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

Darkness Shines (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kaj Taj Mahal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBCC

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

1. 25 December 2013 Unsourced contentious content added to a BLP. removed by me [shit, look, I know a bLP vio when I see it Warned about BLP [1]
2. 5 January 2014e Continues
3. 1:49, 10 January 2014 Still continues
4. 01:23, 11 January 2014 And blatant false misrepresentation of a source. As source does not say" despite its wide acceptance in the scientific community. He has no scientific qualifications." Remotely. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on [2] by Me

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

You were happy to sanction me for two reverts following the same notification that Taj got. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And no doubt calling me a dipshit is all fine and dandy? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The filing of an entirely frivolous SPI is OK though? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Is calling a BLP a mental-midget OK? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

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.

• Please watch the interview referred to. He says himself that he hasn't any scientific expertise. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An exact quote from the interview in question, "I haven't got the scientific expertise". I thought this should have been obvious, but in case it wasn't: there it is. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's another source, again, from Delingpole himself "I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. I read English Literature.", confirming what should be obvious. (source). --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Anyone is welcome to take a look at the references for themselves. Also see Talk:James_Delingpole#He_Has_No_Scientific_Qualifications --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it should be noted that Arbitration Enforcement isn't some toy you can use to complain about someone you don't like, it is the last resort for dispute resolution. This seems to be a clear abuse of AE process. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't frivolous, there was legitimate suspicion that two separate users would post nearly the same request in rapid succession. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I'm noticing a general theme here where you're taking each and everything I do personally. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines, as I'm sure you know, BLP only applies to statements in the article. Removing that statement would violate TPG, which I know you hold very dear. And yes, Delingpole is a mental midget, at least compared to Planck. Delingpole's comparison to a genius like Planck was extraordinarily undue. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "mental midget" slight was undue, but he is undoubtedly intellectually inferior when compared to an esteemed genius such as Planck, which was my original point. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Kaj Taj Mahal continues their tendentious editing now that they've been officially warned, they should be topic-banned. The last thing we need is more agenda-driven editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have full protected the article for 3 days in light of general multiparty edit warring on this point.

Regarding the content issue - I am getting grumpy about watching BLP policy based seesawing between whitewashed and possibly libelous versions of an article. There is something Just Not Right about this pattern, and it's happening a lot lately. I don't want to discourage the prompt and proper application of BLP to fix possibly libelous material, but given DS and ARBCC I am thinking that we need to try and lay down an adequately clear standard that neither side should be doing this particular dance, that a revert of (sourced relevant controversial material presented in a negative manner) done under color of BLP should be followed by restoration by the reverting editor of a minimal factual version with the source and information, without any perjorative, not just a revert to nuke the content, and that the revert message needs to make it clear exactly what in the edit is found to be violating BLP (misread of source, perjorative description of the facts, false or unreliable source, whatever combination it is) so that editing can proceed around normal processes with the uncontroversial parts of the material. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editing by Kaj Taj Mahal on James Delingpole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was at least initially very problematic. By adding material such as "He maintains that the Anthropogenic climate change is a "scam",^[ref] despite both its wide acceptance in the scientific community, and having no scientific qualifications himself to make this accusation", Kaj Taj Mahal has engaged in inappropriate editorializing and violated the BLP and WP:NPOV policies by expressing in Wikipedia's voice and without references the opinion that this person has "no scientific qualifications", which is derogatory.

But their later edits, although still slanted to a particular point of view, do not repeat policy violations of this kind. Moreover, we can't take enforcement action for edits made prior to a proper warning as provided for by WP:AC/DS#Warnings. I've now issued such a warning. Combined with the article protection, with which I agree, I think that we can close this without further action.  Sandstein  08:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines, calling you a "dipshit" is absolutely not fine, and if Kaj Taj Mahal repeats such conduct they may be blocked. However, we cannot issue sanctions for edits that were made before anybody warned Kaj Taj Mahal that discretionary sanctions are authorized in this area.  Sandstein  19:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I think it's time to end this circus. The recent comments by Kaj Taj Mahal to the effect that a living subject of an article is a "mental midget" ([4]) and a related follow-up comment ([5]) are violations of the policy WP:BLP. The use of such language casts considerable doubt on Kaj Taj Mahal's claim that their intent is to "improve the accuracy and neutrality" of that article ([6]). To their credit, Kaj Taj Mahal has struck the offending comment after being warned about it ([7]). Nonetheless, when looking at their content contributions ([8]), I can't help but notice that they are minimal and are frequently problematic from a WP:BLP point of view ([9], [10]). At any rate, the benefit of these contributions is far outweighed by the hassle caused by Kaj Taj Mahal's misconduct. For these reasons, I conclude that the participation of Kaj Taj Mahal in topics related to climate change is not currently a net benefit to the Wikipedia project. Consequently, Kaj Taj Mahal is banned from the whole topic area of climate change, per WP:TBAN, for six months. It is my hope that they will use this time to improve their editing skills in less controversial topic areas.  Sandstein  07:46, 14 January 2014 (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

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBCC

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

Tagged Article POV

These are badge-of-shame tags, evidence of WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLE attitude, and evidence-less verbal beatings (i,e, "Blatantly biased") on other editors. None of these tags included a link to a specific thread, just the default vague wave at the article talk page overall. At the talk page, user exasperated numerous regulars with SOAP but no actionable suggestions.

• 12:21, 6 January 2014 (POV as per Talk page)
• 13:33, 6 January 2014 (Undid revision - evident on talk page that neutrality is in dispute.)
• 14:53, 6 January 2014 (Undid revision - 205.131.188.5 agrees with me, and there may be lots of others whose comments have been deleted or hidden.)
• 13:17, 14 January 2014 (Biased editors are deleting Talk Page discussions. The article needs to be thoroughly checked for bias.)
• 15:19, 14 January 2014 (Undid revision - Blatantly biased editing of the Talk pages shows that editors are not acting neutrally.)

Tag is to "warn readers"

• 14:24, 26 December 2013 "we need a warning to users that the article is biased" Evidence of WP:BATTLE attitude to hang "badge of shame" on article, without genuine intent to improve article
• 0:24, 28 December 2013 "Readers need to be warned that the article is not neutral..." Same

Uncollapses or Restores RS-free WP:SOAP.... these are evidence of WP:ARBCC#Disruptive_editing

First thread....

• 23:14, 24 December 2013 Uncollapse of SOAP Thread A (/* Why isn't this article subject to the infamous wiki banner: "The neutrality of this article is disputed."? */ there is a suggested change...)

Comment by NAEG (me) - at that time the only suggested change was tagging to warn readers

• 07:04, 26 December 2013 Restoration of deleted SOAP Thread A (Restoring Talk discussion of POV - your removal of an article talk discussion to suppress debate is one of the most offensive and disruptive editing practices I have seen on Wikipedia.)
• 23:53, 27 December 2013 Uncollapse of SOAP Thread A (/* Why isn't this article marked as POV? */ Unbelievable! An editor has again collapsed this discussion on a false argument)

Comment by NAEG (me) - At the time, the only RS was being discussed in a separate section, so this uncollapse was for RS-free SOAP

• 08:03, 8 January 2014‎ "User agreed to "reboot" the thread but has not done so (no edit summary)

Second thread

• 12:13, 14 January 2014 Restoration of deleted SOAP Thread B (Undid revision - STILL deleting discussions from the Talk Pager????!!! And where is the libel anyway? Discuss on the page.)
• 13:08, 14 January 2014 Restoration of deleted SOAP Thread B (Undid revision - delete the only allegedly libellous word, not the discussion.)
• 16:43, 14 January 2014 Uncollapse of SOAP Thread B (/* Climategate? */ The discussion has barely begun and you want to hat it off? Don't be ridiculous.)
• 17:42, 14 January 2014 Uncollapse of SOAP Thread B (Undid revision - Drop your biased POV, and permit free discussion on the Talk page!)
• 18:30, 14 January 2014‎ Uncollapse of Soap Thread B (Undid revision - hiding the contribution of a new editor the same day he makes it is not remote acceptable on Wikipedia)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

• Dec 24, 2013 Informally warned by me
• Jan 8, 2014‎ Formally warned] by Callanecc (talk · contribs) who logged it here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The pattern here is unknown "editor X" posts a SOAP thread; someone (often me) collapses the RS-free SOAP thread per talk, and then Cwmacdougall (talk · contribs) "adopts" the thread by uncollapsing or restoring it. Repeated requests for sources by multiple editors eventually produced one, which CW misrepresented as saying the opposite of what it actually says (see the Met Office Paper thread). When the rest of collapse or delete the RS free SOAP, CW lashes back with accusations of "outrageous!" and "The edit warriors are those like NewsAndEventsGuy refusing to engage on the talk page...", and "up to your old biased tricks?"

Attempts to Resolve without AE

Besides talk threads on my page and his page, I also offered to participate in the DR process of the user's choice.

Boomerang query I'd appreciate feedback on my collapsing of what I perceive to be SOAP threads on pages where I am an involved editor. All I really want to know is if it's OK for clear cut cases, as I believe these to be. Notice I broke out the only RS that came up in a separate section and debated that part on the merits. Thanks for advice.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Rebuttal to Cwmacdougal

Between the two threads, at least 5 eds have requested CW to provide RSs or make specific suggestions beyond tagging the article or reviewing it for alleged bias. I'm sorry he feels "outraged", but I and others have begged for sources to no avail. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 "enforcement" action by ‎NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is yet again an example of his biased editing, in spite of several warnings on his talk page. He has repeatedly hidden or deleted live discussions on the Global Warming Talk page in an attempt to suppress views he doesn't like, and this of course leads to bias on the article page itself. The most recent case involved deleting a new editor's comments on the GW Talk page on the day he entered them, in obvious contradiction with our policy of being patient with new editors. All I have done is object to his blatantly biased editing. We need neutral editing, not POV. It is frankly outrageous that NAEG should complain about me, when it is he who is editing in the most biased obstructive manner I have seen in several years as a Wikipedia Editor. cwmacdougall 23:33, 14 January 2014

Rebuttals

To NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs): The new editor - NoSheepDip (talk · contribs) - created his account on 14 January and makes one contribution on a talk page and NAEG thinks that makes him a wp:spa?????? Give him a few weeks before accusing him of only editing a narrow range of articles! And give him a bit of slack on his first day of editing, some gentle hints rather first deleting, then hiding, his contribution. Re his alleged "libel", he mentioned no names so I don't think it actually was libel, but deleting the entire discussion was unjustified; just delete the word "criminal", as I did in a compromise move, leaving the major issues for discussion.

To NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs): Re my five points on the Talk page arguing for a POV tag, I think they were all very well sourced, but after some discussion I agreed to reconsider my arguments and explain my case and RS again in a couple weeks. That is how Talk pages should work.

To Sailsbystars (talk · contribs): The first two of the supposed five reverts were very different from the latter three, so I did not remotely do five in 24 hours. In any case, the things I was reverting - deletion and hiding Talk page discussion without the agreement of the Editor - where strictly unacceptable edits.

cwmacdougall 5:52, 15 January 2014

After being warned about already being on their 4th revert, Cwmacdougall reverts a 5th time in 24 hours. I do not believe this user understands what a bright line rule is..... but that could just be because they are relatively new to contentious areas of wikipedia.

As regards to collapseboxing on the climate change talk pages... Certainly most of the discussions that get hatted are unlikely to result in article improvement.... but I've never felt comfortable doing it myself.. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmacdougall is making bolder edits than is perhaps comfortable. Yet as we wait for AR5 to be officially released (at least part 1 after the political statement known as the "Summary of Policymakers") there is much maneuvering to keep unsupported pieces of the article. For example, keeping claims that land use changes contribute significantly enough to AGW to be listed [11] when studies in albedo have left it as unknown. There is a sense of WP:OWN that is not supported by the latest report. The "hiatus" as it's called by AR5, satellite data and unexpected solar activity during SC24 has changed a lot of ranges and confidences as the IPCC churns through the process of publication. Some conclusions have become more robust, others more ambiguous. It is natural that these changes will spill over into the article and NPOV, RS, and V should be the guidance as the scientific understanding evolves. I find Cwmacdougall is being bold while others attempt to WP:OWN the article by updating outdated assertions. --DHeyward (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Cwmacdougall has been blocked for 31 hours for violation of the three revert rule, remember the three revert rule says: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material " . Tiptoety ^talk 06:15, 15 January 2014 (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

IRISZOOM (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction

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

GHCool broke the 1RR and though that he has been blocked several times in this topic, he keeps doing the same thing.

