rvcx (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to influence the on-wiki editing in an area from which they are banned should be construed as a violation of that ban. Whether that influence was applied on-wiki or off-wiki. Also, doesn't "broadly construed" mean no edits on race AND no edits in the area of intelligence? --regentspark (comment) 15:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also submit that Captain Occam is clearly violating the topic ban in the AE report. None of the following statements are necessary in defense of his email and all of them indicate an inordinate interest in R&I: sent Beyond My Ken e-mail a few hours ago expressing concern about him showing what appears to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, I e-mailed BMK because I was concerned about his behavior towards user:Deleet,, It will be a loss for Deleet's and my collaboration if Deleet eventually quits Wikipedia out of frustration, which is something I've seen happen to other editors as a consequences of their bad experiences on R&I articles, However, it's happened in the past that the toxic editing environment on those articles has spilled over into other areas,, and then there is the whole task force thing. Sorry, but applying Occam's (the original, not the captain) razor, it is obvious that the Captain is only interested in R&I topics and will keep nibbling at the boundaries if allowed to stay on Wiki. BMK has the right solution, restore the indef ban. --regentspark (comment) 19:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm still looking into the on-wiki aspects of this, but I don't think we would normally issue on-wiki sanctions over this use of email. @Captain Occam: WP:BANEX allows you to make statements here that would normally be tban violations so long as they are discussing your ban and not simply carrying on a dispute in a new forum. GoldenRing (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Beyond My Ken: While it is true that there some limits placed on editors' use of email, the relevant part of the banning policy has this to say about topic bans: Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. As far as I can see, that doesn't cover email and so considering use of email a tban violation would go against that policy, unless the terms of the ban explicitly extend to email. Without reposting its content on-wiki, was the content of this email so offensive? I haven't signed the WMF's official secrets act privacy policy so I don't think sending it on to me would be the right thing. If the content of this email is itself seriously problematic then I'd suggest sending it on to arbcom-l. If the problem with it is just that you don't want to be contacted by this user, I could probably extend their topic ban to include the wikipedia email function (though actually I'm slightly uncertain of policy on this point) - but what would be the point when you can just block them from doing so with far less paperwork and no recourse for appeal? GoldenRing (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As for the actual edit underlying all this, one editor has started a discussion at the article talk page and anyone interested in resolving the question (and who isn't subject to a relevant ban) should contribute there. I don't see the content, whichever version we end up with, as something that rises to the level of requiring AE intervention and it should be settled by consensus in the normal way. GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Beyond My Ken: Now that you know that Wikipedia:Emailing users#Prohibiting email from specified users exists (I didn't know it either), what about you use this function and we close this request? Since there does not seem to be on-wiki misconduct, I'm not sure whether we really need to resolve the question whether WP:TBAN includes Wikipedia e-mail. Sandstein 07:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Maunus: You allege that "Captain Occam is editing in the area of psychometrics" and that "Captian Occam has clearly and knowlingly violated his topic ban (...) in his collaboration with Deleet on a 'psychometrics task force'". Please promptly provide diffs supporting these allegations. Sandstein 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would take no action here. There is nothing in the evidence supplied by Beyond My Ken to confirm that there is even an arbitral race and intelligence topic ban applying to Captain Occam that could be enforced here. As regards the e-mails, I consider it uncertain as to whether topic bans apply to such actions, and will initiate a RfC to clarify that. As to Maunus's contributions, they do not supply diffs even after being asked to, and moreover editing in the field of psychometrics in and of itself would likely not be within the scope of a race and intelligence topic ban (depending on its wording, if such a topic ban exists), unless the aspect of race is also involved. Sandstein 10:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• EdChem, thanks for the link confirming that Captain Occam is indeed subject to an ArbCom ban from "the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed". I still haven't seen any diffs violating this ban, though, and therefore confirm that I would take no action here. Sandstein 11:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on this diff of 5 March 2018 provided by Maunus I now consider the request actionable. The issue of the "heritability of psychological traits" is certainly part of the "race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed". While the other edits about psychometrics and the e-mails (probably) do not directly violate the topic ban, they do convey the impression that this was not a momentary lapse and that Captain Occam has not disengaged as completely from the topic area as they were directed to. Based on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: enforcement of restrictions, I am of the view that an (initial) one-month enforcement block is appropriate. Sandstein 12:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Captain Occam, the Committee's topic area definition as "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed" you refer to was made in 2011 to describe the topic area to which discretionary sanctions apply. It does not apply to your newer topic ban of 2017 which the Committee described as applying to "the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed". That is the controlling wording. Sandstein 12:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that diff is a violation of the ban, but I don't think one diff justifies the maximum initial ban allowed; might I suggest 1 week? GoldenRing (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a month is appropriate because the topic ban was imposed in lieu of a full site ban, and because the apparent canvassing of presumably sympathetic editors indicates that this is part of a pattern of conduct intended to test or subvert the topic ban, rather than a solitary mistake. – The comparison Captain Occam makes with sanctions applying to another editor appears far-fetched and I do not think that it is informative for this case. Any misunderstanding by Captain Occam of the clearly defined terms of their topic ban is also immaterial. Sandstein 15:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of that, however it's fifteen months after they were unbanned and they've at least managed to stay unblocked for that time and done some productive-looking editing. IMO the maximum sentence should be reserved for the most egregious cases and I don't think this is one of them. It's also not the most trivial of cases, but I think somewhere in the middle. GoldenRing (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Eh, actually, reading Rcvx's comment above maybe you're right. GoldenRing (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• On the noticeboard I've already instructed Captain Occam not to e-mail Beyond My Ken again, and Captain Occam has said he will comply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Maunus: As a minor clarification, the decision-makers here on AE are uninvolved administrators who choose to participate here, not the arbitrators. (I commented individually here just as a cross-reference to my intervention on the noticeboard that resolved one aspect of the matter.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with a month block. This is a clear violation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A month-long block seems like an exceedingly generous and forgiving response to what is, essentially, a clear demonstration that Captain Occam is not and has not been respecting the basic conditions under which his siteban was lifted. The intent of his current topic ban is that he leave the topic area alone. As we often see on this noticeboard, he's instead nibbling around the edges and testing the boundaries of what he can get away with. His email to BMK was an obvious effort to influence the topic area—and thus an obvious topic-ban violation. It seems that he's also organizing a "psychometrics" task force, which looks to be a collaboration between Occam and an editor who participates in secret eugenics conferences. If you believe his goal in doing so has nothing to do with influencing our coverage of race and intelligence, then I envy your naivete. There really aren't any words to describe how inappropriate, and how counter to this site's mission and policies, these activities are. I'd advocate a restoration of his site ban with revocation of email privileges; there are only so many "last chances" you can give a person before you recognize them for what they are. MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with MastCell on this, a one month block seems far too lenient as this doesn't appear to be a sequential one-off violation. While I'm sympathetic to MastCell's suggestion of restoring the site ban, that's not something this board can do -- has to be via the community or Arbcom directly. However, if it is technically feasible, then I would definitely recommend removing email privileges altogether as long as the user is here as it appears that it is being abused to either canvas or bludgeon, and to no real good purpose. (I just checked on my sock account and it appears that it's not possible, unless someone more technically savvy than I can come up with a solution.) I would definitely suggest a longer block with email disabled, but if there's no consensus for a longer block then I'm ok with a one month block but with email access revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 03:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My understanding of the enforcement provision linked to above is that a month-long block is the maximum we are allowed to impose for a first violation of the topic ban. Sandstein 03:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That was my understanding too, but there is precedent to have the first part of a block as an AE action and the remainder as ordinary admin activity. If we went own this road any appeal would have to be dealt with by the committee as there is non-public information involved. I can get behind that as the behaviour really us quite egregious. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• By the strict terms of the banning policy, a topic ban only extends to "edits" and not email. (This seems to me an obvious oversight that should be changed, because the whole point of a topic ban is to exclude the user from the topic area.) But leaving that aside, Captain Occam's actions show that he's not here to build an encyclopedia. His second, taunting email to BMK persuades me that we should reinstate Captain Occam's siteban, per MastCell. Neutrality^talk 04:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• While the strictest reading of discretionary sanctions doesn't technically include use of Wikipedia email, I would still say that use of that system to intimidate other editors is a clear case of unacceptable harassment and skirting the edges of a ban. I'm minded to just flat indef Captain Occam as a standard admin action, and unless someone shortly has a very good reason not to do so, I will be doing that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) @Seraphimblade: My thinking is also heading towards a standard indef. I can't see a one-month enforcement block helping anything here. I don't think the email to BMK on its own is something we should get very excited about, but the pattern that is emerging of using wiki email to lobby editors over a topic they're banned from is clearly disruptive and also clearly, for some editors, becoming a harassment problem. GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree entirely with MastCell and others and recommend an indefinite block. I note we can't call it a siteban, per Spaceman above, but indefinite will do as well. (It would then not be for a first infraction of the topic ban, User:Sandstein, but per NOTHERE. I'm sure a group of admins can do that — indeed, any one admin can.) Captain Occam states above: "I e-mailed BMK because I was concerned about his behavior towards user:Deleet, who is currently helping me with a separate on-Wiki project related to the measurement of personality and intelligence in general (but not to the R&I topic). It will be a loss for Deleet's and my collaboration if Deleet eventually quits Wikipedia out of frustration, which is something I've seen happen to other editors as a consequences of their bad experiences on R&I articles." Is "psychometrics" not related to R&I? That sounds dubious to say the least. As for Deleet (who is Emil Kirkegaard, see his userpage), I don't see it as a great loss to Wikipedia if a neo-nazi editor quits as a consequence of their bad experiences on R&I articles. Admins can see our article Emil Kirkegaard, which was deleted in January 2018, and MastCell links to a Guardian piece above. But please also see this, scroll down to the selfie of Kirkegaard in front of a nazi salute, and note the two short paragraphs just above the photo. Emil Kirkegaard is to be sure not the subject here, and I'm not saying Captain Occam is responsible for him, but Captain Occam's concern lest Deleet is driven off by BMK's "behavior" leaves me cold. Bishonen | talk 11:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• I do not object to another admin enacting a normal indef block if they consider that justified, but remain of the view that the most we can do under AE authority is a one-month block. Any reinstatement of the topic ban would have to be made by ArbCom. An admin could presumably also enact a discretionary sanctions topic ban, but limited to the somewhat narrower scope authorized by the discretionary sanctions remedy. Sandstein 13:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• After review, I agree with Bishonen and others in recommending an indefinite block, though it would not be an AE action. Courcelles (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with my colleagues above and have gone ahead and blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Arbitration enforcement

Administrator imposing the sanction

John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Notified

No explanation for the block has been provided, I have done nothing wrong. Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a request for explanation following the block, John said it was for edit-warring at Ayurveda. A casual glance at the page history will show this is not true. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC) [22][reply]

Gosh, we're going back a few years with this one! It's a long story; I'll limit myself to some key data points.

• Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_6#Going_forward Article restrictions imposed; 0RR and civility. 19 October 2014
• The complainant added the ArbCom notice to the article talk page. 30 October 2014
• Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_7#Reviewing the restrictions 14 November 2014 Clarified that restrictions would now be considered as ArbCom enforcement.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive266#Ayurveda Discussion and complaints about the 0RR. The propriety of the restrictions was upheld.
• Talk:Ayurveda/Archive_7#Update 19 November 2014. Following discussion, restriction modified from 0RR to "No edit-warring, broadly construed".
• Template:Editnotices/Page/Ayurveda Edit notice at article; 15 January 2015
• Edit notice at talk page; 19 March 2015
• Complainant indicates that he is aware of the sanctions: "many shitty admin sanctions are already in place"
• Complainant makes three reverts in the space of under six days.
• I was alerted to the flagrant breach of the restrictions.

I can only apologise for omitting the block reason in the block notice. In the circumstances it must have seemed obvious that the complainant was consciously trying out the limits. I absolutely stand by the block. --John (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy the Dog got blocked after I had reported about his disruption to John[23], the report said:

Can you consider blocking Roxy the dog or topic banning him from Ayurveda? He has been unnecessarily removing reliably sourced content which is standing for 5 years and he is not even making any argument, see these reverts [24][25](totally misleading summary) [26], he has removed it 3 times now, regardless of dozens of sources provided on talk page, published by Oxford University Press, Sterling, CRC Press, WHO and many more high quality sources. Capitals00 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You can observe that I had pinged RtD in my comment, he was aware of it. This page has discretionary sanctions and RtD has intentionally violated 3rd point ("Any major changes to the article must be agreed here in talk beforehand.") of the sanction at least 3 times with these 3 reverts that he made. Even if we agree that he did no edit warring, he still violated the sanction, noting that you are not allowed to make disputed edits without gaining consensus.

RtD made only 1 small comment on talk page throughout these reverts, and his comment[27] indicates that he was reverting only for fun.

Though I had removed the report from talk page since I had already requested page protection,[28] but RTD reached to WP:RFPP after that and there he said that "Except that the content is badly sourced, and many shitty admin sanctions are already in place, no more are needed. In fact ..."[29] It is not only a battle ground mentality but clear misrepresentation of situation, despite Roxy the dog had been restoring an edit that has too many problem, not only it removes reliably sourced information standing for over 5 years but it is using sources that makes no mention of Ayurveda.

Recommend declining this appeal or just extend the sanction, given RtD's total failure to recognize the problems he is causing, continued WP:GAMING,[30] and also for making unfounded allegations of ulterior motives on John. Capitals00 (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bishonen: John didn't blocked me because I was not restoring problematic content without gaining consensus, but Roxy the dog was and he never made any discussion about the content on talk page either throughout these three reverts like I have already mentioned. It is very clear that Roxy the dog was making the environment toxic with his unnecessary reverts and he was using misleading edit summaries,[31] as well.

Given you have told that you are not aware of page sanctions that enforce you to gain consensus beforehand. I would tell you that many subjects such as entire Talk:Kashmir conflict, Talk:Donald Trump, are under the consensus restriction, because we often get editors in these articles who push their POV and thinks that others should accept their edits. They have to gain consensus and even WP:BRD tells you that. It's just the policy is being enforced. There is no way we need to remove these important sanctions, since removal will only allow further disruption. Capitals00 (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Block completely unjustified. Even a cursory look at the talk page shows that the information Roxy removed was badly sourced (despite Capitals comments above) self-serving puff claims (and he was not the only editor who thought this). Secondly if Roxy is blocked, then all the other editors involved in the recent revision history also need to be blocked for the same offense. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Bishonen: The unusual talk page text was added in March 2015, and subsequently tweaked a few times. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bold edits are generally allowed on Ayurveda although when other editors object them it becomes necessary to gain consensus. Maybe a modification can be made to third point, and I am hopeful that John will change "Any major changes to the article must be agreed here in talk beforehand" to something like, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" (like Talk:Donald Trump), but the block was warranted since Roxy the dog was not making bold edits but frequently restoring poor edits that have no consensus.

@GoldenRing: but evidently, Roxy the dog was aware of the sanctions per his own comments. Let me remind you that TripWire was blocked 2 days, though the page restrictions were not noted in the edit-notice of the concerning article, but the editor was aware of the sanctions. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@D4iNa4: Just to clarify it wasn't John who put the TP notice up, it was Jytdog (forced to ping you now—sorry Jytdog), and ironically I get the impression he only thought it would be a tempoarary measure due to all the (then) recent protections, etc., and he certainly didn't mind if he was reverted (e/summary read "feel free to just delete the whole thing if you don't like this"). —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 18:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a look over this, and it looks like a mess on John's part. I tend to give admins a lot of leeway for how rough pseudoscience topics can be to manage, but this even gets past my threshold. I was a bit lost as to what the history was, but it looks like the pseudoscience DS are being invoked here back from a 2014 DS made by John. It looks like the initial issue started with recently added content that Tronvillian removed on March 27.[32] If 0RR/consensus required was really being enforced, Tronvillian's edit should have been more or less "locked in" (though the dispute also jumped around a little). Instead, My Lord restored it, followed by Tronvillian restoring back to status quo, then Capitals00 edit warring claiming "lost content" was being restored. This is where Roxy came in[33]. A new account Vvivil came in and removed a chunk of text[34] that Roxy restored. Capitals00 came in again reinserting the content with another "unexplained content removal" edit summary[35], followed by Ronz restoring the rough original version[36], Capitals00 edit warred it back in again a couple days later, and then Roxy removed the disputed content again.[37]

Clearly, the no edit warring restriction was not being enforced against Capitals00 or others and for some reason was selectively used against Roxy the dog. This does look like a misuse of the DS, especially when Roxy was restoring to what appears to be the rough consensus version before Crawford's edit[38]. Coupled with what appears to be tendentious "unexplained removal" edit summaries by Capitals00 (all the explanations appear to be in previous edit summaries and the talk page), the block doesn't match what was happening at the page. That already should be a severe caution to John and a reason to overturn the block.

I haven't dug into the content dispute itself too much yet, but if the sourcing Roxy removed in their last edit was unreliable [39] (which at first glance to me looks like the claim has some grounding), that content was a violation of WP:PSCI and the principles of the the pseudoscience case. The DS need to be used to consistently deal with edit warring, especially when that edit warring is being used to insert what looks like it could be a pseudoscientific source. If that really is a pseudoscientific source, John would be acting not only against the DS they imposed about edit warring, but against the principles of the ArbCom case itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy the dog was edit warring with specious edit summaries and "status quo" was violated by Tronvillain who started editing this article by making misleading edit[40] and after My Lord reverted the misleading edit,[41] there was no need of further restoration. But Roxy the dog kept restoring those poor edits[42] by intentionally providing wrong edit summaries and did it until today.[43] You are misrepresenting the entire incident in favor of Roxy the Dog, who was entirely depending on making disruptive reverts than discussing the content. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sandstein: RTD was already made aware of D/S of this subject in November 2017.[44] As for edit-notice, the point becomes moot since he was aware of sanctions according to his own admission. Since edit warring to restore a non-consensus problematic version without engaging in talk page discussion is clearly disruptive editing, there were no formal grounds to overturn the block, but MastCell, an involved admin[45], has hastily unblocked RTD in violation of WP:AEBLOCK. Rzvas (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)—[reply]

@NeilN: Still the subject is covered under D/S and any form of disruption is sanctionable even if the article lacks separate sanctions. You can see another example, where MastCell and Roxy the dog shared similar POV with each other on a same articles,[46][47] WP:INVOLVED: "include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute". You also seem WP:INVOLVED here, given you both have participated in same content disputes.[48][49] [50][51] Rzvas (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: of what I linked here, Alternative medicine is not a "BLP" article and your involvement does not exempts you only because you have edited a BLP article other than reverting libelous information . You have been also involved with RTD on Naturopathy,[52][53] and many other articles. Routine editing is one thing but engagement in same content dispute while having a strong interest in the same article is another. You need to read WP:INVOLVED carefully in place of counting edits. Rzvas (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The block might be justified but there's no way to judge as it was improperly levied. Template:Uw-aeblock requires a brief reason be given specifying the misconduct but none was given. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) The editing restriction "You must get consensus on the Talk page for any change to the article that might be controversial BEFORE making the change to the article" is on the talk page. I believe John is pointing to that. Also, John, please log your block as you are required to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Capitals00: Those restrictions are not the same as they don't prevent bold first edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rzvas: Arbcom has made it clear that article editing restrictions must appear in certain places before an editor can be sanctioned for breaking them [54]. This is not an option. Also, the "evidence" you have provided to back up your claim that MastCell is involved is specious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rzvas: Your definition of involved seems to be participating in any kind of discussion the editor in question has also participated in. Sorry, that's not mine. I'm pretty sure that admins (or Arbcom) would be quite surprised to learn the community considers them involved with an editor in BLP matters if they !voted in the same BLP AFD months ago for example. I suggest you gain a little more experience than your 144 edits suggests you have before levying the serious charge of WP:INVOLVED. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rzvas: Deliberately or not, you fail to get my point which I illustrated using the BLP topic area about what the community and Arbcom considers involved. I have nothing more to say to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A few observations on this case:
  1. The related talk page discussion makes my head spin, I'm not sure who's in the right by the sources.
  2. The discretionary sanctions being enforced were placed in 2014 by John and are located here. They are linked to, but not displayed on the article talk page. I believe they need to be at least standardized and updated, or otherwise removed. I think Roxy was guilty of violating the "team edit wars" clause where "A adds something, B removes, C restores and D re-removes" in the sense that they removed the same thing more than once over a period of days.
  3. Also from a technicality standpoint the last time Roxy the dog triggered edit filter 602 was in 2014 [55], which fails the awareness requirement for DS even though Roxy is obviously aware that the sanctions exist.
  4. If nothing else, I think that if John intends to apply and enforce discretionary sanctions he needs to spend a couple of hours reading and updating his knowledge of the process into the 21st century. ~Awilley (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This poorly explained and executed block should be undone as soon as possible. John, you blocked Roxy giving only the reason "to enforce an arbitration decision". That's poor practice. When you block an experienced and respectable user, it's not enough that the blocked user knows what the block is for (still less that you assume he knows).[56] You need to give a reason that other users, and other admins, can understand. I saw the block a few hours ago, had no idea what it was for, wanted to know more, but didn't have time to go forage for what the reason might have been, before I had to leave to keep an appointment. Please be more forthcoming about your actions. Also, I still don't understand the reason for the block. Roxy reverted three times in one week, and Capitals00 reverted three times in one week. At the very least, John, please explain why you blocked Roxy and not Capitals00. Another point, probably more important in the long run (though less urgent today): who placed the extraordinary restriction "You must get consensus on the Talk page for any change to the article that might be controversial BEFORE making the change to the article. Editors violating these restrictions may be blocked." on the talkpage? I've never heard of such a restriction before, though that may certainly be my ignorance. Does it mean the article can't be edited at all without going via the talkpage, and WP:BOLD doesn't apply to it, nor our "bias" in favour of reliable scientific sources? Obviously the article is controversial all over, since it's about the putative efficacy of Ayurveda medicine. There will always be plenty of editors to defend that efficacy, just like other pseudoscience is defended on Wikipedia, meaning that all edits beyond reverting vandalism and correcting typos "might be controversial". In sum: in my opinion we need to unblock Roxy and remove the restriction I've quoted in green above, thereby reinstating WP:BOLD and WP:RS. (The unblock is more urgent, though. Undoing bad blocks is always urgent.) Bishonen | talk 16:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• You are mistaken, User:Capitals00 (edit conflict with NeilN). Kashmir conflict has nothing remotely like the restriction I quoted. Per your link, it has a 2-revert restriction — that's unusual too! — though I'm not sure it can be enforced, since it's only in an archive, not at the top of the talkpage. Donald Trump has the quite common restriction "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." I must have seen that on fifty pages. The restriction on Ayurveda says "You must get consensus on the Talk page for any change to the article that might be controversial BEFORE making the change to the article." The Trump restriction is about reinstating edits, the Ayurveda restriction is about making them in the first place. Really pretty different. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• John, please make a statement here promptly. Sandstein 16:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merits aside, the sanction appears to be procedurally flawed. The edit notice does not contain the actual restrictions that apply to the page, contrary to WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions. Moreover, I see no indication that Roxy the dog was made aware of discretionary sanctions in any of the mandatory, specific forms required by WP:AC/DS#Awareness. Yes, this is some weird bureaucracy, but it's what the ArbCom wants. John, your comment on this? Sandstein 20:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If, as has been suggested, this block is for breaching a page restriction then it should be overturned; the recent amendment to the DS procedures means that such sanctions can only be enforced if they are noted in the article editnotice; on this article they are not. GoldenRing (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As others have noted here, I don't think this block was properly conceived or executed. The block was nominally placed for "edit-warring", but I don't see edit-warring here; Roxy is well below 1RR, and it would require a much more extensive case than has been presented to justify an edit-warring block on grounds of Roxy's contibutions. As Bishonen notes, if this is the bar we're applying for edit-warring, then I see several other editors at Ayurveda who are as guilty as Roxy—ironically, this block was solicited by one of them. As NeilN notes, no reason was given in the block notice, although John later explained it by citing edit-warring. The block has subsequently been justified by pointing to a requirement that consensus be sought pre-emptively before making any potentially controversial edits. Leaving aside the post hoc nature of this justification, I don't think this is a workable sanction, nor is the restriction is not properly flagged, as GoldenRing points out.

  I don't think it's fair for Roxy to remain blocked given the consensus here that this block was problematic. It's quite possible that Roxy's behavior (or that of other editors at Ayurveda) warrants sanction, but this particular block lacks adequate justification and (less importantly) also lacks formal merit. I'm therefore going to lift the block (as Bishonen notes, there is some urgency), without prejudice to a proper WP:AE request involving Roxy or other editors which could be evaluated freshly on its merits. MastCell ^Talk 18:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the lifting of the block for the reasons stated above. Neutrality^talk 01:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Because the block has now been lifted, the appeal is moot and I am closing this thread. Sandstein 08:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nishidani (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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, specifically Decorum and Editors reminded.

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

1. 20:50, 31 March 2018 Personal attacks, see below
2. 22:33, 31 March 2018 Personal attacks, see below

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 12 May 2009 Indef topic banned in the first Arbcom PIA ruling.
2. ...Dozens of visits to this board...
3. 7 Oct 2016 Warned about incivility
4. 1 June 2017 Topic banned for one month due to personal attacks

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict. See above.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months. See above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nishidani received an indef topic ban in the first Arbcom PIA ruling for "repeated and extensive edit-warring, as well as incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith". A couple of years later the topic ban was lifted, under the assumption future such behavior will be dealt with on this board. See [57]. Since then he has been reported here literally dozens of times for the exact same behavior.

In the first diff above, he tells an editor he is "spout[ing] nonsense" which is a clear personal attack. He then goes on to say that the other editor is a "beneficiary" of "misappropriation of US taxpayer funds" by a "elephantine wastrel sponger", based solely on the other editor's nationality, personalizing their dispute. By the way, does BLP apply to editors? If yes I'd say calling someone the beneficiary of misappropriated funds is probably a BLP violation as well.

In the second diff he says an editor has a "conflict of interest" because of his nationality, and he can't judge if the other editor is acting neutrally based on this alleged conflict of interest and then goes on to say that Zionism is "all about" "Israel's right to be uniquely exempt from standard norms or judgements" as the motivation for other editors' arguments.

A longer topic ban than last time (less than a year ago) seem to be appropriate.

@Bishonen, that's an interesting interpretation. So who do you think he was referring to as "beneficiaries" "playing the meme" "before audiences that acrually study the facts" in this context? Who are the "audiences that study the facts" in the context of him explaining what "the facts" are? It's pretty obvious he was taking a dig at the Israeli editor he was discussing with because of his interlocutor's nationality. Is that allowed?
Ynhockey was not acting as an admin, so whether he's supposed to be a tender blossom or not is irrelevant. No comment on what "Zionism is all about" after identifying two opposing editors by their Israeli nationality? Perhaps you don't hear the dog-whistles because you don't know much about this topic area, as you said.

Here's another one from an article that popped into my watchlist - I see the inevitable POV eraser Shrike has just struck again, without a rational thought. I assume calling someone a "POV peddler""POV eraser" who acts "without a rational thought" by someone with multiple topic bans and warnings for this kind of behavior would be frowned upon? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)corrected quotation errorNo More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Murphy, only problem is that he wasn't responding to that, he was responding to this. You can tell not only by the indentation, but also by how he mimics the other editor's language, the argument that was "copy and pasted" was that the protests are a cover for terrorist attacks, and then he focused on the money issue. All direct responses to the post I mentioned as part of this complaint, not the one you posted below. I thought this was obvious but apparently not. I hope the admins who commented below are reading this and will reconsider. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lankiveil, FWIW I have no problem deferring this until Nishidani returns to editing and/or makes what he considers a complete response to the complaint, as long as nobody argues any relevant information became "stale" from the delay. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:, I'm sorry, but your analysis is flawed. The sequence of events is as follows (see: [58])

• Nishidani starts off with a couple of paragraphs of SOAP about Israel and massacres etc, but includes two valid points, 1. Hamas' motivation and 2. the general economic situation in Gaza. [59]
• יניב הורון responded that how Hamas uses its funds is relevant to the economic situation in Gaza, and also showed a source with another POV about Hamas' motivation (which is easy to source from any Israeli newspaper). He wasn't using the talk page as a FORUM but responding directly to points raised by another editor. [60]
• Nishidani immediately personalized the whole thing (as he often does when someone disagrees with him) with "you spout nonsense" and "Israel's beneficiaries of this misappropriation of US taxpayer funds" while going on a rant about "elephantine wastrel sponger in the room" and "the PA quisling government in the West Bank", none of which is in a way even remotely connected to improving the article. [61]
• Nishidani, a very experienced editor, has been warned and sanction multiple times for this exact sort of behavior. יניב הורון has been around for a couple of months but managed not to personalize anything or go off-topic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[62]

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.