1. 04:26, 6 January 2014 "anachronism"
2. 20:44, 6 January 2014 "Arabs ... see talk page"

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GHcool&diff=407079517&oldid=407076933

1. Warned on 15:45, 10 January 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) 24 hours block
2. Warned on 06:12, 24 January 2011 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) This was first a 55 hours block and then changed to two months and lifted after one month
3. Warned on 19:57, 18 June 2013 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) Topic banned from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for six months

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Before GHCool's second edit, he brought up the topic at the talk page (Talk:History of the Arab–Israeli conflict#"Palestinian Arabs" vs. simply "Arabs"). In spite of that, he goes and makes his second revert, which also was in violation of the 1RR, before we had an discussion. Now we have a discussion and he keeps on imposing his views (589668403 and 589669072). While I am writing this, I see that he has written that he will make another change that he thinks is right (589681953) and now he has done it (589682109). Obviously the talk pages are meant for discussion but unfortunately, for me it seems that he is more interested in imposing his views.

I also want to add while that GHCool didn't press "undo", it's still a revert. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GHcool&diff=589685149&oldid=588394141
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GHcool&diff=prev&oldid=589686667

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 apologize for the 1RR violation. I admit my error and I apologize for it. I gotta stop doing that. I got in trouble before for it, but I get excited and do it again anyway. I really do need to make a better effort at it and will check myself in the future. I'll accept any sentence I receive, but I really think a very light sentence is in order for this one. The infraction is so minor and this isn't exactly the edit war of the century.

On IRISZOOM's other point, I thought I was just being bold by imposing the changes. The issue we're discussing isn't very controversial at all. I thought it was one of those things that we can just do and it would eventually be acceptable to both of us. Its a very minor difference of opinion. I would have kept to the talk page if I had thought that IRISZOOM felt this strongly about this matter. --GHcool (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Socrates, I will not evade my sentence, no matter what it is. However, unlike Socrates, I will ask my judges to disregard the suggestion of an indefinite 0RR restriction. Heimstern Läufer correctly recognizes that this goes above and beyond law enforcement on Wikipedia amounts to censoring an editor. Reverting is one of the most basic tools of Wikipedia. To disqualify someone from reverting is akin to disqualifying someone from using the talk pages or disqualifying someone from citing a source. It will effectively turn a temporary ban into an indefinite ban. --GHcool (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013 is not two years ago. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Given the previous blocks were two years ago they are pretty immaterial to imposing anything more than a block. Given their statement my feeling is that any block would now be punitive. I think the best course of action is a logged warning in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the topic ban, see below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, with the caveat that if this does happen again, there will be no excuse for the behavior. Try harder to not get "excited" when working in contentious areas. SirFozzie (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• What IRISZOOM brought up wasn't a block, but it was indeed a 6-month topic ban. Because it's another violation of the same behavior less than 1 month after the editor has came off the ban, a more significant remedy is necessary. I suggest a 1-year topic ban and/or 0RR restriction on topic. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link IRISZOOM, given that GHcool has already has had his chance I would be in favour of a 1 year topic ban as well as an indefinite 0RR restriction on all pages relating to this topic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like 0RR in general, but I wouldn't stand in the way of it. In terms of the topic ban, I agree that 1 year is necessary given that GHcool just got off a six-month ban about a month ago. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I alerted SirFozzie to the existence of TBAN; however, he hasn't edited in two and a half days. I consider his point above not well-argued (since what he originally supported was erroneous), and thus: if no other comments arise within 24 hours, I will enact a 1-year topic ban. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with this. Fozzie seems simply not to have noticed a critical fact in the case, as Callanecc also did not at first. I think it's OK to move on without him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A one year topic ban would seem to be the correct course of action in this situation. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It sounds right to issue a one year topic ban, but I'd rather not be the one to close because I issued the previous ban. It is common to fight over the definition of Palestinian people, and we have to find a way to discourage that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am willing to close this, but, I have never closed an AE thread before --Guerillero | My Talk 06:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The steps are:

1. Write the result in a comment here. A typical wording would be, 'GHcool (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for one year on all pages of Wikipedia including talk.'
2. Notify the user of the sanction.
3. Add the sanction to WP:ARBPIA#2014.
4. Put 'hat' and 'hab' brackets on the AE. EdJohnston (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The agreement seems to be that: GHcool (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for one year on all pages of Wikipedia including talk. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:29, 15 January 2014 (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

My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Urgent01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Flau98bert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. After receiving this block, the user continued edit warring in the same article, covered by "pseudoscience", up to December 2013 [12] [13],[14] (removal of the same paragraph on the bottom). However, this is now stale and probably would not be a reason for enforcement per se.
2. December 21 "This article isn't the place for non-mainstream anti-Einstein advocates to present their views." Who he means, exactly? Apparently he means me, based on diffs below. According to all sources (including book "Non-postulated relativity" discussed at this article talk page), Ives misinterpreted his own experimental results as contradicting Special Relativity Theory. This brings biography of Ives under discretionary sanctions covered by the "Pseudoscience and Fringe science" case.
3. January 5 - "I think if someone wants to promote the beliefs ... they should propose a separate article about him". This and other comments (below) indicate that Urgent01 knows about my personal connection to author of the book (yes, there is connection, and it can be easily established by anyone, because my account was outed), and he is trying to intimidate and discredit me personally to "win" a content dispute.
4. January 5 "This is your pet idea...it does not make sense to claim that Ives was correct by citing a crackpot book". No, according to the "crackpot" book and my edit, Ives was incorrect [15]
5. January 9 - "There have also been efforts in the past to create articles about ... in Wikipedia." (1st phrase) - implying COI editing on my part. No, I never made a single attempt to create articles about this person or this book. In this diff, he brings back my question dated 2006, when I just started editing and had no idea about rules and practices around here.
6. January 9 - "I know this is disappointing for you to hear, but it is the truth. Read and learn." (in the end)
7. January 10 - "you are striving to promote ... in the book you are trying to promote". This user repeatedly claims that I am trying to promote the book. No, I did not, because I included references to the book in only one article, a long time ago [16] to source consensus by other uninvolved editors at this article talk page [17]. I also tried to use it in another article ("special relativity") 7 years ago, however a consensus was reached that the reference should not be included in this article, and this is something I never disputed later.
8. December 21, January 3, January 5, January 5, January 5. Edit warring in article Herbert_E._Ives, just as in diffs #1.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on January 5 by My very best wishes (talk · contribs) - his response (edit summary), my clarification, his response (edit summary)
2. A previous warning by admins and discussion about edit warring in this subject area [18]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In essence, this user continue doing the same and worse in the area of pseudoscience, despite the previous warning by admins [19]. Note that diffs 3,4 and 8 on January 5 are edits made after my warning. This user is an SPA, with few edits made from at least two accounts (the 2nd one is User:Flau98bert). He is an activist with agenda to fight pseudoscience or something he perceives as "pseudoscience". He is not a newbie, he knows what he is doing [20],[21], [22].

I wanted to avoid this AE request, in a hope that the Urgent01 would understand policies and improve [23], however he responded by making further insults (diffs # 5, 6 and 7).

The book and other sources, which are currently discussed, may be used somewhere or not; this is all merely a content dispute.

@Sandstein. Speaking about your last comment, this is something I strongly disagree about. You can not unilaterally declare a source "fringe" (I am speaking about Russian book), not translation to English and use this as a reason for sanction, without discussion on WP:RS or other appropriate noticeboards. Is it really "fringe"? Of course, not. There are lots of mainstream books published in Russian (or other languages), whose authors were not widely cited in English literature. That does not make any of the sources "fringe" or prohibited for use per WP:RS, but only sources with low or zero citation index, for whatever reason. As a matter of fact, one can find a lot of publications in Institute for Scientific Information database with zero citation index. That does not make any of them "fringe" or inappropriate for use in wikipedia.

Thank you, Sandstein, for discussing this matter with me [24]. I think this is simply a misunderstanding [25]. And yes, I take very close to the heart what you and EdJohnston are telling here; I will try to improve and do my best to always follow all WP policies. My very best wishes (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to consider this book "fringe". It has [26] 33,000 hits in Russian internet. More important, most claims by this book are not even novel. And here I would like to quote my "content opponent", Urgent01 [27]. He tells: "There is absolutely nothing in Lomize's "From High School Physics to Relativity" that is not already thoroughly discussed in countless more reputable and verifiable references." I do not necessarily agree. That is what he thinks. According to him, this is simply another book on the subject, and there are many hundred books on SRT. So, it comes at no surprise that a self-published English translation of a book, which is well known in Russia, did not bring much attention. A non-notable book? Yes, maybe. A fringe? No. My very best wishes (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston.

1. Speaking about the source, this is merely an English translation (with a few modification) of Russian edition, which does qualify as RS in my opinion, as I already explained here. It was reviewed and supported by Vitaly Ginzburg and other physicists from Lebedev Physical Institute and printed in 70,000 copies by major publishing house "Prosveshenie" ("Enligntment")ru:Просвещение (издательство). Speaking about author, he had at least 100+ publications (I do not remember exactly), however Google scholar is not an appropriate method to identify publications by people who worked long time ago in countries like the Soviet Union. Institute for Scientific Information database (also a poor method) retrieves some his publications from 1960-1980s. To my knowledge, he worked in a secret Soviet scientific institution, with highly restricted publishing. But this is not the place to asses sources.
2. Speaking about my alleged COI, my approach here is to simply follow Wikipedia:Five pillars. That is, I treat this book (for example) exactly as any other RS I read and liked as something interesting and informative. One could make a much stronger case that I "promoted" "Black book of communism" around here. I do not see this a "COI editing" on my part. Yes, I may have a bias, however this is merely a result of my knowledge/understanding of the subject, just as for everything in Chemistry, Biology or History. This is the reason I never had a trouble editing subjects, which are directly related to my work (unlike SRT) - I treated all sources equally per WP:NPOV.
3. Now, speaking more directly about WP:COI, it tells: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.. Yes, exactly. Let me tell this for a record: I am not advancing any outside interests at all (other than interests of Wikipedia readers), while editing anything related to Physics and SRT. And as long as I do not have any conflict of interest in this area, I am as "regular" editor as everyone else. I do apologize for a few reverts I made in article "Ives" (first of them was per WP:BRD cycle). On the other hand, I could easily make a point that someone who actually teaches SRT, has a COI if they are trying to make WP content more conforming with their lectures. But I did not, because doing so would be confrontational. Another side did.
4. Why there is a dispute here? This is simply because the teaching and interpretation of SRT (all effects and equations are exactly the same) is still a matter of debate. This is simply a typical situation when someone with a very strong POV (Urgent01) resorts to personal accusations because they do not have better arguments on the subject. Hence I submitted this request.

--- Conclusion. After looking at the comments by admins here, I would like to withdraw this request, if possible. There is no theory by Lev about Ives, and there are no any theories by Lev at all. This Russian book (and all my links/references were made to the Russian book) is merely a secondary source that quotes other sources, as was admitted even by Urgent01. I believe there is no reasonable justification for sanctions against me right now, as I explained on the talk page of Sandstein. This is an unnecessary and extremely offensive sanction for me on personal level. Please do not force me to leave the project. Yes, I got your message. I will do my best to avoid the trouble in the future. Trust me. I am taking a wikibreak enforced by a block for a couple of months. Chances are: I will not be back. Yes, I am terribly addicted to wiki, but I will do my best to leave this circus right now because of the ridiculously unfair treatment on this noticeboard. But guess what - I am actually happy. My very best wishes (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @EdJohnston. The Russian book by Lev is absolutely "mainstream" because it describes an approach to teaching SRT, which is not even new, as was noted even by my "opponent" Urgent01 [28]. He tells: "There is absolutely nothing in Lomize's "From High School Physics to Relativity" that is not already thoroughly discussed in countless more reputable and verifiable references."

@EdJohnston. More specifically, with regard to time dilation and Ives, Urgent01 said [29]: J.S.Bell's 1976 paper on "How to Teach Relativity", in which he clearly explains how relativistic phenomena (including length contraction and time dilation) can be described as a consequence of the (Lorentz invariant) laws of physics expressed in terms of a single reference frame... This is not new." Yes, he is right; this also has been described in multiple sources before Lev (this is simply not a new theory by Lev). Something to be expected from mainstream Russian book written for students.