I am bedridden with a fractured vertebra (I can get a nephew to scan the hospital docs if scepticism prevails) and will be so till May2. If Bishonen's close reading is not convincing nor my insisting my words be Unhockey are fair since it is a specific instance of a general rule I won't ask for a postponement until I can argue my defense. My point is, no admin who lives in one of two countries that are in bitter ethnic dispute should intervene in any way, especially over names, where edit-warring occurs, in such a way that gives the appearance of partisanship. Nothing personal. I will always view that as improper whatever the conflict area. I only noticed this because I asked my niece to check my internet page today, and I am writing it on her tablet, in my bedroom, which is not in sending mode except upstairs in my study where I hopre my wife can take this, and press the right tabs (she is computer-illiterate) Please don't take the above as a sympathy pitch. and no enmity if admins think I stepped overboard. CheersNishidani (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as an admin action – discussion about content not pertinent to this thread about user conduct. Sandstein 16:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani has been warned time and time again that his uncivil posts are not tolerated here, yet he continues. He makes a statement about an admin, and others merely for being pro-Israel, or Israeli or whatever, as if that means they can't edit here, yet does he do the same for admin Zero? There are plenty of people on "his side" of the debate that edit in a polite and civil manner. We don't need someone stoking the flames with almost all of their posts in the area. He has also been warned that his behavior needs to stop and I do think action should be taken. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"An Israeli editor with an administrative role is held to higher stanbdards, because admins should avoid any mere suggestion that they are not neutral." This alone warrants some sort of action. It has no place on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would read the archives of prior AE actions, especially the comments by GoldenRing and The Wordsmith. The civil issue is something that is routinely mentioned and needs to be addressed. In this area especially, civility is not just one of the five pillars but an actionable item.

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

• Those are pretty aggressive posts by Nishidani, but I can't see that they're personal attacks. "Spouting nonsense" is not; it's if anything an attack on the comment by the user he's replying to (User:יניב הורון), a retort to it, utilising the same wording as יניב הורון did, which was also aggressive.[63] If you will, יניב הורון's post was an attack on Hamas, Nishidani's was a responsive attack on Israel. I don't see it as personal. No More Mr Nice Guy's conclusion that Nishidani is specifically calling the other editor a "beneficiary" of "misappropriation of US taxpayer funds" is a far reach IMO. It's technically possible to tease that out of the diff, but it's unconvincing for all that. The second diff, with Nishidani's statement that Ynhockey has a conflict of interest, is more concerning IMO. OTOH, Ynhockey is an admin, Nishidani was speaking to/of them as an admin, and discussing their editing in relation to their adminship. This comes out particularly in Nishidani's next post, which No More Mr Nice Guy has not linked to above: An Israeli editor is like anyone else. An Israeli editor with an administrative role is held to higher standards, because admins should avoid any mere suggestion that they are not neutral. No More Mr Nice Guy's account of the conflict of interest accusation seems a little simplified. Anyway, admins aren't supposed to be tender blossoms, that kind of thing is all in the day's work for them. And Ynhockey seems to live up to my idea of admins; they have been back to the page later, but have ignored the conflict of interest thing. Good idea, cool admin.

I'm coming to this from a position of ignorance, possibly to the point of naivety: I don't edit in the area, I don't study it, I don't know much about it. But of course even I know it's one of the world's hottest troublespots, which is reflected in the heat generated in articles like 2018 Land Day incidents and their talkpages. I don't like to see what looks like people going over these talkpages with a magnifying glass looking for personal attacks. I don't mean to offend you, No More Mr Nice Guy; I don't mean you actually did that; just that the effect looks like it. I assure you I'd say the same if similar thinly supported accusations were levelled at someone on the other side of the conflict. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Reply to No More Mr Nice Guy (see also my talkpage: if you want more discussion with me, please take it there): I assumed Nishidani was talking about IDF and Shin Bet and the Debka file. But you may be right that he was referring to Wikipedia editors copying the Debka file. I may well not be the best at dog whistles in this field. BTW, about your next paragraph — not sure whether you are still talking to me there — but just in case, where does your "POV peddler" come from? Read the original wording again — you just quoted it — and please also have more respect for the original syntax of the sentence. Chopping it off at the comma misrepresents the meaning. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• No action warranted based on currently provided diffs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Waiting on a statement by Nishidani. Sandstein 16:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, on the one hand, Nishidani does have a record of this kind of problem, but on the other hand, this is some very mild stuff, if personal attacks at all. It is mostly about content and general I/P politics, which should be avoided per WP:NOTFORUM, but, again, not a big issue. I don't think that this rises to the level of requiring sanctions, even though it is not exemplary conduct. Sandstein 20:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that this is a BLP problem, but I also don't want to give the impression that the sort of aggressive battleground behaviour from Nishidani shown in the 31 March edits is in any way acceptable. That being said, I don't want to sanction an editor who is unable to defend themselves owing to health issues, so I would much prefer to defer this until they are able to commit fully again to editing and responding to this report. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• While I do sympathise, I'm reluctant to let this blow over because of someone's health issues. I agree with Lankiveil that the aggression & battlegroundy actions are not acceptable - but I don't think it was only coming from one side, either. A fair chunk of that thread is a big, battlegroundy violation of NOTFORUM from several editors & I do think Nishidani was mostly reacting in kind (I'm thinking of comments like this). While Nishidani's previous warnings, sanctions etc mean they should be particularly aware of the consequences of such things, I'd still be reluctant to see one side sanctioned as though it was all their fault. Trouts all 'round is my inclination here, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @GoldenRing: I agree with you (and disagree with Lankiveil; I see no need to do this over later, as I don't think Nishidani was posting more unacceptably than the other lot). But your diff is to a move to a non-capitalized version with a harmless edit summary by Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Did you mean to link to something else? Bishonen | talk 13:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Erm, yes, sorry, this. Not sure what happened there. GoldenRing (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @GoldenRing: Yes, I concur that while Nishidani is clearly at fault here, they're not the only ones at fault. But if there are actionable problems with battleground conduct with editors on the "other" side of this dispute, they can be raised as separate AE discussions. I don't see that they should have any bearing on this particular issue. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• @Lankiveil: I know it's becoming more common, but I'm not a fan of this, "If there are other editors at fault, they can be dealt with in another report, if anyone can be bothered to bring it," approach to AE. We are not here as some sort of judicial body constrained by the evidence brought before it; we're here to contain disruption. The big red notice at the top of the page says, 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. Refusing to look at the whole situation only encourages editors to bring speculative complaints here in the hope that they can remove opponents from a debate; too often, editors who are the subject of a complaint are told that if they have grievances against the editor bringing the complaint, they should file a new complaint - and are then promptly blocked for a week (or words to that general effect). By the time their block expires, the whole thing has blown over and any evidence they could bring in a complaint will be stale - any anyway, any complaint will be labelled tit-for-tat, no matter how much merit it has. We should look at the whole situation around a complaint. GoldenRing (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @GoldenRing: Do you intend to take action here? If not, I think we should close this with no action, perhaps with a reminder to all editors involved that talk pages are not to be used as a forum for one's general views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its actors. Sandstein 10:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sandstein: I think a reminder or a warning is the best outcome here - feel free. GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

R9tgokunks (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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction

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

1. 06:13, 31 March 2018 - original authorship.
2. 06:18, 31 March 2018 - revert 1.
3. 04:27, 1 April 2018 - revert 2. Please note the edit summary "Reverted test edit." which I have a hard time to AGF.
4. 10:14, 1 April 2018 - request to self revert on user talk page.
5. 21:27, 1 April 2018 - response by user on talk page - rejecting the request to self revert, calling it " incredibly inappropriate and amounts to WP:WIKIHOUNDING".

The sequence above has two forbidden reverts per ARBPIA 1RR - the first an "original authorship" violation (which is, perhaps, a finer policy point), the second is a plain simple revert - a straight up violation, coupled with a problematical edit summary. There are also decorum/civility issues with the response. Yigael Yadin - a Haganah military leader and chief of staff of the IDF (active 1932-52 - through much of the early conflict) is clearly ARBPIA related.

Also relevant, a prior 1RR incident. The 1RR may not be sanctionable as done immediately prior to the DS alert, however the user's response to the DS alert and request to self-revert are relevant regarding decorum and civility (and would fall under the DS regime as it is after the alert):

1. 03:28, 28 March 2018 - revert1.
2. 01:38, 29 March 2018 - revert2.
3. 18:01, 29 March 2018 - revert3.
4. 18:09, 29 March 2018 - request to self revert.
5. 20:27, 29 March 2018 - response by user my talk page - rejecting the request and among other statements calling this "ridiculous and misleading" and "threatening".

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

18:08, 29 March 2018 - DS alert.

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As I was accused of wiki hounding (even though my interaction with this user has been quite limited) and since this is relevant to the nature of the edits here, I got to these articles following a NPOV/n post by R9tgokunks. I was particularly concerned by this diff in which Haifa was incorrectly described as Palestinian territories (it was part of Mandatory Palestine - however never part of the West Bank or Gaza!), which R9tgokunks described as non-neutral (saying that the redaction of Palestinian territories was incorrect). This led me into some of these pages (e.g. Ireland–Israel relations).

As the 1RR restriction was applied directly by the Arbitration Committee it is not subject to the special awareness criteria for page-level sanctions. In any event, the user was amply notified by a request on their talk-page.