@And let me tell you as a PhD in Physics: the "scientific" arguments to discredit this book on talk page of article "Ives" are simply ridiculous. Simple algebra? Yes, sure, author made it as simple as possible - this is book for advanced Russian high school students. "Ether" frequently appears in the book? Yes, of course, - as a historical concept, and it tells that ether "fades away" (unnecessary). Yes, this is a very complicated matter, not equations, but understanding of Physics. That is why Physics is the most difficult branch of science. Albert Einstein changed (or may be clarified) his position about this in the end of his life (as described in the book). And so on. But I am sure that people who objected me there can come up with a lot of other arguments, which may appear perfectly reasonable to wikipedia administrators, even though this book was supported by physicists much better than me. My very best wishes (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [30]

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.

Formally topic banning mvbw for picking the wrong noticeboard is overkill. Reviewing the article talk page [31] it's almost all mvbw and urgent01 (with a little Dvdm). They came here asking for help, so help them. (e.g. Please consider WP:DRN or WP:RS/N before filing an AE request). He got the message, just close request as "no action." NE Ent 00:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have been hoping this would settle out without need for admin intervention, but my first impression is a boomerang... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have started to come down with a cold since posting the above, and am getting grumpy; the opinion above represents what I thought about this several days ago, and is not affected by this, but I would prefer other admins review and comment for the immediate future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how all this even relates to pseudoscience or fringe science, which is what sanctions are authorized for. Judging by the article, Herbert E. Ives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was a genuine scientist, even though he may have been mistaken in his ideas about relativity. The article hasn't ever been categorized as pseudoscience, nor does it seem to have contained any text describing Ives's ideas as such. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Alternative theoretical formulations, "alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process", even if they turn out to be wrong. I would decline this request as out of scope. "Ordinary" edit-warring can be addressed via WP:AN3.  Sandstein  08:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Sandstein's comment it's unclear whether WP:ARBPS can be used to regulate editor behavior on Herbert E. Ives. However I do have concerns about the behavior of User:My very best wishes. He is trying to add references to and material from a work of Lev Lomize to the Ives article.

• The full text of the book, Non-Postulated Relativity by Lev Lomize, is available free online at http://www.nonpostulatedrelativity.com. The title page of the book gives the publisher as ‘Clue’, in Ann Arbor Michigan, but Wikipedia has no article on a publisher of that name and Google returns nothing. My scrutiny of the copyright page of the book suggested to me that the book was self-published.

• The cautions expressed in WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources suggest that Lomize’s book may not normally be used in our articles, unless perhaps in an article about Lomize himself.

• Google Scholar finds no conventionally published work by Lev Lomize on relativity, let alone work which is cited by others.

• User:My very best wishes admits above that he has a personal connection to the author of the book. Under the WP:COI guideline he should avoid editing the article directly to add Lomize's work. Certainly he should not engage in edit wars with regular editors.

It's my impression that a WP:BOOMERANG awaits for User:My very best wishes if he continues to pursue this issue at noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this analysis. According to Lev Lomize's website, his self-published book claims to contain "an explanation of Special Relativity without using Einstein's postulates, but only classical physics." Considering that the work of Albert Einstein is a cornerstone of modern physics, and that Lev Lomize's work seems to have had zero impact on scientific discourse (no Wikipedia article, self-published book, nothing on Google, no peer-reviewed publicationsaccording to his own website), it is apparent that his work must be classified as "fringe science, broadly interpreted" as described in WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions. That his work may have been more professionally published in (Soviet?) Russia does not change this assessment of the impact of Lomize's work as it relates to international mainstream physics. The edits by My very best wishes are therefore covered by discretionary sanctions.

I agree with EdJohnston that the inclusion of citations from Lomize's work in any article except one about Lomize violates WP:V, particularly in light of WP:ARBPS#Appropriate sources: "in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals". By edit-warring to reinsert unreliable sources into an article ([32], [33], [34] etc.), My very best wishes has violated the policies WP:V and WP:EW.

Unless there are objections from other administrators, I intend to topic-ban My very best wishes from everything related to Lev Lomize.  Sandstein  16:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein's recommendation of a topic ban of User:My very best wishes from everything related to Lev Lomize. This sanction appears justified after rereading WP:FRINGE for the definition of fringe science as well as the remedy section of the WP:ARBPS case: " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." WP:FRINGE also provides that, when marginal and mainstream ideas are considered together, "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner". There are no reliable sources in English to affirm the relationship of Lomize's theory about Herbert E. Ives' time dilation results to the mainstream account of the same results. Self-published material about an alternative theory does not belong in the Ives article at all. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:My very best wishes has now been blocked two months by an admin who granted a self-requested block. The reasons why he wanted to be blocked aren't completely clear but it seems time to close this. The topic ban from everything to do with Lev Lomize seems appropriate. This thread might have been closed with no action if MVBW had acknowledged that a COI-affected person promoting the work they are conflicted with is a bad idea. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Considering that the discussion with the user on my talk page has not convinced me that the restriction is not needed, My very best wishes is banned from the topic of Lev Lomize, per WP:TBAN.  Sandstein  09:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

Topic-banned from Rupert Sheldrake, broadly construed, imposed at [Result_concerning_Alfonzo_Green]

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Zad68 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / Zad68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notification of that editor

I am aware of this request Zad68 01:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was edit banned from the topic of Rupert Sheldrake for inserting the word "biologist" in the lead sentence. I took this action because the majority of secondary sources refer to Sheldrake as a biologist, though some use the term "scientist" and others use the term "biochemist." In keeping with WP:V, I cited four sources, all from the New York Times, describing Sheldrake as a biologist. My edit was reverted by Roxy the dog here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587139696

Note that Roxy claimed to be reverting a "POV edit," implying that edits in accord with secondary sources are POV.

Another editor, Tom Butler, undid Roxy's blatantly POV edit and requested that Roxy explain his actions on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587139696

Yet another editor, Barney the barney barney undid Butler's edit with the claim that "Roxy explained per talk."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587249006

Barney was referencing the following comment from Roxy on the talk page (under "biologist title"): "Sheldrake no longer does science, hasn't done science for more than twenty years, probably thirty, and shows no signs of putting his ideas up for scientific scrutiny. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)"

Roxy's statement is contradicted by the Sheldrake article itself, which includes discussions of a collaboration with neuroscientist Steven Rose to test the hypothesis of morphic resonance as well as the effort of psychologist Richard Wiseman to replicate another experiment conducted by Sheldrake. But that's not the point. We're not here to argue the facts. We're here to report the claims of reliable secondary sources. Roxy has an agenda, and his agenda is at odds with the vast majority of those sources.

In his reversion of Butler's edit, Barney also stated that Roxy's action was consistent with "facts and WP:Fringe." Again, the facts we must report are those found in the source material, not the ones we privately promote as factual. As to the fringe charge, only one source describes Sheldrake as a "pseudoscientist" as opposed to dozens of others that describe him as a scientist of one form of another. Clearly Barney and Roxy are promoting the fringe view.

For this reason I reverted Barney's edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587269669

Roxy then "corrected" my edit by inserting the "former" in front of "biologist."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=587399860

Once again Roxy was guilty of WP:OR. That Sheldrake is a "former biologist" is not supported by the source material. Not a single source describes him this way. This is Roxy's opinion.

I made no further edits to the article. Prior to reverting Barney's edit, I introduced a new topic to the talk page, "Reality and Wikipediality," in which I argued that our job is not to promote our opinion of reality but to stick with Wikipedia policies, in particular that all material be sourced and that well sourced material not be removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_18

At this point an administrator, JzG or Guy, stepped in and warned me that the discussion was over and my "POV" lost. He closed my topic from viewing and launched the above-referenced complaint against me.

In his complaint he states, "This is not about the content that Alfonzo Green advocates ,though this is clearly not compliant with policy and consensus regarding fringe and pseudoscientific topics. It is about his insistence on, and refusal to be dissuaded from, rehashing closed debates." JzG's claim about content is false. The point of my edit was to bring the opening sentence into compliance with Wikipedia policy. As long as the Sheldrake biography is out of compliance, editors must restore it and, if necessary, explain on the talk page why a new edit does so.

It's significant that JzG brought his complaint not because of edit warring but because I discussed my edit on the talk page. His objective was to silence me, to prevent me from expressing the inconvenient fact that Sheldrake is nearly always identified as a biologist. Like Roxy and Barney, JzG is pushing a POV and doesn't want to be reminded of this fact.

Five administrators commented on the complaint. Georgewilliamherbert claimed I could be dismissed under the same criteria that a previous editor, Barleybannocks, was banned. NW agreed. Needless to say, Barleybannocks was banned for pursuing discussion of why the Sheldrake article failed to reflect source material. First a coterie of anti-Sheldrake editors systematically revert any edits that restore NPOV to the article. Then when we try to discuss the issue we are banned for "rehashing closed debates."

Tznkai took a different approach. He claimed I was guilty of edit warring, which he defined (elsewhere) as "any short circuiting or depreciation of discussion by using article edits to override the contributions of others." My own edit was reverted twice and illegitimately modified a third time. So how am I guilty of edit warring but not Roxy and Barney? And of course my edit was supported by source material. Roxy and Barney were removing sourced material. I initiated a discussion on the talk page, and JzG tried to short circuit discussion by closing the topic. That he advocates banning me instead of them makes no sense.

Georgewilliamherbert chimed in again to state, "We have an arbcom case that clearly bears on the article. We have editors flouting the arbcom base decision." The arbcom case in question concerns pseudoscience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience). However, nowhere in this decision is there any explanation of why morphic resonance is pseudoscience. Is it obvious pseudoscience, generally considered pseudoscience, questionable science or simply an alternative theoretical formulation? Arbcom doesn't say. We have a list of topics considered pseudoscience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience), but there's no talk page discussion concerning why morphic resonance is included on that list. "Arb" seems to stand for arbitrary rather than arbitration.

According to MastCell, "We're talking about a single-purpose account who has racked up multiple blocks for edit-warring in service of his agenda." In fact I've contributed to several articles, so I cannot be considered a single-purpose account. (See WP: SPATG). Any blocks I've received resulted from conflicts with editors pursuing an agenda in violation of Wikipedia policy. But that's neither here nor there. MastCell fails to address the issue at hand. Have I committed an action, here and now, that warrants topic ban? MastCell makes no comment. Same goes for Sandstein. He invokes no actual infractions before deciding I should be banned. This is especially odd because in a previous complaint, filed against me by Mangoe, Sandstein made it clear that I could not be banned without specific violation of policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#Alfonzo_Green

What happened between that decision and this one? Mangoe's complaint was obviously frivolous, and Sandstein ruled correctly. Why the flip flop in the face of an equally frivolous complaint now?

In short, not a single legitimate reason was given for my topic ban. Please lift it immediately. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, according to WP:SPATG, "the timeline of a user’s edits should not be considered when using single-purpose account tags. One must look at the editor’s complete edit history, not just recent edits." This applies to users "with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits." The SPA tag is clearly inapplicable and cannot form the basis of legitimate sanctions. The comment that yielded a two-day block was not a complaint but simply a request for information regarding the arbcom decision that allegedly classified morphic resonance as pseudoscience. Rather than admit that no such decision ever took place, Sandstein silenced me.

Sandstein, aside from the fact that I don't qualify as an SPA, if you think I'm in violation of WP:NPOV, please provide an example of where I've attempted to express an opinion at odds with reliable secondary sources. Specifically, how does citing Sheldrake as a biologist, in accord with the overwhelming majority of sources, constitute POV-pushing?

Barney the barney barney, my edit history with the Sheldrake article demonstrates a commitment to neutral presentation of source material, emphasizing the preponderance of sources over a few fringe voices, so as to impart the mainstream view of his work. Per WP:NOTNOTHERE, focusing on a niche area, in my case the natural sciences, doesn't mean I'm not here to help build the encyclopedia.