RE R9tgokunks stmt below:

1. I did not remove the information from the article, I challenged whether this technicality (who (and when) was in control of Jerusalem in 1917 (I will note Jerusalem was not in the lede - just "Ottoman born" - a phrase I believe isn't used on Wikipedia (or for the most part elsewhere) to describe people born in Ottoman Palestine)) was lede worthy, and whether a one sentence lede should highlight this aspect. I did not modify the infobox or category (which probably technically (though arguable given the dissolving state of affairs) was a correct cat for a few months).
2. Had R9tgokunks responded in a more civil manner (even if still uncivil) or asked me why I had made this request on their TP - I would have gladly explained. However as I was told my request was inappropriate and tantamount to wikihounding and previously told this was threatening[64] (to which I responded civilly [65]) - I felt that I was highly unwelcome on R9tgokunks's talk page - it seems my friendly request was treated as harassment - and that further posts there would be seen in the same light. Mediation was not required for a clear redline 1rr.Icewhiz (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE RE - regarding the claims below (which seem to be WP:NPA) - per the editor interaction tool our interaction has been quite minimal, and had been prompted by the NPOV/n noticeboard discussion (which is intended to get un-involved editors involved). Calling a DS alert, and 2 polite requests to self-revert following 1RR issues - as "It feels like intense intimidation and bullying" is an issue in and of itself.Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

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.

It is highly inappropriate and misleading that user is trying to bring up numerous edits I made BEFORE being privy to sanctions on the two articles. This whole thing stems from there there were not being notices of sanctions on the articles when I edited them. I was also mostly unaware/unclear on sanctions to articles on the A-I conflict. I am still unclear why they apply to Ireland-Israel relations, the first one I was warned about. I also had no idea the closeness of Yigael Yadin to the A-I conflict/sanctions.

1. After being warned of 1RR for Ireland-Israel relations, I STOPPED editing. (TP warning)

2. I also STOPPED editing at Yigael Yadin after it's warning. (TP warning)

I have not edited Israel-related articles since then; 2 days ago; and Icewhiz has not taken part in discussion on my TP that was started yesterday, where @Bellezzasolo: has been attempting to mediate. Icewhiz also claims to have had "minimal interaction" with me. This is false. In the past week he has reverted at least 4 of my edits on at least 3 articles (1, 2, 3) & commented on post I made to NPOV noticeboard and ANI, as well as leaving 3 TP messages and filing this report. It was accused in private emails to myself from 2 other users who saw my ANI post that they believe user has a history of wikihounding, and POV-based editing, so I backed off and decided not to deal with the user as much as I could, aside from my talk page. (I have tried to make all afforementioned edits to these articles per this incident in which an IP made clearly biased edits. After this, Icewhiz seemed to patrol my edits on Israel topics, which I felt was intimidating. I complained about this at above ANI post, but retracted complaint within 1-2 hours, right after recieving the emails.)

I'm Jewish, but my goal was/is truth/removing POV and adding facts. For instance, Cakerzing reverted this because IP was making other disruptions. But I did research and found IP was right. I amendened it, and Icewhiz somehow disagreed, which removed a fact from the article. I reverted & assumed it was a "test" per WP:Assumegoodfaith, which I have increasingly tried hard to do with this user. I did not look into the subject of the article so I didn't know Yadin was closely associated with the conflict. All I looked to do was include the fact that he was born in the Ottoman Empire. Also, I felt that the first instance of warning me for my reversions of the IP + Icewhiz's addition of the unencyclopedic WP:WEASELWORD "alleged" here was unwarranted. My additional rationale was that the content dealt with had nothing explicitly to do with the A-I conflict, but Israel-Ireland. I assumed user was initially giving a false warning.

It wasnt until my second complaint about User, after the edits that other users started to actually clarify to me more in depth, and that I was able to fully understand the sanctions rulings more clearly. I have not edited on those articles since then out of trying to adhere to this, but also out of lack of wanting confrontation and fear that User will try to continue to to incorrectly single out my edits as malicious. Now I will be avoiding the content pretty much entirely. I didn't understand fully at first, but now that it has been clarified to me, I assume 1RR on any article on Israel per the feedback & sanctions, which I have ceased editing as of 2 days ago. R9tgokunks ✡ 22:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Icewhiz comment

1.The claim that he did not remove info is false per this edit.

2.After the constant reversions, following of my edits, and the messages to my talk page, it was hard to assume good faith. It feels like intense intimidation and bullying, especially after the emails I got about him.

I've been trying to mediate this dispute on R9tgokunks' talk page. My understanding of the issue is a disagreement on the meaning of this amendment. Icewhiz understands it as not appertaining to restrictions directly imposed by ARBCOM, R9tgokunks is expecting an edit notice on pages under sanctions. Per WP:ACDS#Authorisation, my understanding of this amendment is that an edit notice must be placed, however that is only my personal interpretation- clearly there is some confusion on the matter. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting constructive edit as "test edit",[66] is clearly misleading. Capitals00 (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear this is a enforceable offense. There shouldn't be any confusion - Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages fall under standard discretionary sanctions. "Palestine-Israel articles - Standard discretionary sanctions". The 1RR restriction stated in the complaint was an amendment to this sanction.

Per Arbcom motion enacted January 15, 2018,

Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:

1. The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and

2. There was an edit notice (ds/editnotice) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.

There was not a (ds/editnotice) on the page at the time of the 1RR violation which is required before sanctions can be issued. WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts clearly states in addition to editor receiving an alert "There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions." The "additional requirements" links to the requirement for the (ds/editnotice) WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions.

• @GoldenRing: Thank you for for the clarification. CBS527^Talk 23:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I've dropped a note at the editor's TP, but I'll repeat some of it here. Editnotices are required when an admin places page restrictions on a specific page using the authorisation of discretionary sanctions. 1RR on Palestinian-Israeli conflict topics is not that sort of restriction and no editnotice is required. While the text at ARBPIA3 has lost the "without warning" qualification, this editor has been warned repeatedly and is not accepting that they are at fault; I'd suggest a 48-hour block. GoldenRing (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cbs527: See my comment above. The 1RR restriction on ARBPIA topics is not a "page restriction" as is meant in that amendment, though I think we're going to have to take up with the committee the amount of confusion this is causing. GoldenRing (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with User:GoldenRing. The Arbcom-imposed 1RR applies to all articles in the topic area: "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." In practice, when enforcing this it is worthwhile being sure that the user knows about the 1RR. From what people are saying above, the user *was* aware of the 1RR. Though R9tgokunks has not yet reponded at AE They have stated on their talk page 'there are no mentions on those articles of sanctions'. By those articles he must be referring to Yigael Yadin. Since Yadin served as the chief of staff of the Israeli army and was a high official in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War the page would easily fall under Arbcom's definition of being 'reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict'. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated my comment to reflect that R9tgokunks has now responded at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I have removed replies by R9tgokunks in nearly every section of this report but his own. Per the big red notice at the top of this page, statements must be made in your own section. GoldenRing (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two sets of reverts presented. Contrary to what Icewhiz seems to state, the second set of reverts on Ireland–Israel relations is not a 1RR incident even if R9tgokunks had been alerted. Their first two reverts were reverting an IP and are therefore exempt as they were (unknowingly) enforcing the General Prohibition. The first set of reverts did violate ARBPIA3 but it's easy to see why that mistake was made, given the content. I also note that R9tgokunks did not re-revert after being reverted later the same day. I suggest this report will serve as a wake up call and R9tgokunks is now fully aware of how careful they have be when editing in this area, even with the absence of article/talk page notices. I recommend no block be levied but if one is still felt required by fellow admins that it be no more than 48 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's no objection forthcoming, I will be closing this with "R9tgokunks is now fully aware of the editing restrictions existing in this area and is expected to edit accordingly." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3 :

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

1. [67] User continues to edit-warring in ARBPIA-related articles, despite I explained him many times he is not allowed per 30/500
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]
6. [72]

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)

1. Warned that he is not allowed to edit in ARBPIA per 30/500
2. Warned again, but he doesn't seem to care

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[73]

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.

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAP2, WP:ARBAPDS

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

• Peter Strzok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 13:24, 7 April 2018 Initial addition
2. 13:32, 7 April 2018 Revert; "info on opening of investigation by strzok"
3. 00:30, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "added RS"
4. 00:52, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "checked the RS and you are correct, fixing the language"

• Dismissal of James Comey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 07:30, 7 April 2018 Initial edit; marked minor.
2. 13:19, 7 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "incorrect: trump was not a target of either the investigation launched in july 2016 which comey oversaw or the mueller probe launched in may 2017"
3. 13:44, 7 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "sorry, just the facts"
4. 00:16, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "quote is right there in the source, stop reverting"
5. 00:48, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "it's mentioned in other places too, including RS"
6. 01:09, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "what is there to take to talk? simply added some minor info about what Comey himself stated - why is this being repeatedly removed?"

• James Comey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 07:09, 7 April 2018 "added rest of statement"
2. 07:21, 7 April 2018 Marked minor; revert.
3. 13:19, 7 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "incorrect: trump was not a target of either the investigation launched in july 2016 which comey oversaw or the mueller probe launched in may 2017"
4. 00:18, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "info is RS stop reverting"
5. 01:08, 9 April 2018 Tagged minor; revert. "Added RS; cleaned up text, add date of testimony"

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)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13:59, 7 April 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Violating 1RR on multiple pages with DS after being alerted to said DS.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[74]

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.