Right now the Sheldrake article is slanted against Sheldrake, which reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Even if my ban is upheld, other editors will eventually seek to rectify the imbalance. The Sheldrake dispute cannot be resolved as long as administration favors biased editors over responsible editors. Alfonzo Green (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've neglected it up to now, let's have a look at the ruling issued by Zad68. "I see unanimous agreement between Georgewilliamherbert, NuclearWarfare, Tznkai, MastCell and Sandstein that, after due warnings and previous attempts by administrators to get Alfonzo to stop disruptive editing behavior (see block log), Alfonzo has persisted in engaging in disruptive edit-warring behavior. In Alfonzo's statement here, I don't see any indication that the tendentious edit-warring behavior will stop; in fact all I see is a justification for it. I also see in this edit by Alfonzo that he is invoking WP:Ignore all rules as justification for breaking the rules against edit-warring at this article."

Unanimous agreement sounds impressive until you consider the fact that it was based entirely on misinformation provided by JzG. Discussion "trailed off," as Zad notes, after I issued my statement overturning JzG's claims. As to the block log, this is relevant only in establishing precedent for current misbehavior. Since no misbehavior was identified in this case, the log is irrelevant. However, because Zad zeroes in on a comment I made in regard to the 11 December report, I'll briefly discuss that one, which concerns an edit in violation of 1RR. The main source of contention was a reference to limited academic support for Sheldrake's work, along with three citations from reliable sources. By blocking this material (in yet another blatant POV act), anti-Sheldrake editors succeeded in keeping the article slanted at the expense of Wikipedia credibility. Zad claims I invoked WP:Ignore all rules to justify edit warring. Quite the contrary. I invoked it for exactly the reason stated in the policy: to restore integrity to the encyclopedia.

According to MastCell, the "indefinite topic ban is appropriate under the existing discretionary sanctions." Yet no authorization seems to exist for discretionary sanctions in this case, as I realized after Sandstein hit me with a two-day block for daring to inquire where morphic resonance appears in the arbcom pseudoscience decision. Not only the ruling itself but the justification for the ruling has no basis in fact. Alfonzo Green (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell is at it again, telling us the Sheldrake biography is under "Arbitration Committee case [[WP:DS|discretionary sanctions] enforcement." Really? And who decided that? Where does the Committee specify that Sheldrake's work constitutes pseudoscience? Would it be "obvious" or only "generally considered" pseudoscience? Not a word! There's a pseudoscience ruling but no Sheldrake ruling, just a vague sense that, "oh, well, it must apply here." Unless it's included in the committee report, no, it doesn't. And no wonder the report doesn't include that finding, since the whole basis of conflict on the Sheldrake page is the effort of certain editors to censor widely available reliable sources that treat morphic resonance as science and Sheldrake as a scientist.

At last Zad68 has laid out his cards. He already knew I couldn't win because this isn't really an appeal in the first place.

By definition an appeal is heard by parties uninvolved in the action that triggered it. Already Sandstein has contributed three statements under the heading "uninvolved administrators," and MastCell has gone ahead and announced his opinion there. Apparently this is okay because he only "weighed in" during the original case. The implication is that Zad alone, since he issued the actual ruling, is ineligible to rule in this case. Even though they based their opinion on nonexistent evidence of wrongdoing and justified sanction according to a nonexistent committee ruling, any of the four administrators who "weighed in" during the initial case are free to rule on this one.

Moreover, a true appeal implies the possibility that no actual wrongdoing took place. If the "appeal" can't even be heard until penitence has been amply demonstrated by the disgraced sinner, clearly there's no assumption of innocence. Nor is there any guarantee the "appeal" will be heard by editors who aren't already knee deep in this swamp and looking for a quick exit. To launch an earnest appeal in these conditions is therefore "a particularly bad waste of time."

Zad doesn't seem to understand the point of all this. Like I said in the original case, this isn't about me or even Sheldrake. This is about the integrity of Wikipedia. Can the general public trust Wikipedia to correct obvious corruption when it surfaces? Is there a way to ensure that policies are enforced on any given article, or is the administrative process a means by which biased editors can remove responsible editors from targeted subjects?

Right now it looks real bad for Wikipedia. To say that Sheldrake is a biologist is akin to saying the earth is round. I might as well have been banned from the arithmetic page for claiming that 2 + 2 = 4. And Wikipedia can't correct this? Really? Oh, but of course not, because Wikipedia has no appeal process, only a pretend process where you're assumed guilty from the outset and the same people who misruled before are free to do so again.

It's a funhouse. The most commonly utilized source of information in the world is a funhouse. Is anyone else bothered by this?

The moral of this story is that the general quality of Wikipedia can be expected to decline just like the Sheldrake biography, a stable and unbiased article until it was hijacked. If you're not going to stop the intimidation and the purging and the whitewashing in this case, why would you intervene on behalf of integrity anywhere else in the encyclopedia?

Wikipedia needs to prove it's on the side of reason and not hysteria. This is a test. Can you withstand the pressure of a gang of braying ideologues and see what's right in front of you? Can you take a breath, look at the facts and reason through this? What kind of an encyclopedia operates on the basis of peer pressure instead of reason?

Diderot awaits your decision. Alfonzo Green (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zad68 writes: "Whether or not it's arguable that the article should be under WP:ARBPSEUDO, the article unquestionably was and was clearly marked as being so."

This is a type of magical thinking. Simply marking the article as being under the authority of WP:ARBPSEUDO doesn't make it so. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zad also writes: "As Alfonzo makes perfectly clear this is pure WP:POINT, in which Alfonzo is using this as a venue to air his general grievances about Wikipedia."

Absolutely not. My grievance is in regard to the unfounded ruling against me over my work on the Sheldrake page. My concern is how this kind of precedent impacts Wikipedia. Apparently it's not a concern Zad shares. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, you missed the point. I was banned for stating that Sheldrake is a biologist, a well sourced claim if ever there was one. The problem with the ban is that nothing was presented -- not a single diff -- to demonstrate that I wasn't adhering to "Wikipedia policies and standards of behavior" in the first place. The precedent set by this case is that anyone introducing even a single edit to an article allegedly under the authority of WP:ARBPSEUDO can be banned from that article. By siding with administrators who weighed in on the original case, you're advocating an oppressive atmosphere incompatible with the collaborative work environment essential to Wikipedia. Alfonzo Green (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, you say you'll rule according to the opinions expressed by other administrators. However, none of those administrators have engaged my argument above. I believe I've demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that my sanction was baseless, that I did not violate Wikipedia policy by adding the word "biologist," along with four reliable sources, to the opening sentence of the Sheldrake biography. Nor did I violate any policies by justifying my edit on the talk page. Moreover I stayed within the bounds of the 1RR policy applied to the article. If no other administrator comments on the substance of my claim, can you explain how my action was in violation of Wikipedia policy? Specifically what policy did I violate? Alfonzo Green (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Zad68, if you have a better understanding than me as to why I was banned from the Sheldrake page, perhaps you could explain what policy or policies I violated in the actions that precipitated the ban. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully expect this appeal to be declined without any need for comment from me. If for any reason the granting of this appeal is being considered please notify me on my User Talk, otherwise I don't plan to participate. Zad68 01:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Georgewilliamherbert, MastCell, Sandstein and others, WP:ARBPSEUDO was in force and marked as such at the article Talk page since at least before the beginning of December 2013, see here. The notice might have been in place since long before that, but it was certainly in place while Alfonzo was active at the article Talk page during the weeks leading up to the original AE discussion. Whether or not it's arguable that the article should be under WP:ARBPSEUDO, the article unquestionably was and was clearly marked as being so. Zad68 15:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this latest edit Alfonzo has made to this appeal, he quite correctly states, "At last Zad68 has laid out his cards. He already knew I couldn't win because this isn't really an appeal in the first place." He's absolutely correct, this isn't really an appeal. As Alfonzo makes perfectly clear this is pure WP:POINT, in which Alfonzo is using this as a venue to air his general grievances about Wikipedia. It should be closed accordingly. Zad68 15:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure that no admin considering closing this request will be misled by Alfonzo's claims "I was edit banned from the topic of Rupert Sheldrake for inserting the word 'biologist' in the lead sentence." I'm hoping that statement is the normal shenanigans one expects to see of someone arguing their own case at WP:AE. But if that's truly Alfonzo's honest-to-goodness understanding of what happened, his proven inability to understand his own behavior and what was wrong with it would indicate to me that Alfonzo is far, far away from having this topic ban lifted. Zad68 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonzo Green, re "Okay, Zad68, if you have a better understanding than me as to why I was banned from the Sheldrake page, perhaps you could explain what policy or policies I violated in the actions that precipitated the ban." -- I am unwilling to engage in the general re-hashing of the original AE discussion that you and others have been doing, so I am going to leave it to the closing admins to evaluate that. Zad68 18:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AG has edited no article since his topic ban, and his only other two edits were to object to two admins involved as to his topic ban, one of which got him blocked for two days. I repeat my analysis from the AE case that his only edits not related to Sheldrake are a very few four-year-old edits. I interpret his case here as being a promise to pick up where he left off, and I note that editing on the article has proceeded at a less frenetic pace and with no edit-warring. I would not see his return to the topic as a gain for Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hopefully last comment: The discussion thus far is retreading the original case, which is ironic considering that User:Jzg's original complaint was precisely that AG was never going to let a bad argument go: "There is no obvious merit in an editor who has clearly been watching the article and debates, as Alfonzo Green unquestionably has, rehashing a debate that is so very unlikely to result in a consensus to change the article." So here we go around again, repeating all the same old claims. I see no need to say more. Mangoe (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am still dismayed at the absence of accountability concerning the topic banning of Alfonzo Green for the reasons I gave in his WP:AE, and further concerned that Admins generally ignored my request for relevant diffs. To summarise:

1. Alfonzo Green is not single purpose account, having edited at least EIGHT other articles (qv). I would ask admins to (a) read (b) strike through their comments as the allegation is contradicted by the evidence. That Admins continue to perpetuate this inaccuracy is troubling.
2. In my comments during the WP:AE, I showed that the allegations made against Alfonzo Green, (A) regarding his edits, ie. that there is "consensus against inclusion", is not supported by diffs. (B) "The character of debate, being characterise by obdurate refusal to accept that Sheldrake's ideas", is also not supported by any diffs.
3. Finally, I requested diffs supporting the allegation that Alfonzo Green engaged in "disruptive editing behavior", as no relevant diffs were provided, or subsequently forthcoming on request.

I would ask Admins to read WP:ADMINACCT "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."--Iantresman (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein You appear to have left a comment in the section headed "to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". --Iantresman (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Barney WP:SPATG says that Alfonzo Green is not a single purpose account (I have already provided evidence that contracts your claim), and WP:ASPERSIONS requires that you provide evidence (eg. diffs) to support your accusations of misbehavior by him. --Iantresman (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge. There is no doubt that Alfonzo Green has recently focused on one article, but his overall history shows that he has edited at least 8 different article, therefore he is not a single purpose account (SPA) per WP:SPATG. Even if he was an SPA, this in itself is not an issue, and is not grounds for banning. If an SPA is the main allegation against Alfonzo Green, then the rest of the case must be exceedingly weak, as evidenced by the extreme lack of diffs as evidence of misbehavior. --Iantresman (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein Thank you for your comments regarding WP:UNINVOLVED, but I have to disagree with some of the content on common sense grounds. While it may be proper for an uninvolved Admin to take part in several WP:AE cases against the same editor, an appeal is a wholly different matter, where the Admins themselves are also being scrutinised for accountability in the original case. It is like asking the police to investigate themselves, where there is an apparent conflict of interest. --Iantresman (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TRPoD Well done on providing diffs supporting your statements, it is far more than most editors and admins. While I agree that they are related to Sheldrake, I disagree that this makes Alfonzo Green a single purpose account. By extension, this would make any editor that stuck to "science" or "history" an SPA. I respect that editors will draw the line in different places. More importantly, as I have mentioned before, even if Alfonzo Green was an SPA, there is not Wikipedia policy preventing it. The one thing missing are diffs which demonstrate that Alfonzo Green is behaving inappropriately compared to his fellow editors. --Iantresman (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert There is no doubt about the seriousness of WP:ARB/PS, but much doubt over its interpretation and what admins mean. (1) In this particular case, it is implied that Alfonzo Green is misbehaving because he is a single purpose account. Even if this were true, choosing to edit one subject does not imply that you do so inappropriately. I am yet to see ANY diffs that support the allegation that Alfonzo Green has editing inappropriately compared to other editors. (2) Likewise, the notification of Tom Butler regarding WP:ARB/PS and WP:AC/DS[35] apparently in response to his good faith contributions here, look like a warning, especially as Tom was already notified in 2011.[36] Again it is claimed the notification was due to "single purpose advocacy", but not one example of inappropriate editing is provided compared to other editors. --Iantresman (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TRPoD I find your comments to Littleolive oil, that certain editors are "poor role models", to be an offensive personal attack that lacks good faith, and shows a lack of respect for fellow editors. I would like to request that you strike these comments. --Iantresman (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, you should not be commenting in the section for uninvolved administrators as you were explicitly advocating for the topic ban during the previous case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, you should not be commenting as an uninvolved admin either. All this does is create an appearance that the fix is in on the sanction and lessens faith in the process.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, admins are not considered "involved" by virtue of having placed (or supported) a previous administrative sanction against an editor. That should be clear both from standard practice and from written policy. Moreover, sanction appeals at AE are often reviewed by admins who took part in the initial sanction discussion. To my knowledge, that's never been an exclusion criterion, nor would it be a reasonable one. That said, I noted in my initial comment below that I participated in the initial sanction discussion and supported the sanction, in the interest of transparency. And like Sandstein, I'm not in a hurry to close this appeal and I'm happy to wait for whatever additional administrative input will be forthcoming. MastCell ^Talk 00:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong on ethical and policy grounds. Generally, admins are considered involved when their administrative actions are being appealed in an independent venue and that is exactly what is occurring here. I fail to see the basis in an admin saying "I am imposing a sanction per the reasoning of admins x, y, and z" and us still considering admins x, y, and z, to be uninvolved with regards to any appeal of the sanction. There is something inherently corrupt and indicative of an old boys network when you have one admin "take the WP:INVOLVED hit" and let the other admins who backed his play continue providing the "admin of record" their "uninvolved" support at appeals. You are not uninvolved. You have a clear stake in the sanction being upheld. That is what it means to be involved.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't "my" administrative action. It's an action by anothe admin which I supported as reasonable and well-founded. If we took your approach, then no admin who commented in support of a sanction at AN/I could ever weigh in if that sanction were appealed. That's an unreasonable precedent for a lot of reasons. For example, we don't have unlimited admins nor the unlimited volunteer time necessary to create a fully tricked-out judicial system. This is a website and an encyclopedia, not a moot court or virtual legal litigation simulator. Our practices are designed to promote the generation of high-quality content as efficiently as possible using the resources we have available. It's simply not reasonable to demand that a huge amount of volunteer time and resources be devoted to an appeal which is transparently lacking in merit and which even its originator admits is simply a continuation of his original, disruptive argumentation. Struck at request of Alfonzo Green.

Separately, there are other avenues of appeal where Alfonzo would be guaranteed a brand-new panel (e.g. ArbCom, WP:BASC, etc). Those avenues could of course be pursued if the outcome here strikes you or Alfonzo as somehow "corrupt". MastCell ^Talk 16:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can weigh in at an ANI discussion and we generally don't keep track of who is and is not involved in such cases, though sometimes we should. However, I certainly do not think an admin who commented for or against a sanction when it was proposed should be closing an appeal of the sanction. There are more than enough admins to allow for this and your argument is just a flimsy excuse. You have at least a dozen admins frequenting AE at any given time and the number is much larger for those frequenting ANI/AN. In other words, there are plenty of admins who have not weighed in on a sanction who can review appeals.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think admins should go back and review the original reasons why - it's in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive143. The idea that Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) is not an SPA is just plainly false. This sounds remarkably like a defence lawyer who is arguing an appeal on an entirely spurious basis. To ask for diffs as Iantresman (talk · contribs) does is entirely disingenuous - firstly there is special:contributions/Alfonzo Green and the original request (see my first sentence) explained why he is an SPA. To pretend that no evidence was submitted is classic WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. There is little point in resubmitting the evidence when it can be re-examined at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive143. Finally, to quote Mastcell (talk · contribs) on Barleybannocks (talk · contribs) (but equally applicable to Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs)) "he's also being encouraged to some extent by people who are particularly poor role models for how to edit responsibly on fringe topics, which isn't doing him any favors". These poor role models are still trying to defend him. It's clear that Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA who is anti-WP:NPOV, anti-WP:FRINGE anti-WP:MAINSTREAM and therefore anti-Wikipedia per WP:NOTHERE. The only commendable thing here is that unlike Tumbleman (talk · contribs) he hasn't started socking. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find that that claim that Alfonzo Green isn't an SPA is not merely wrong, but bordering on absurdity given the overwhelming evidence that this editor focuses on a single topic.[37] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me understand this issue of single purpose account. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but they cannot edit just one article. Further, if the editor does not agree with the interpretation of rules posed by the majority and most aggressive editors, then her will be banned from that article. is that about right?

Consensus building in the Sheldrake article has been a matter of one side trying to find balance while the other stonewalls with one view ... no negation. The rules are important and certainly applicable here, but there are reasonable ways to apply them and hard-nosed ways preferred by some of the editors. What I am reading here is that the admins agree with the hard-nosed approach.

Alfonzo Green has done everything imaginable to find middle ground in the article. He is a diligent editor whom I think adds value. Since you all have banned him and the other moderate editors from the article, it has drifted more and more into the skeptical bias trying to make Sheldrake and his work appear to be stupid. I will say again, if that is official Wikipedia policy, then the article needs to be deleted!

You are poisoning the water by banning editors on one side of the discussion rather than trying to arbitrate a better article. Every banned editor becomes another pushing back from outside of Wikipedia.

Please stop a moment and consider the alternative ways to balance the article within Wikipedia rules rather than the hard-nosed approach you seem to be taking now. Tom Butler (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now I am being threatened by Georgewilliamherbert with "Due to ongoing single purpose advocacy of pseudoscience topics and editors, you are hereby notified that this topic area is under an Arbitration Committee case [[WP:DS|discretionary sanctions] enforcement. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

Every frontier subject associated with things paranormal is cast as pseudoscience by the controlling skeptical editors. Therefore, this warning is telling me that my "single purpose advocacy," which is potentially all articles associated with the paranormal, is forbidden. That is the extreme of what has happened with Barleybannocks and Alfonzo Green. Tom Butler (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A notification under the Pseudoscience case is not a topic ban or editor sanction such as a block or ban or revert restriction. It places the editor on notice that the topic area is under discretionary sanctions, and that some aspect of their behavior requires notification (and logging) of the case findings, those sanctions, and the topic area's sensitivity.

Tom Butler's activity is for all intents and purposes single-purpose, in this topic area, and shows an active disbelief or disputation of the Pseudoscience case findings' and relevant policy etc. That said, no edit or edits or pattern of edits I have seen go beyond "requiring notification" into "warning or threatening sanctions".

Advocacy that an Arbcom finding or enforcement activities are wrong, should be different, or should be changed is not actionable. It should be taken up with Arbcom in a new case or a motion, rather than here, but nobody will be sanctioned merely for stating opinions that they disagree with AE activity.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As is always the case, one should always look closely at the content presented by iantresman.

If we look at those EIGHT "not Rupert Sheldrake articles" that AG has edited as presented by iantresman that purport to show AG is NOT an SPA,

• [38] The article is Creode, but AG is adding content about Sheldrake
• [39] The article is Lewis_Wolpert, but AG is adding content about a bet between Wolpert and Sheldrake
• [40] the article is Scientific_wager, but AG is adding content about the scientific wager between Wolpert and Sheldrake
• [41] the article is Genetic_determinism, but the content AG is adding is about a scientific wager about genetic determinism, involving, you guessed it, our friend Sheldrake
• [42] the article is Michael_Shermer where AG is adding content that was reverted for being "PoV pseudoscience apologetics" that attempts to discredit Shermer, who is a major critic of and quoted extensively in Rupert Sheldrake (AG's earlier edits to the article include adding external links to a page that Criticizes Shermer in relation to a debate the had with Sheldrake

That leaves the non-direct Sheldrake edits at:

• [43] the article is Mae-Wan_Ho, but AG is editing content about the applicability of the law of thermodynamics to living critters, which is a key contention that Sheldrake makes
• [44] - making a piped link (at William McDougall (psychologist) who, "rejects the materialistic" approach to science, just like Sheldrake

And the final piece of evidence from iantresman, [45] - the article is Ilya Prigogine where AG enters commentary about a book about claims that scientific determinism is outdated. Alone, that would be a stretch to connect directly to Sheldrake, but given the rest of the evidence, it so close to the same vein that one would be hard pressed to say it is any way substantial evidence that AG is NOT an SPA. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Littleolive oil - if a single admin had made the initial decision and that same admin was solely making the decision on the appeal, your position might have a basis. However, that is not the situation here. In the initial review there were a large number of admins in unanimous consent. Given that nothing has changed since then, there should be no surprise that the decision comes out the same.

In addition, your observation about what is happening to editors "from one side" of the dispute is well founded - it is pretty clear where the disruptive activity is coming from. ( "he's also being encouraged to some extent by people who are particularly poor role models for how to edit responsibly on fringe topics, which isn't doing him any favors" is certainly applicable)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A note about appeals.

An appeal should not be controlled by the same admins who supported the original sanction. I assume the editor appealing questions the judgement of those original sanctioning admins, so what use is it for the same admins to reiterate the same arguments they used to sanction in the first place. For an appeal to be of any use, it should be carried out by a new set of admins/editors who will take the time scrutinize the evidence again, and come to a judgement based on their unbiased view of that evidence. In my experience, spurious arguments and false information can be positioned by admins and editors in an AE, and such a situation should be open to appeal. Admins with out agendas and who wish to be fair and unbiased should have no trouble in removing themselves and allowing others to scrutinize the evidence itself. An appeal as often happens now on Wikipedis, entails looking at the closing admins arguments, is a waste of time, and allows for one mistake on top of another to be perpetuated.

Being an SPA is not sanctionable so that argument has no place in an AE or AE appeal seems to me.

I am concerned that the Sheldrake article dispute has led to sanctions to editors who are perceived to be on one side of the discussion while oddly all editors on the other side appear to be blameless.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

In the discussion that led up to the sanction being appealed, I expressed support for the sanction because Alfonzo Green is a single-purpose account dedicated only to promoting a particular point of view about his chosen topic. Such conduct violates WP:NPOV, see Wikipedia:ARBAB#Single purpose accounts. The appeal contains nothing that would change this assessment. In addition, there is no indication that the sanctioning administrator exceeded the broad discretion granted to administrators in WP:AC/DS, and we should not second-guess the exercise of this discretion on appeal without good cause. I would decline the appeal.  Sandstein  09:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iantresman: I know. Per WP:UNINVOLVED, administrators' interactions with editors in a purely administrative capacity - which includes discussions about whether discretionary sanctions should be applied - do not constitute involvement.  Sandstein  18:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that what I said above is not quite clear to all who are commenting. I'll point the issue out for the arbitrators' consideration in ongoing rules review at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review. Meanwhile, I'll not be closing this request, so I'll leave it to the administrator who does close it to decide whether my opinion should be considered (if that turns out to be relevant to the outcome of the appeal).  Sandstein  19:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This appeal more or less restates, at great length, the arguments made during the first AE case. I see no evidence that Alfonzo Green has any insight into the ways in which his behavior was problematic, no indication that he has any interest in this project beyond using it as a single-issue battleground, and no reason to believe that the disruptive behavior which triggered the sanction will change. I would therefore recommend declining this appeal. (For clarity, I weighed in to support the initial topic ban as well). MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be some doubt as to whether ARBPSEUDO was serious and/or meant what it said. I believe closing with a note to the effect that it's real and we expect everyone to take it seriously... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I volunteered to close this appeal, but I am not particularly happy with the fact that all administrators save me in this section also gave their opinions in the original topic ban discussion. While I am still prepared to close, I would like to give two more days for administrators who were never involved with the case to give their opinions. In two days, I will close the case based on whatever opinions are available at the time.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm completely uninvolved in this matter and to my recollection have I not participated in any previous discussions regarding this article or these users. I've just examined this section, the original enforcement request, and Alfonzo Green's edit history and I've concluded that the matter is being handled appropriately. I see nothing presented that convinces me that the ban should be lifted or this user will adhere to Wikipedia policies and standards of behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I join with my fellow admins, above, in denying Alfonzo Green's request to lift his restrictions. (This is my first time touching any AE requests having to do with this editor) --Guerillero | My Talk 06:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The appeal of Alfonzo Green is rejected. The topic ban is upheld. It is clear from the edit history of the article and its talk page that Alfonzo Green was edit-warring despite the fact that the consensus has been achieved. It is also clear that, as far as post-2011 edits are concerned, all their edits are somehow related to the article on Rupert Sheldrake. These two opinions are upheld by absolutely every administrator who gave an opinion in this section. The procedural issues, namely that in the original topic ban discussion the majority of the administrators gave their opinion before Alfonzo Green made their statement, are not really important, since the administrators had an option to amend their opinion, and did not do it; moreover, they have given the same opinions during the appeal discussion. It is unfortunate that Alfonzo Green still thinks they are topic-banned for adding a word "biologist" and not for the battleground mentality expressed in edit-warring, but this lack of understanding is not a reason to lift a topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure whether this closure should be logged anywhere; if it should please ping me at my talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2014 (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

Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBCC

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

1. 15 January 2014 Adds the following to a BLP "Delingpole's conjecture became the basis for one of the most well-known global warming conspiracy thoeries and has been cited as an example of conspiracy theories in science that "target specific research can have serious consequences for public health and environmental policies" The source used does not mention Delingpole, this was a BLP violation.
2. 17 January 2014 Source misrepresentation, I pointed this out on the article talk page, the quote in the source says he questions, not "asserts".
3. 17 January 2014 Again misrepresenting the same source, as pointed out, it says he questions, not that "He doesn't believe"
4. 17 January 2014 Calls a BLP a "conspiracy theorist", no citation given on the talk page to support it.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 31 December 2013 by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Sandstein:, why would an admin gave to check the source? I already did, but it is here in full. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Edit warring over the source misrepresentation. That is the third revert in a day BTW.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[46]

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.