Apologize for the minor edits. Wasn't doing it on purpose, didn't know I was doing anything wrong. Now that I know what to mark as minor and what not I will be more careful. As far as my other edits not sure what the problem is or why I'm being reported here by Evergreen. Everything I added was in good faith, and also RS. Neilen (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN you can check all of my edits to confirm the user below (O3000) is making false claims. Never claimed to know the "truth" about anything. Simply trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Not sure why users are complaining about me here, seems to be some sort of witch-hunt atmosphere. Neilen (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved. Was just about to file this myself. Editor refuses to take to Talk after many requests. Numerous 1RR vios. There are additional vios at James Comey. Editor appears to know the "truth", to which I am not privy. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If my eyesight is not failing me, the editor has continued this behavior after responding here: [75]

And it continues: [76]

Neilen, may I make a suggestion that you voluntarily agree to refrain from editing any article under discretionary sanctions for a lengthy period until you are accustomed to the Wikipedia guidelines? O3000 (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

didn't know I was doing anything wrong is rather hard to believe, given the massive "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." at the top of every edit. TheValeyard (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Given that this is an absolutely crystal clear case and the disruption is still ongoing, I am imposing an indefinite topic ban on Neilen from post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Cinteotl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Niteshift36 (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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 11:23 5 April 2018 Personal attack, failure to work toward agreement
2. 11:19, 5 April 2018 Incivility, failure to work toward agreement
3. 14:25, 4 April 2018 Ignoring a reasonable question. I asked 3 times if he could provide a reliable source. He evaded the question, failing to work toward agreement.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 00:11 26 February 2018, see also log 20521221

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

From what I've read of Niteshift36's behavior, I could argue that he should be permanently topic banned. But let's keep it simple this time: Please give him a slap on the wrist, and tell him to stop chasing away editors with whom he disagrees.

Reading Niteshift36's response, it appears he's set on counterpunching without providing the necessary diffs. I'm not going to defend myself against groundless complaints, not am I going to turn this into a boomerang game. So I'll go on record that I will be willing to subject myself to the same sanctions that are placed on Niteshift36 in this matter, irrespective of whether I've done anything wrong. Cinteotl (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify that my concerns regarding incivility are secondary to my concerns regarding other more objective violations of WP policies.

Update: I asked Niteshift36 a fourth time for a reliable source which ranks the deadliest mass shootings. 12:56 6 April 1918, and finally, he proffered a source (CNN), but not a citation. This might not seem significant, except that CNN does not publish the information in question. In the above diff, when explaining how he/we could add our own rankings (something that should raise alarms about original research), Niteshift36 referred to this CNN article [77], saying "we could use the CNN listing as the basis to start with." So, there is no doubt that Niteshift36 knows that CNN isn't a source for ranking information, and isn't a responsive answer to my question.

The following facts are indisputible: I asked Niteshift36 at least 4 times to provide a reliable source for rankings of the deadliest mass shootings, in support of content he is seeking to include in the Mass shootings in the United States article. He has, to this moment, not not provided a responsive answer.

• "Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it."[78]
• "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors." [79]
• "Does not engage in consensus building...repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits". [80] Cinteotl (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing - Please do me the courtesy of properly citing and explaining any concerns you may have with my conduct, so I have the ability to respond in a meaningful way. Cinteotl (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Usr Notified 02:47 6 April 2018

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.

The reporting editor has been intentionally obstructive in this particular article. While he alleges a PA here [81], Cinteotl has been arguing in another thread that putting things in numerical order is "synth", then favors creating an addition to the table that has us adding numbers. I pointed out the inconsistency in that position. In his second example [82], he has repeatedly refused to address the simple point that putting numbers in order (or letters in alphabetical order) is not SYNTH. Another editor has even told him that's not an incorrect position, yet he repeatedly makes the same response. Was I getting irritated with it? Yes. Is in "incivility"? Probably not. And I've certainly been working towards a solution. In his third example [83], Cinteotl engages in a little "not the full story". He posts an exchange from 2 days ago, claiming that it is failing to work towards a solution. What he fails to add is that the next day, a very workable solution was presented [84]. This same editor has cast aspersions about advocacy. In short, some of the exchanges may have been terse, but there's no refusal to work towards a solution. Despite his assertion, I've been involved in a number of discussions that resulted in successful conclusions.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Cinteotl, unlike you, I'm not filing a complaint. You really don't have to "defend" the aspersions you cast [85] or the workable solution that was presented [86], despite the allegation of not trying to work towards one. Since this series of answers [87] happened after this discussion started, it's obvious why they weren't included. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved editor here. That's typical Niteshift36 snark, but I don't see any personal attacks or any other actionable conduct. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I can't see a single thing here rising to the level of enforcement (or even close to it). Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Black Kite. To the degree there is anything wrong with that thread, it is evenly spread. GoldenRing (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Iantresman (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of "plasma physics and astrophysics", imposed at Iantresman logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2012#Pseudoscience

Administrator imposing the sanction

Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[88]

I would like my topic banned to be considered for lifting. Since my ban in 2012:

• I have had one appeal declined over a year ago, and this is summarised in my deferred appeal in Dec 2017 (described in the "Amendment request: Pseudoscience, Notes to @Newyorkbrad ).
• I have received no other sanctions from over 4000+ edits
• I have upheld the 1RR restriction on me[89], and will continue to do so
• I have also endured the current 1972 day topic ban without further penalty, despite being on a self-imposed 0RR at the time, thought that I had followed Discretionary sanctions guidance at the time to "adopt Wikipedia’s communal approaches" in my editing[90] and discussed the matter on the WT:IRS noticeboard
• I have made efforts to improve my editing, reaching out to Timotheus Canens for advice [91], and to the Help Desk[92],[93], and the Teahouse[94] (all without success)
• I am still open to suggestions on how I can improve my editing behavior, should there be a disagreement.

Since my time as a Wiki editor

• I have made over 21,000 edits, of which 96.8% are still live[95] a retention rate that is as good as all but two active members of the Arbitration Committee
• I appreciate ban avoidance more than most, having endured a 1,515 day Community Ban[96] (given without a single diff in evidence, and with such short deliberation that it contributed to the banning of the Community Sanctions Noticeboard[97] that was instigated by an editor who was described as having misled the community[98] by using multiple socks abusively.[99])
• I have also uploaded over 60 files to Wikipedia[100], over 100 images to Commons[101] created over 900 new pages[102], edited over 4000 pages (on average 5 times each)[103], and have been directly involved in the attainment of 4 good articles (one subsequently reassessed)
• I am always open to discussion with any editor regarding my editing

Notes

• @Sandstein: I don't know what the reasons were for my ban, as they don't appear to have been stated in the "Result concerning Iantresman". The original poster mentioned (a) Wikilawyering, [104] (b) that I "continued to argue", (c) "no consensus", (d) "Pushing", (e) "civilly POV push this fringe science", (f) "adding a burden on other editors". The banning editor mentioned that "I think the complaint has merit", but it wasn't clear to me whether he was referring to all criticisms, or whether there was something specific.

I am happy to "address these concerns", but I don't think you want me to comment on every accusation against me, so your guidance would be appreciated.

I would like to contribute to articles on plasma and astronomy which were covered by my topic ban; I have University Certificates in Astronomy, Cosmology and Radio Astronomy from UClan and Jodrell Bank at MU (scans available on request). I also want to contibute to more contentious articles, such as the one on Plasma Cosmology. The evidence suggests I am a good editor in these subjects, eg. I am the top contributor (even after a five year absence) to the article on Plasma Physics[105] Wolf Effect[106] and Pinch (plasma)[107] Birekland Currents[108] Critical ionization velocity[109], the 3rd top contributor to Dusty Plasma[110] and Plasma Cosmology[111] and the 2nd top contributor to the article on Redshift[112]. --Iantresman (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sandstein: Not impressed. I asked you for extra guidance as I could find no such "clear" conclusion, and indicated I was "happy to address these concerns"; I had also solicited advice from other editors, I even mentioned fringe science as one possibility, but was unable to pick it out from any of the other options. --Iantresman (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• What is disappointing, is that no-one is prepared to work with me, and provide the guidance that I seek. --Iantresman (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Timotheus Canens:

• My 2007 CSN appeal was not rejected. Admins voted 3-3 (and one abstention) which shows no consensus.
• There was no "full knowledge" (page Permission Error) of the Mainstream Astronomy account being one of several socks. This is clear from the "Statement of JoshuaZ" who repeats that the user is new. I wonder whether the views of other editors, and the votes would have changed, if this false statement were not perpetuated.
• And while the CSN discussion was left opened after my community ban, editors who bothered to look noted: (a) "I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here."[113], and (b) "nor has the evidence in questions of fact been clearly presented."[114], and later another editor supported my unblocking "on the grounds that the user has apparently done little or nothing wrong,"[115]
• And while you are right in mentioning the AE case that I was cautioned in (and had forgotten), if you recall, I recently asked you if I could edit articles that were also covered by my ban[116] to which you gave tacit approval to the advice here[117], and then you decided that some subsequent edits in the topic area were the wrong shade of grey[118]. It's no wonder I don't know the rules, but it's not for want of trying to find out from you,[119] and in other places. --Iantresman (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to lift this topic ban. As Sandstein explained, the appeal does not indicate that [Iantresman] recognizes that his editing at the time was problematic, and why, and how he would now edit differently. Given the lengthy history of fringe/pseudoscience-related sanctions here, I'd want to see an exceedingly persuasive demonstration that the concerns leading to the ban will not recur. This appeal falls far short.

To the extent that the appeal is based on trouble-free editing, it resembles the October 2012 ARCA request that led to the topic ban being lifted, and we know how that one turned out (note that this topic ban was also reviewed at ARCA immediately after it was imposed). Not that the editing was entirely trouble-free: I recall at least one appeal to me that I declined after finding topic-ban violating edits, and a search of the AE archives showed at least one other instance of topic ban violation for which they were cautioned; while these are relatively minor, the failure to mention them - and the carefully chosen "penalty-free" wording - do not really inspire confidence.