Responses: 1) Delingpole is widely credited with having created the AGW "climategate" conspiracy theory. See for example, [47] I would be happy to add a citation to this source. 2) The source said that he *says* he questions. If he said he was a unicorn, that would not make him a unicorn. "Assert" is a synonym for "says." Please feel free to change the word "assert" to the word "says." 3) He says he questions, but I have not seen a citation to a source in which he is actually questioning. Presumably he believes what he says, so to be on the safe side I changed it to an actual quote from an actual source in which he says that anthropogenic global warming is "the invention of a cabal of activists." 4) See answer to point #1. If someone who is skeptical can be called a skeptic, and someone who denies can be called a denier, then presumably someone who creates conspiracy theories can be called a conspiracy theorist. All of these labels have been used without citation on the talk page, so I was simply adhering to an established convention. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it seems that all the concern has to do with reason #1 above. If I had also cited a source that specifically credits Dellingpole with having conceived the conspiracy theory would this have been a problem? The above cited source is titled "The Goal Is Power: The Global Warming Conspiracy." The first two sentences read, "In Watermelons, The Green Movement’s True Colors, British journalist/blogger James Delingpole promises to show that the man-made global warming is a fraud, one that has already cost billions of dollars and is a clear and present danger to our liberty and democratic traditions — and, ironically, to the environment itself. He largely accomplishes this task and, for the most part, does so without sounding hysterical or radical. ". Other editors have misrepresented and under-reported dellingpole's notability by claiming that he merely "doubts that global warming is man-made or catastrophic to the extent that is widely claimed." This claim is not supported by any of the sources they cited. I was trying to fix that and give credit to him for his much more notable contributions. My only failure was to neglect sufficient sources, but the statement I was trying to fix also had insufficient sources. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite advice and cautions from other editors, for example at Talk:James_Delingpole#Source_misrepresentation, new editor IHaveAMastersDegree continues to post dubious to unacceptable material to BLP articles in the Climate Change area. To date, from my observations of his contributions, which are almost exclusively edits to BLP articles, he appears to be doing more harm than good to the project. He doesn't seem to be learning the stringent requirements for BLP material.--Pete Tillman (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis is unacceptable, particularly in BLPs, but is also a requirement that has a learning curve. In press reporting of climate science, fringe views are commonly referred to as "climate skeptic" views: essentially this is jargon, but it is also a misuse of the word skepticism and in particular misrepresents fringe views as though they have "equal validity" with proper scientific skepticism and mainstream science. The issue has been discussed by the National Center for Science Education in a page Why Is It Called Denial? | NCSE, and by the historian Spencer Weart: Global warming: How skepticism became denial. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, but care is appropriate in language to achieve NPOV: if we follow the majority of sources, particularly in press reports, we risk giving undue weight to fringe ideas. I've not had time yet to examine this editor's edits closely, but feel that User:IHaveAMastersDegree has been making a genuine attempt to address a real failing in Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. The user undoubtedly has to learn exactly how to fully comply with BLP requirements, particularly on synthesis, before editing biographical articles, but has the potential to make good contributions to Wikipedia, including the general topic area of science and climate science. . . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have looked at the sources and yes, the report has merit. I propose a topic ban on all edits related to climate change, broadly construed, across all article spaces with the usual exceptions. Duration, however, is something that I am unsure of. 6 month? 12? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We have two methods to deal with this: either TBAN on climate change as a whole, or a narrow restriction of BLP subjects related to climate change. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit which caused me the most concern was this one, which seems to establish Delingpole as the founder of a conspiracy theory. "Delingpole's conjecture became the basis for one of the most well-known global warming conspiracy theories". The source he provides, an article by Goertzel in EMBO Reports, does not mention Delingpole's name. A six month ban from the topic of Climate Change on all pages of Wikipedia seems best. The scope of WP:TBAN includes talk pages unless a different scope is chosen. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified that this AE was reopened due to the unblock of the subject. My view remains the same. For those who are new to the ARBCC troubles, there have been many BLP disputes about the articles on global-warming sceptics. The BLP complaints are not always convincing but this time they are. IHaveAMastersDegree looks to be systematically using SYNTH to make it seem that sceptics hold far-out views and make them appear less credible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this warrants a closer look. As concerns diff 1, the cited source is only partially accessible online. Has an administrator been able to access it in full and verify that it does not mention James Delingpole? If so, I agree that the edit at issue violates the verifiability and BLP policies. As to diffs 2 to 4, I don't see these as serious enough to warrant sanctions on their own.  Sandstein  08:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, the same source is also available in full at [48], and it does not mention Delingpole. Considering that IHaveAMastersDegree's response does not indicate their understanding of the problem, a topic ban appears appropriate.  Sandstein  10:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DS (or others), can you provide evidence that suggests this is an ongoing pattern rather than an isolated incident? Are you aware of similar edits to other articles (I'll look into it myself when I get chance, but if you have diffs to hand, they would be helpful)? If it's just this one article, a ban from the article and its talk page (and from mentioning Delingpole anywhere on Wikipedia) might be more appropriate, but I'm not averse to a broad topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked more closely at IHaveAMastersDegree's edits, and it appears he's dedicated to removing the term "sceptic" in relation to global warming. That in itself is not inherently disruptive, but I couldn't help but wonder whether the text he was substituting for "sceptic" was an attempt to discredit the article subjects (who all appear to be living people). I don't know a lot about global warming/climate change, so it's possible I misunderstood something, but it does look like (at the very least) IHaveAMastersDegree's edits lack the caution required when writing about living people. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DS, thanks; I'd missed that. I think the case for a topic ban is quite compelling, given the edit warring on top of the other concerns. I'd have no qualms supporting a six-month topic ban. IHaveAMastersDegree: My advice would be to find something less controversial to do for six months, and use the time to familiarise myself with the standards expected of editors, especially with regard to living people and controversial topic areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • IHaveAMastersDegree: I think you've missed the point. The problem with your edits is not any one single edit, but a pattern in which it appears you are trying to discredit or demean those who do not believe that climate change is man-made; there's also the pattern of doing so across multiple biographies of living persons (where we have a moral duty, not to mention a requirement in site policy) to be especially careful, and the edit-warring to re-instate contested wording. Taken together, these all seem to suggest that you shouldn't be editing BLPs about such people. I'd listen to any argument you made to the contrary, but addressing this on the basis of individual edits is not sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indefinitely blocked the respondent because technical evidence proves they have previously operated the historical sock-puppeteer User:Bearguardian. AGK [•] 23:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: AGK has subsequently reversed his block, and therefore this discussion should be resurrected since the situation is no longer moot. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the above discussion, which establishes that IHaveAMastersDegree has made a derogatory claim in an article about a living person that is not supported by the source IHaveAMastersDegree cited as a reference, IHaveAMastersDegree is topic-banned (per WP:TBAN) from everything that is both related to climate change and to a living person, for the duration of six months. This does not prevent other administrators from imposing broader or additional sanctions if they believe this to be necessary.  Sandstein  21:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rainer P. (talk · contribs) / Rainer P. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) / The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Indefinite topic ban since November 16th 2012 from all articles and discussions related to Prem Rawat for persistent battleground behaviour [49]

I have informed The Blade of the Northern Light of this appeal.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been indefinitely topic-banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights, for “persistent battleground behaviour” but he provides no evidence or diffs to support that charge.

• I have never engaged in “battleground behavior”. I regard my influence there as neutral, moderate and conciliatory. About the only comment about me on Prem Rawat talk notes “Rainer's attempt to pull this discussion back on track seems a move in a positive direction”.[50]

• I have edited the Prem Rawat article less than 10 times in three years. I have made edits only with full consent from all editors after previous discussion on the talk page. My last edit to the article before being banned for “battleground behaviour” on November 16th 2012 was on October 19th 2012.[51]. My previous edit to the article was December 29th, 2011 to correct punctuation.[52]

• Most of my edits have been to the Talk Page because I have extensive knowledge of the subject and want to help the article editors.[53] In the three weeks prior to being banned I made 10 edits to the talk page, most discussing choosing a picture for the article.

• It is true that Prem Rawat articles sometimes resemble a battleground but I have not been involved in it. The main reason for that situation is the behaviour of one editor, Pat W, who has been warned for incivility and battleground behaviour nineteen times on his talk page.[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] Not to mention the countless times he has been asked to stop on the PR talk pages. [72]

• I have never been warned or criticised in over three years of editing.

• I have never been part of an Arbitration action. And so, as per Discretionary Sanctions, I should have received a warning before banning.[73][74]

• I have never been banned or blocked or otherwise been subject to disciplinary actions.

• I have looked at all my edits and I cannot see what I have done wrong.

• Blade of the Northern Lights says the reason for the ban is “although Rainer P. didn't himself initiate many proposals on the talk page, I saw that he was showing up to support the other two with an extremely high level of frequency”.[75] I have made 500 edits in 18 months, hardly “an extremely high level of frequency” and an inspection of my edits show very few involved supporting one view or another. Silk Tork reviewed my edits and concluded “I've looked back at the contributions of Rainer P. (which are mainly to the talkpage of Prem Rawat) and I cannot find any problematic edits”. [76] Another independent editor said “Rainer was always mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory in his positions”.[77]

• SUMMARY: I have an exemplary record at Wikipedia. I have never been blocked, banned or sanctioned in any way. No evidence was presented that shows me involved in “battleground behaviour” or incivility. No evidence was presented that show me editing in a POV or inappropriate way. In fact, no evidence of any sort justifies the ban. Please lift it.

• PS: Are topic banned editors allowed to comment on this appeal?