In a similar vein, the appeal also contains a rather misleading and incomplete characterization of the CSN discussion that led to the original ban: that discussion was kept open for a substantial period of time after the block took place, and an appeal was rejected by the 2007 arbcom with full knowledge of the identity of the "Mainstream astronomy" account. T. Canens (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course iantresman has not indicated that he recognizes that his editing at the time was problematic, and why; he doesn't think the ban was a good ban in the first place. When he asked for it to be lifted on those grounds, he was told to go away and that what the committee would really like to see is an appeal on the grounds that the ban is not presently necessary, with none of this stuff about contesting the original merit of an ancient sanction. Now he's back with the requested evidence and his appeal is being attacked because... it's too focused on trying to say the ban isn't presently necessary, and doesn't spend enough time addressing the original merit of the ancient sanction. I know there's no overlap between the individual arbs commenting on the two appeals, but iantresman is really getting the runaround here. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Iantresman: Please describe what the reasons for the topic ban were and how you would address these concerns in your future editing in the topic area if the ban is lifted. Please also describe in general terms which articles you want to create or which contributions you intend to make if the ban is lifted. Sandstein 14:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would decline to lift the ban. Iantresman writes that "I don't know what the reasons were for my ban". However, according to the link he provides, it is very clear that the reason was that Iantresman was considered to have been advocating the inclusion of fringe or pseudoscience content in violation of policies and ArbCom decisions applicable to such content. Given that the ban has remained in force without successful appeal for some 6 years, I must assume that these concerns were valid. In this appeal Iantresman does not indicate that he recognizes that his editing at the time was problematic, and why, and how he would now edit differently. It therefore appears to me that the ban is still needed to prevent the recurrence of the concerns that led to the ban being imposed in 2012. Sandstein 17:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is starting to languish. I'm inclined to lift the ban on the basis that reimposing it if there is trouble will be very cheap indeed. There's been six years of trouble-free editing; not as high volume as before the ban but still apparently solid and trouble-free work. I would like to hear whether Timotheus Canens agrees first, though. GoldenRing (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline per Tony. GoldenRing (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would lean towards provisionally rescinding the ban, under the same conditions outlined by User:GoldenRing. The lack of understanding about why the ban was imposed in the first place is seriously unimpressive, but most of the problematic behaviour seems to have been quite some time ago. If there is any problems around disruptive pseudoscience related edits, it could be re-instated rather quickly and easily. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• I agree with Sandstein, and think we should decline to lift this. I am seeing no reason to lift this ban and "it has worked at preventing disruption" is not a good reason to lift it either. Related to the last point, I also find Tim's statement compelling, and I generally trust his judgement on these matters and see no reason why we should go against the sanctioning admin who opposes lifting the appeal at this time.TonyBallioni (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dagduba lokhande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPAK : Topic banned from anything related to B. R. Ambedkar (including family members), Buddhism, Caste in India, politics related to Dalits, broadly construed, applicable across the entire English Wikipedia, including but not limited to articles, templates, categories, images, user pages, drafts, portals, and their respective topic pages.

Diff of the notification of above topic ban, and this action was logged too.

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

• Clear violation of topic ban from 11 April: [120] [121][122]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[123] a block of 48 hours for violating topic ban.

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

[124]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't believe that he understands he is topic banned, despite having been told too clearly. Capitals00 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of topic ban notification and log entry added above now. Capitals00 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff: Given that he edited nearly 45 days after his block on 26 February and he did nothing but violate his topic ban, it seems that one week block won't do anything because whenever Dagduba lokhande returns to Wikipedia, he violates his topic ban despite it has been clarified to him very clearly. His talk page messages show he is capable of understanding what is being told to him[125], yet he continues to intentionally violate topic ban. Just like the recent block on संदेश हिवाळे, I believe Dagduba lokhande should be indeffed too. Capitals00 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[126]

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.

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

• Please add the diff with which the topic ban was imposed. Sandstein 16:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be [127] by @SpacemanSpiff:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a clear violation. Second violation, I suggest 1 week block. --regentspark (comment) 20:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This is actually the third set of violations (set because there are always multiples). I let off with a warning the first time. A one week block seems appropriate now.—SpacemanSpiff 06:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed that a one-week block is appropriate. Sandstein 15:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Scjessey (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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=835905480 (initial addition of "hate group" by Scjessey)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836208995 (initial addition of "anti-immigrant")

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=835955264 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "hate group")
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=835970094 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "hate group")
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836162209 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "hate group")
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836259284 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "anti-immigrant")
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=prev&oldid=836267518 (incivility "I'm British, which almost certainly means my English is better than yours. And who gives a fuck about..."
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836399003 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "anti-immigrant" and "hate group")
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836399003 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "anti-immigrant" and "hate group", removing sources)
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=prev&oldid=836719692 (gaming - notifies talk of his revert above, but throws in a warning to others not to transgress DS sanctions)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 23 December 2017 "blocked 24 hours for not gaining consensus before restoring an edit that was challenged, via reversion, in violation of DS at Presidency of Donald Trump."
   • 2 January 2018 AE log was later striked by blocking admin, no further explanation

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 30 March 2018.
• Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14 April 2018
• Discretionary sanctions notice was placed on the talk page of the affected article on 14 April 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I ran across this edit war somewhat in progress. Several editors were tag-teaming with an aggressive IP user (who has already been blocked), but I identify Scjessey as a particularly aggressive participant who exacerbated the edit war and repeatedly reinserted challenged material. I attempted to quell the situation by adding three additional sources and removing all the contentious language that these sources didn't all agree on, and noted this on the talk page as a way to deescalate the edit war. I also contacted Scjessey on his talk page. After a short break, today Scjessey removed our discussion on his talk page, calling it "BS". He then edited the article to remove the additional sources and restore the contentious labeling. This last revert, in particular since it removes the three additional sources, demonstrates that Scjessey is not interested in presenting this item in a WP:VERIFIABLE nor WP:NPOV manner (aka cherry-picking). His edit summary, claiming to be putting back a "consensus text" demonstrates that he sees consensus not as a process, but as the result of having a simple numbers advantage in an edit war. His follow-up Talk: page comment "It is important that we include this context (emphasis his) demonstrates that he sees this action more as a crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to Scjessey's claim below of not knowing this article was under the broad discretionary sanctions which apply to all post-1932 American politics, I find that groundless. His previous report against another user was within that area, and he certainly cannot claim to not be aware as his previous block was within this area also. I reminded him about the discretionary sanctions in our Talk: page conversation also. I think that he is trying to skirt his poor behavior by feigning ignorance is, frankly, insulting to this forum and to anyone involved. He has also just now taken to the article's talk page, seemingly just to notify the other participants in this edit war of this enforcement request. -- Netoholic @ 00:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Added: Starting his statement below with "Sigh" continues the trend of not treating this process with the due care and respect it deserves. Nothing about his statement indicates genuine acknowledgement of the problem and gives me no confidence his actions will change. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: - the article itself has not special restrictions, but all editors are bound by the general expectations listed under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors, which include the requirement to comply with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The chief complaints in this request are failure to adhere to policies WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (RIGHTGREATWRONGS). -- Netoholic @ 00:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey and MrX (who also participated in this edit war) have asked about "boomeranging". My response is that I have made only 2 changes to the article - one to remove a section of a sentence that contained phrasing which was the direct cause of an active edit war, and the second was to remove the entire line to put the article back to a pre-edit war consensus version prior to its recent inclusion. I am not involved in this edit war in any way other than to see it end. I feel like asking for a "boomerang" on such flimsy reasoning is itself gaming the system, which also goes against Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors. -- Netoholic @ 00:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey has doubled-down on his claim of lack of awareness, but on 29 March 2018, he removed a standard DS notice from another involved user's talk page which reads "the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". He is well aware that any edits in this area are applicable under DS. More gaming and obfuscation. -- Netoholic @ 01:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: - I don't believe its possible for Scjessey to have "recognized that they acted improperly" when he several times in his responses here has lied (laughably, provably) about not knowing this topic was under general discretionary sanctions. Even if you disagree, the only recognition he's given us for his actions is "my bad". Nothing he's said has given any indication that this is unlikely to happen again. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO has joined us asking why I "popped up here", but let's instead look at how he did. Scjessey contacted SPECIFICO on his talk page at 10:34, 13 April 2018. SPECIFICO had never before edit this article, but did so at 13:03 and then got involved in the talk page starting at 09:133 14 April. SPECIFICO should have recused himself from the discussion, since he was canvassed, but his involvement on that article and now this AE are the result of WP:Canvassing by Scjessey - another example of poor conduct that Scjessey has exhibited in this topic area. -- Netoholic @ 21:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: - While the prior block may or may not be applicable towards escalating action against Scjessey, it is certainly one of many things I've linked here which prove that Scjessey was aware that edits related to Trump are within the general discretionary sanctions provisions. Scjessey noted this himself even as he resumed the edit warring. If you still feel he was unaware, I will be happy to go thru this and more evidence point by point, but I've already provided at least 5 solid instances within the last couple of months that show he must be aware. -- Netoholic @ 02:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scjessey&diff=836768687&oldid=836716845

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.

Sigh. To be honest, I did not realize the article in question was under Arbcom restrictions until I noted so here. My bad. I own that, and if administrators believe a sanction is warranted, I will not complain. Prior to that, I made edits consistent with what I believe were appropriate, and I did not violate 3RR (although it is hard to see from the incorrectly formatted diffs above). I explained myself by creating a talk page section (diff) and discussing it with other editors, most of whom agreed with my rationale either explicitly, or in the form of affirming edits to the article. I even checked myself with another editor (diff) to make sure I wasn't on the wrong track. A consensus has formed around this version of the text, with the only dissent coming from the editor with the creative revisionism presented above. I don't have much else to say, other than it wouldn't surprise me if the reporting editor got whacked with the proverbial boomerang. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I noticed it has a little warning template at the top of the talk page that says:

"The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, including this article. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully."