It's taken me a while to refresh my memory of this. As I recall, Rainer P. was more marginally involved in the problematic editing there, and I'd be all right with a lifting of his topic ban at this point. I'm generally in support of second chances, and Rainer P.'s editing outside the topic gives me no cause for concern. Given the troubled history of the article it would be good for someone to keep an eye on things, but I don't see an inordinate risk in lifting this topic ban; if it does become a problem, that can be dealt with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer P.: Editors who are topic-banned from the topic of Prem Rawat are not allowed to comment here. A few questions:

1. Is there a reason why you waited more than a year to appeal a sanction that you believe was inappropriate to begin with?
2. Why have you not addressed this appeal to the sanctioning admin first?
3. You have made almost no edits to Wikipedia since the sanction. Why? If the sanction is lifted, what kinds of edits do you intend to make?  Sandstein  10:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition... but let me try and answer your questions.

ad 1) I did not really wait, but over a year has simply passed before my busy life gave me a break to get back to Wikipedia, and also the result of my last appeal in December 2012 was not really encouraging. Besides it shows I am not overzealous. I still think the ban was inappropriate to begin with, but I have no inclination to fight over this.

ad 2) I had no idea that appealing to Blade of the Northern Light were the first choice option. From the way he remained unimpressed by my legitimate reasoning during my first appeal, it did not occur to me, either.

ad 3) I guess, I am what you might call a Single Purpose Account. I joined .enWP at a time, when the article about Prem Rawat was dominated by a group of amazingly energetic detractors, whose declared goal was to not let any possibly favourable public information about the subject go unsmirched. The whole „battleground“-issue arose from that. I happen to have the education and the experience to be able to offer some expertise to the article. The Prem Rawat article has remained largely unedited since that ban. It can certainly be improved, but I would rather leave that to native English speakers. I would mainly like to keep the article updated on current or recent notable developements, which have not been covered since that „nuclear“ ban, which left no one to do so. I am ready and willing to observe Wiki-rules strictly, which my history confirms.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The motion of 20 December 2012 was the result of an earlier appeal of this sanction by Rainer P. to the Arbitration Committee. The Committee did not accept or decline this appeal, but enacted the motion with the apparent intent to provide for a venue of appeal in this noticeboard (see, e.g., the comments by SilkTork, Roger Davies, Newyorkbrad and Courcelles). The appeal is therefore permissible and the sanction can be reviewed here.

On the merits, I'm waiting for a statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights, which should provide examples of the "persistent battleground behavior" given as the reason for the sanction. The case for imposing a ban is, at least, not immediately obvious from a cursory look at the appellant's edits. In response to the earlier appeal to the Arbitration Committee, The Blade of the Northern Lights said that Rainer P. had been "supporting" two other editors in "a pattern of editing that was slowly but surely slanting the article away from criticisms of Rawat". But The Blade of the Northern Lights did not say how, in their view, this constituted a violation of any applicable conduct rule, and they did not provide diffs of the edits they considered disruptive. I'd appreciate it if they would supply this information now.  Sandstein  19:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Since BoNL supports lifting TBAN, I recommend lifting TBAN, replace with logged DS notification. It's suitable since Rainer was previously sanctioned in this area, in my opinion. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was ready to post a detailed defence of Rainer P.'s actions (which I don't believe justified a topic ban then or justify keeping it in place now). However, since TBotNL is now saying that he has no objection to lifting the ban and giving Rainer a second chance, I agree that this would be the best approach. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with both opinions above.  Sandstein  05:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing: Since the banning admin, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, does not object to lifting the ban and nobody in this AE has objected either it is clear that consensus exists to lift Rainer P.'s ban. At the suggestion of User:Penwhale I'm logging a notice of the discretionary sanctions to Rainer P. in WP:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat. We are all hoping that the battleground editing on Prem Rawat does not resume. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2014 (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

Alexikoua (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Slovenski Volk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

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

1. Multiple clear violations in the wp:ARBMAC.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on [78] by Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on [79] by Jingiby (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Slovenski Volk is currently under a number of restrictions, as a product of past disruptive activity in topics related to ancient Balkans:

• 0rr in Ancient Macedonians, since January of 2011, [[80]] a restriction he violated in the past multiple times [[81]], but taking into account the last 6-month period, this is the only restriction he respected
• 1rr in all of wp:ARBMAC, since January 2011, [[82]]he recently violated (as Edjohnston's noted [[83]])
• indefinite ban in wp:ARBMAC [[84]], since August 2012, with the exception of "Prehistoric and Roman Balkans" [[85]]:

Slovenski decided, from November '13, to broaden the interpretation of the above exception. So he freely declared that he can also edit between Prehistory and Roman Balkans (a period covering ca. 8 centuries of Balkan history) without avoiding the usual sarcastic comments [[86]]. He also decided to edit in medieval Balkans up to the 9th century Slavic migrations in the Balkans [[87]], a period he self-defined as "Roman" [[88]]. Finally he edits in everything that dates to the late 19th century [[89]]. So the only exception, in terms of history, are the 20th & 21th centuries, but he wasn't interested in that era during the past as well.

Clear violations also occurred in dozens of edits, while this activity intensified as soon as he realized that user:Athenean, who send him to wp:ae last time, isn't active any more. To name some additional examples (historical era in which he was supposed not to edit is mentioned in parentheses):

• Origin of the Albanians [[90]][[91]][[92]] (Slavic 7-9th century migrations)
• Illyrians [[93]] (pre-Roman historical period)
  Bulgarians [[94]][[95]][[96]] (medieval Balkan movements)
• Macedonians (ethnic group) [[97]][[98]][[99]] (again medieval Slavic migrations in Macedonia) [[100]] (ethnic identity in Macedonia, obviously post-medieval history & the very core of ARBMAC),
• Croats [[101]] (med. history)
• South Slavs [[102]] (med. history)
• [[103]] participating in a dispute about Macedonian identity in Ottoman Empire.

Taking into account the above record, a new and precise definition of the ban is needed in this case. Additionally, the fact that the recent violations are also accompanied with a pov agenda in Macedonia related issues [[104]] and a tendency to add charming comments in talkpages [[105]] (as noted by Jingiby and EdJohnston respectively), may warrant an indefinite ban in wp:ARBMAC.Alexikoua (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[106]]

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.

Dear All, I have the following reply, in regard to what I see as a "bending of the facts" by Alexikoua

• "0rr in Ancient Macedonians, since January of 2011, 35 a restriction he violated in the past multiple times 36, but taking into account the last 6-month period, this is the only restriction he respected."

-> “Multiple” is an unusual adjective for what in reality was twice. Henceforth, I was duly reprimanded and placed on an Arbmac article ban for my twice breaching the 0RR rule. In my mind, I have thus stayed clear of anything I thought directly related to this, including no editing on Ancient Macedonians or anything article related to it, whether Alexander the Great, or ‘naming dispute issues, etc , broadly construed

• “He also decided to edit in medieval Balkans up to the 9th century Slavic migrations in the Balkans” , citing [107]

-> A clear misrepresentation of my actions. I added a couple of lines about Roman Christians, and settling of later minorities from Armenia and ‘Saxon Miners’. Entirely uncontroversial aspects, not related to what might be deemed an ARBMAC issue.

• He goes on “ a period he self-defined as "Roman"”.

-> This is not my definition, by one shared by specialists who all recognize that the Roman Empire continued in the eastern spheres of the Roman world beyond that in the west.

-> Without manipulation on my behalf, given that we all know that the Byzantine Empire ( actually “Roman”) continued until 1453, I took the cut off for “Roman” in the east to 900s AD, as stipulated here by a recent specialist publication, who cites the end of Roman, and beginning of Medieval Greece from c. mid 10th century AD. [108]

-> Nevertheless, I am willing to work within what is deemed acceptable by the AE.

• ‘Finally he edits in everything that dates to the late 19th century’, citing [109]

-> That’s not my edit ! That was made by a wholly different user (Jingiy).

• ‘Clear violations also occurred in dozens of edits, while this activity intensified as soon as he realized that user:Athenean isnt active anymore” -> Utter nonsense. I have not been “spying” on Athenean, nor following his activities. In fact, Athenean and I never had any interaction outside the Ancient macedonians article. Anyway, Athenean is not an admin. I well know that Admins logged my restrictions and can penalise me harshly for any breaches.

• “Origin of the Albanians" -> I added a paragraph, of excellent quality, great sources and what I would have thought to have been a welcome addition, in an entirely neutral and well-intentioned nature, on the archaeology of Roman Epirus and the gap / change/ continuity to early Medieval period. I fail to see how this is really related to Arbmac; as it falls well outside anything which might even approach any ‘contrioversial’ topics such as Kosovo, Macedonian politics or Ancient Macedonians, or any greek-Albanian border issues (which Id never had any involvement in , and in any way am wholly neutral and my edits are certainly a step toward rappraochment, if anything!)

• Illyrians -> As Alexikoua notes, these were an ancient (pre-historic) people long before any issues of related to Arbmac; and they fall exactly within the palaeolithic and Roman era allowed to me. I understand there had been issues with this article between Albanian and Greek editors, but I am neither, and have never had any problems on this article. I was merely filling in and u-pdating a logn neglected aticle. And again, I dare say, my additions were nothing but NPOV, respectable and of high quality. [110]

• Bulgarians: -> Additions of general aspects of Slavic migrations and late Roman times. How do these fall under ARBMAC ? In fact, I do not believe Bulgarians even in the most broadest sense fall under ARBMAC do they ? In any case, my edits have clearly nothing to do with any issue which anythign which might be deemed to be ARBMAC related (whether Macedonia naming dispute, or Kosovo, or any other political issue)

• Croats -> As above, I did not see making good-faith, quality edits on the specifics of Croat ethnogenesis and a discussion of archaeoligcal material as something impinging on anytghing which might be construed as ARBMAC. In fact, another editor commented “Actually I suggest the opposite - provide a comprehensive scholarly treatment so as to leave no space for nationalist propaganda. I must say that the summary of theories that you provided is actually quite good :) Two additional articles too keep an eye on are Names of the Serbs and Serbia"

• South Slavs: [111] -> This is very generic history about Slavs. Again, nothing ARBMAC related

• ‘participating in a dispute about Macedonian identity in Ottoman Empire. -> At this point, it becomes obvious , at least to me, that unfortunately Aleikoua has a personal agenda against me, for why else would he make such blatant lies. “Ottoman times (16th -20th century) he claims? The discussion was clearly [112] about the late Roman era and about early Byzantine themes (6th to – 9th century). If I strayed too close to my restriction, then I apologise. But I believed it to be ‘removed’ enough; but will happily stay clear of this.

• ‘fact that the recent violations are also accompanied with a pov agenda in Macedonia related issues’ -> Well, that’s his opinion. I ask him to please show these “POV” edits .. please demonstrate to us all how “POV” I am ….. Cite examples if you are going to make unfair and incorrect statements.

To summarize, I have the propensity to make many beneficial and positive additions to Balkan articles. I believe a distinction is to be made between ARBVMAC articles and any Balkan article. I maintain that my edits are in good-faith, of high quality and help improve Wikipedia. This has been noted by other editors, including Admins (he does appear to have some knowledge and he seems well-intentioned [113]) and my maps for Balkan history are used widely through all langauge Wikis. After Jingiby's reminder to me, I did not make any further edit to macedonias, Roman/ Byzantine times, or not. Alexikou appears to have an issue with my editing Illyrians, despite the fact ot falls well withing my permissbale time period - a peole who existed in prehistoric and Roman times. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That 19th century edit was not made by me ! that was made by a different editor, please llok again [114] Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Note: Moved from section below by - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps}[reply]

However, the edit added by Jingiby was in a topic/ thread about the late Roman era. That information was already present in the relevant chronological/ time period section in question, immediately in the succeeding paragraph. So in essence, I removed nothing other than a repeated (redundant) and entirely out of place sentence.