It does not, however, have the "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" I would normally look out for. That is why I did not realize until later that the article (or perhaps parts of the article?) was included. I did not think to check the DSLOG. Thank you for giving a better explanation of the circumstances than I could. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Netoholic: Just to clarify, the "previous sanction" of mine you highlighted was given to me erroneously, which is why it was struck from the record. Also, it appears I haven't actually violated anything (at least, not to the letter of the policy), but I commend you on your industrious effort to comb through my contributions and look for anything you can bring up here to reinforce your revisionist narrative. I'm still clear as to why you have chosen to go on this fruitless crusade, when surely your best strategy was to start an RfC on the content in question? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: You refer to my "substantial edit warring" in your comment below, but I don't believe it is a fair categorization. At no time did I violate WP:3RR. The incorrectly formatted diffs presented by the reporting editor make it difficult to follow, so I present annotated diffs of ALL my reversions over the five day period to that article with dates and times:

1. A pure reversion on April 11, 2018 at 17:33
2. A partial reversion, updated to address concerns of editor, on April 12, 2018 at 09:39
3. A pure reversion (because of weird language) on April 13, 2018 at 06:24
4. A pure reversion on April 13, 2018 at 13:52
5. A partial reversion on April 16, 2018 at 09:23

Certainly an argument can be made for a violation of WP:1RR, but the article wasn't (and still isn't) under that restriction. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey has not violated any editing restriction nor is his conduct violative of the principles or finding of the underlying Arbcom case. Contrarily, Netoholic has edited against consensus, and failed to accept a clear consensus established on the talk page. (See recent article history and recent talk page history). Netoholic is the only editor arguing to omit material, against four editors arguing to include it. That is, if you discount the IP sock who uses web host proxies to avoid scrutiny.

Boomerang? - MrX 🖋 23:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: The article is not under any editing restrictions. It lacks the required edit notice and is not logged at WP:DSLOG - MrX 🖋 23:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, your explanation of how the edits violate the sanction or remedy (not expectations or guidelines), are "reverting to restore challenged material". There is no restriction on reverting to restore challenged material. You're conflating several unrelated things in what appears to be an effort to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.- MrX 🖋 00:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey, yes anyone can place a DS notice template on an appropriate article talk page. Only admins can place an article under editing restrictions, and they must follow the process described at WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page and WP:AC/DS#sanctions.log.- MrX 🖋 02:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-warring IP was banned. There's clear consensus in support of Scjessey's edits among the editors on the article and talk page. There were no page restrictions in effect. The accuser, Netoholic has aggressively edited against consensus with absurd justifications that have been patiently refuted by the other editors on the talk page. He then launched into various forms of personal disparagement culminating with this defective AE complaint. Not sure why he even popped up at this, of all articles. As MrX states, a boomerang is in order for this extreme and entirely unjustified escalation against Scjessey. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not "canvassed" to the article. I was asked neutrally to take a look and I made an edit unrelated to the bit that Netoholic is edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After it was clear Netoholic was a single editor against a consensus of 6 others, none of the six escalated by preemptively reinstating the consensus content. It was patiently suggested to Netoholic that his best recourse was an RfC. Instead he chose personal attacks, this bogus AE report on a page that had no DS page restriction, and misrepresentation of Scjessey's record and actions. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think that this article is within the scope of US politics discretionary sanctions, and Scjessey was properly aware of those. It's hard not to see Scjessey's conduct here as edit-warring. In that regard the request has merit. (The rest of the complaints about verifiability, undueness etc. are primarily content disputes which AE does not address; the same goes for claims that "Netoholic has edited against consensus".) Considering that Scjessey has recognized that they acted improperly here, and that they have no prior (unstruck) sanctions, I believe that a logged warning against edit-warring would suffice in this case. Sandstein 06:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to note that I disagree with the assessments below that no action is necessary. This is quite clearly substantial edit-warring by Scjessey, irrespective of whether others have also behaved badly and whether Scjessey has also engaged in constructive discussion. I think that a warning is at the lower bound of the range of appropriate admin reactions here. Sandstein 09:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) A few formalities:
  • It's hard to see how this article wouldn't fall under the post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions;
  • Scjessey is aware of those sanctions, having been sanctioned under them in the past 12 months (though apparently successfully appealed, this still counts for awareness);
  • There are no active page restrictions on this article (no 1RR, consensus required etc).
• With that out the way, I don't see a case for action here. There has been some edit-warring on the article, and an IP was blocked for it. How CIS is described in the article is fundamentally a content question to be decided by consensus. Scjessey started a discussion at the TP and that appears to be reaching a conclusion. If others are unhappy with that, the next step is to start an RfC and try to attract a wider audience to the discussion (neutrally, of course). GoldenRing (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The "previous relevant sanctions" that the OP refers to aren't actually relevant. An admin made a bad block on 23 December 2017, and then after a lot of blowback on ANI realized it was bad and struck it in the AE log, as well as withdrawing it in the block log.[128] It wasn't a question of being "successfully appealed" by Scjessey, as GoldenRing supposes (understandably). The block had more to do with the admin than with Scjessey, and needn't be taken into consideration here. Partly for that reason, I believe Scjessey when he says he wasn't aware the article was under DS. I don't think a sanction, or actually a logged warning either, is warranted. It would be quite ironic if Scjessey got one of those because of a bad old block, which was probably a disagreeable enough experience in itself. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• I agree with GoldenRing and Bishonen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Also agree with GR and Bishonen. The incivility is never excusable, but it was in response to a fairly patronising comment from an IP. Scjessy is participating in consensus building, appropriately, on the talk page. No actions are necessary. Fish+Karate 08:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Js82 (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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :

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

• POV pushing: [129], [130]

• Edit warring and depending on edit summaries for discussion: [131][132][133]

• Personal attacks, incivility, alleging others of assuming bad faith:-

• [134]: ignored the question and alleges other editor of "do not like it".
• "what I'm seeing here seems to be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT"[135]
• "I'm trying my best to be nice, but do not make the mistake of construing that as some sort of weakness."[136]
• "Are you really asking me to spoon-feed you ?".. " you are displaying a remarkable lack of effort & sincerity really."[137]
• "propose your text if you have any, rather than making baseless allegations and asking for spoon-feeding, without even having read the sources. Quit WP:OWN."[138]

Despite objections from at least 4 editors towards his version that includes quote farming, he claims "I have not seen any real reason to exclude the quote."[139] This message shows his complete failure to adhere to consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. October 2015, topic banned from all Indian religions which includes Sikhism for 6 months.
2. October 2016, topic banned from all Sikhism articles for an indefinite period.
3. September 2017, indeffed for violating topic ban.

Topic ban was removed in February 2018, but with extreme caution that he will "end up in the same situation, this time with no avenue to return", if he engaged in disruption again.

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

Sanctioned before in the area of conflict per above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@RegentsPark: by "violation of a sanction", do you mean the two points that you had mentioned here? He has been making blanket reverts of versions by MSW[140][141] very often though, despite having told not to do that. Also the diffs I have presented, shows that he still don't understand that Wikipedia involves team work, and he is frequently engaging in edit warring, making personal attacks. Not to mention that whatever he has been removing/restoring in these diffs doesn't improve the article, but only makes it worse. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

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.

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

• I see reasons for concern here (the slow reversion, the edit summary as discussion) but no violation of a sanction. My suggestion is that this be taken to WP:DRN or, perhaps, an RfC. Js82, though you have no current topic ban, you need to be a little more circumspect in the way you go about editing Sikhism pages. Fewer reverts and more use of the talk page would be a good start. If you find yourself stuck, use DRN or an RfC to get broader input. --regentspark (comment) 18:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @D4iNa4: I don't see a violation of the Indo/Pak editing restrictions or any other sanction that may be in place. Looking through Js82's talk history, I don't even see a recent Indo/Pak editing restrictions notice, a necessary requirement before we can even consider admin action (though, even had a warning been in place, I don't see sufficient reason for any admin action). --regentspark (comment) 20:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We certainly believe in second, third, etc chances in this place. I see Js82 was blocked indefinitely by Bbb23 in November 2015, unblocked by Ponyo in October 2016, blocked indefinitely again by SpacemanSpiff in September 2017, and unblocked again by Dlohcierekim in February 2018. There, now I've pinged all the blocking and unblocking admins, who may perhaps have an opinion here. For myself, I don't see any abuse by Js82 in D4iNa4's diffs. Maybe a little impatience. D4iNa4, is it possible you may have thought Js82's chequered history would be pretty much enough to get him sanctioned here? Because it isn't. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Once again, Bishonen's razor like mind has cut to the heart of the matter, me thinks. If memory serves, there was considerable push-back to unblocking this user. The thing about a second chance is that it is a second chance. Unless problematic behavior has really returned, we cannot haul Js82 in for what they did before the latest block. RegentsPark's reasoning seems sound to me. Js82 needs to temper their passion for Sikhism related articles and be more open to discussion and if needed compromise with others who are as passionate but who have a different opinion. Sometimes is best to just step away for a while.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Furthermore, RegentsPark had very sound advice to offer at the unblock discussion. I urge Js82 to reread that and reflect on it in the light of the current situation.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•  Checkuser note: Please see my findings and notes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Js82.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not a case for AE. The self-admitted socking and deception prior to the unblock has resulted in a new indef, so I'll close this now.—SpacemanSpiff 23:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]