I wish to again re-iterate, I did not knowingly breach any of the terms granted originally by the Blade. I only edited items pertaining to Roman or prehistoric Era, or on peoples wholly divorced from what can be perceived to be ARBMAC - which was defined on the relvenat page as while focusing specifically on issues related to Macedonia, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans; see, for example, the Dalmatia case and the Kosovo case. Illyrians are not within any 'dispute' and are prehistoric, Bulgarians have not been in any part of dispute, to my knowledge. I should not be punished for what were arguably vague definitions. And I only ever breached my original 3RR and then 0RR rule in only one article. An entire Balkan topic ban i'd have to protest is extremely harsh Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok if that is the concensus and advice of the admins I will stay clear. I will work on other regions of Europe, where my intellect & efforts might be appreciated; and demonstrate that i can work within concensus and good spirit. Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• At this point, I recommend a TBAN from all articles related to Balkans, broadly construed, as I cannot find the means to justify how 19th century would fall within either Prehistoric or Roman. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• SV, that was not a removal you could make because the materials you removed does not pertain to exceptions granted. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, the edit added by Jingiby was in a topic/ thread about the late Roman era. That information was already present in the relevant chronological/ time period section in question, immediately in the succeeding paragraph. So in essence, I removed nothing other than a repeated (redundant) and entirely out of place sentence. The said edit was from last year, and I have not made any recent edits there after being reminded of the ARBMAC. Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Penwhale that a WP:TBAN from the Balkans is appropriate, which would be the same as an WP:ARBMAC ban. My suggestion is that Slovenski Volk should be able to appeal the topic ban after six months. If after six months he has shown the ability to work for consensus elsewhere, the ban could be lifted or modified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a broad topic ban. While my initial impression was that ancient history of the Balkans region might not be relevant enough to the present-day conflicts to justify including it in the topic area, upon further reflection I realize that many of the current conflicts are deeply rooted in the Roman or pre-Roman times. (See WP:ARBMAC#Area of conflict, and also WP:ARBMAC2#Locus of dispute.) ArbCom chose to define the area of conflict subject to discretionary sanctions as "topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted" (see WP:ARBMAC#Standard discretionary sanctions) — and that decision was very reasonable under the circumstances, and Slovenski Volk is only going to get into deeper trouble if he keeps trying to test the waters. IMO, he is best off steering clear of the entire subject area, in all time periods, dealing with all peoples who have lived in the Balkans, even peoples whose descendants no longer live in the region. Since it doesn't appear that he will do this voluntarily, I support a broad topic ban (and further AE actions if necessary), in keeping with the letter and spirit of ARBMAC. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This matter [115] has now been referred here, and I'm applying to have the topic ban lifted as it's impossible for me to know what it actually covers, and consequently I'm in a Catch-22 situation every day on which I edit on Wikipedia. I've made an enormous contribution to Wikipedia over the past year, and have never edited on the Shakespeare authorship issue during that time (which was what the arbitration was about). However the ban is being interpreted erroneously by administrators as covering every Wikipedia article which even touches in the most remote and tangential way on Shakespeare, which is unreasonable and eminently unfair. I look forward to having the topic ban lifted, as it is impossible for me to know which Wikipedia articles it applies to. My editing record speaks for itself. I think any unbiased observer would agree that I'm an asset to Wikipedia, and that an editor who contributes as I do should not be subjected to a topic ban which is impossible to observe because of its huge and indefinite scope. NinaGreen 173.197.107.10 (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am procedurally closing this section, because requests to amend Committee decisions must be submitted at WP:ARCA. This noticeboard is only for the enforcement of sanctions.  Sandstein  08:46, 25 January 2014 (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

Edward321 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

[[116]]

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

By the terms of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question, NinaGreen is specifically "topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed." NinaGreen has made several recent edits to Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit which the article states "The pamphlet is most famous for a passage which appears to allude to William Shakespeare, who was then starting out on his career as an actor and playwright."

1. [117] Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare.
2. [118] Ninagreen re-adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare.
3. [119] Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare for the third time.
4. [120] Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare for the fourth time.
5. [121] Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare for the fifth time.
6. [122] Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare for the sixth time.
7. [123] Ninagreen adds info claiming the pamphlet might be referring to someone other than Shakespeare for the seventh time.
8. [124] Ninagreen mentions that a source is primarily about Shakespeare's Sonnets.
9. [125] Ninagreen does so a second time.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on [126] by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on [127] by Gamaliel (talk · contribs)
3. Warned on [128] by Technical 13 (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

NinaGreen admits the article Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit refers to Shakespeare, but claims that does not violate her topic ban since that text was already in the article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=592260786}

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[129]

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.

Before noticing the material in this section, I added a section below requesting that the topic ban be lifted. It's been in place for three years now, and I've observed it as best I can, but it's impossible for me to know what it actually covers, and consequently I'm in a Catch-22 situation every day on which I edit on Wikipedia. I've made an enormous contribution to Wikipedia over the past year, and have never edited on the Shakespeare authorship issue during that time (which was what the arbitration was about). However the ban is being interpreted erroneously by administrators as covering every Wikipedia article which even touches in the most remote and tangential way on Shakespeare, which is unreasonable and eminently unfair. I look forward to having the topic ban lifted, as it is impossible for me to know which Wikipedia articles it applies to. My editing record speaks for itself. I think any unbiased observer would agree that I'm an asset to Wikipedia, and that an editor who contributes as I do should not be subjected to a indefinite topic ban (after three years have passed!) which is impossible for me to observe because of its huge and indefinite scope. I've not violated the intent of the topic ban in any way, as the arbitration concerned the Shakespeare authorship issue, and I've not edited on the authorship issue in any way. If further clarification is required, just ask. I'll be happy to provide it. NinaGreen

I was uninvolved in this until I happened to see the noticeboard thread, but it looks like an open and shut case. She is topic banned from Shakespeare. She has been warned in the past (August 2013) that editing articles related to Shakespeare was a violation of her topic ban, so a warning here isn't likely to be any more effective than the last one. The edits she made are clearly a violation of the topic ban both in the general (the Groats-Worth is a Shakespeare-related topic "broadly construed" per the wording of the ban) and in the specific (she specifically edited text related to Shakespeare and his works). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I must support block of some duration because (1) the original TBAN was for editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed - and edits such as this flat out falls foul of that TBAN; and (2) the TBAN currently in-place is indefinite, which means the only action appropriate is a block. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The remedy is quite clear - topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed. The only question is the length of the block. Potentially this should be a week but NinaGreen's steadfast refusal to accept the validity of the topic ban makes me think we should just remove her from the project until she agrees to abide by it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no knowledge of or involvement in any conflicts with User:NinaGreen or articles involving the Shakespeare authorship question prior to today's ANI thread. I am, however, reasonably well-informed regarding the relevant scholarship. It seems disingenuous for someone as obviously well-informed about these issues as NinaGreen to claim that Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit, a key piece of evidence for both Shakespearean historiography and the Shakespeare authorship question, is only "peripherally related to Shakespeare" and that Robert Greene (dramatist) is such a "significant author of the period" aside from his connection to Shakespeare. Shakespeare is mentioned in the very first sentence of our article on Greene, and that accurately reflects Greene's significance from the perspective of contemporary scholarship. Also, it is my understanding that The True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of York actually is Henry VI, Part 3, so I'm not sure what to make of this edit of hers. I can only speculate (and please note that this is my speculation, while my previous discussion was based on my understanding of the scholarship) that this is some way of casting doubt that Greene is identifying Shakespeare and thus buttressing the anti-Shakespearean viewpoint in the Shakespearean authorship debate. I am sympathetic to NinaGreen's concerns regarding the scope of the topic ban and her worry that it may discourage positive contributions from her or editors like her. Perhaps the Committee could clarify the topic ban to allow and encourage contributions from her regarding figures who truly are peripheral to Shakespeare, such as Thomas Savage (Shakespeare's trustee) and William Leveson. But her comments today and apparent lack of awareness regarding her problematic behavior convince me that the topic ban should stay in place. Gamaliel (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The request is actionable. Per Wikipedia:ARBSAQ#NinaGreen banned, NinaGreen is "topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, all broadly construed". By editing the article Greene's Groats-Worth of Wit, she has violated this restriction because, as the lead of the article tells us, "the pamphlet is most famous for a passage which appears to allude to William Shakespeare", and the content NinaGreen edited refers to Shakespeare also. Per the enforcement provision, "the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week" for the first three blocks. In consideration of this, and because it is the first infraction, a block of 48 hours appears appropriate. I am blocking NinaGreen accordingly.  Sandstein  09:00, 25 January 2014 (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

Cambalachero (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#Cambalachero-Lecen interaction ban and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#MarshalN20-Lecen interaction ban

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

1. January 23, 2014 Lecen mentions both MarshalN20 and me by name, and requests some unclear action against us. He does not report any actual and tangible violation of any ban.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on November 29, 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs) (actually, it was a previous block for this very same reason)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There is an interaction ban of Lecen with both MarshalN20 and me. He mentions both of us, by name, and requests some unclear action against us (he's not reporting any violation of the bans, nor anything that may affect him somehow). Besides, he is a reincident, he has already been blocked for violation the interaction bans. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#Lecen, for the enforcement discussion that led to his block, and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#Request for amendment (December 2013) for the discussion where the first violation took place. I will point as well some info that may be relevant here.

• Lecen's description of the case is completely inaccurate. As it can be seen in the enforcement discussion, he was not blocked immediately: he did receive explanations of the meaning and extent of his interaction ban, and was blocked only after his refusal to remove the text that was violating it.
• The discussion that led Lecen to complain that the case is "still alive" is located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#Continuous WP:NPA (Casting Aspersions) Violations. It is a discussion between MarshalN20 and Astynax. Lecen is not involved in it, and has no interests at stake to justify ignoring the interaction ban.
• During the previous discussion Lecen mentioned his retirement, and some users blamed me for it. Let me clarify that detail. As I have been checking in histories and archives, Lecen weared the "retired" tag on November 24. MarshalN20's clarification request was opened on November 27, and Lecen made the edit that led to his block on November 28. Thus, his alleged retirement was not caused by the enforcement. He was blocked for one month on November 29, and the block expired on December 29. He began to edit again on January 8 (just mere 10 days afterwards), and removed the "retired" tag on January 15.
• Newyorkbrad says that if Lecen had appealed his block, he may have supported an unblock. Still, the outcome of such appeal belongs in the realm of the speculation, as other arbitrators may have rejected it. With things as they are, Lecen was blocked and the block was not contested, so it must be considered as a precedent for this new violation of the interaction ban.
• As far as I know, a one-month block is the standard block for first violations of bans.

As in the previous case, I'm talking about Lecen here because I consider that the interaction ban has been violated, which is a standard exception to the ban. Cambalachero (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Penwhale: I noticed the edt because the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests is in my watchlist since the original case was proposed in it. Cambalachero (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

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.

What bothers me about this is not that Lecen indirectly mentions Cambalachero & myself (which breaches the WP:IBAN point: "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly"), but rather that WP:ASPERSIONS continues to be broken.

In fact, assuming good faith, Lecen's indirect mentions show no clear intention of breaking his IBAN. For this reason, perhaps only a warning is necessary that any further indirect breaches will result in blocks. Nonetheless, this being stated, Cambalachero's request is justifiable and formal sanctions would be justifiable as well (especially when considering the aspersion casting).

Indeed, the true serious problem here is the aspersion casting (one of the principles of the Argentine history case [130]). Not only is this taking place against Cambalachero and myself, but also against Sandstein (who is accused of "arbitrary use of powers"). Moreover, Lecen mildly insults the Arbitration Committee as well ("Will there be a moment when anyone among the arbitrators will wake up and do something?").

The aspersion casting against Cambalachero and me is already under study (and sanction proposals) at AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive827#Continuous WP:NPA (Casting Aspersions) Violations) for another user. It surprises me that Lecen takes this time to also carry on the torch and continue with the insults. Then again, perhaps it should not be surprising.

However, the unwarranted attacks against Sandstein are not under study at AN/I. To be fair, Lecen is not the only user who has commented negatively on Sandstein. Nevertheless, Lecen's insults have no real justification when considering that Sandstein simply followed protocol and even Lecen's own suggestion to block him (see [131], "I fully agree with Sandstein"). I know that Sandstein has a tough skin, but surely there is a limit to the amount of insults anyone can take from others.

Should Lecen be taken to AN/I for all the aforementioned aspersion casting, or can the enforcement board do something about it?

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's worth pointing out that I filed (and later withdrew) a clarification request at the Arbitration Committee page (which is now archived [132]). Cambalachero was notified of the request. Since I tagged the page on my watchlist, I became aware of Lecen's talk page statement on 24 January. My request was archived 20 hours later (see [133]). Since this is how I became aware of Lecen's statement, it seems logical that Cambalachero became aware of it in the same manner. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It seems to me that Lecen's comments at Arbitration/Requests#Message_for_the_Arbitrators fall under exceptions to limited bans, reasonably interpreted, which include when "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that the original block based on this edit has merit because I quote, Now let's take a look at what Marshal has done in the last month - this portion breaks the IBAN as the request didn't directly deal with Lecen (Lecen is not under TBAN in this area and thus the request normally doesn't affect him). That being said: I believe this request is without merit as the only text in this that refers to MarshalN and Cambalachero were exactly what Lecen wrote on ARCA in the first place - and Lecen is raising concerns on the block due to that. Therefore, from my point of view, this is not a violation of the TBAN. On the flip side, I do not understand how under the IBAN would Cambalachero notice Lecen's edit. @Cambalachero:, can you answer this? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that this is not a violation of the IBAN and so is not actionable in this forum. Cambalachero would have been well advised to ignore Lecen's post as it did not deal directly with him. In fact this seems to have been used as a chance to get the other side blocked rather than to try and stop the behaviour which lead to the sanction. Due to that I recommend that this request be declined. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]