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

2over0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :

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

1. dismisses RexxS 07-05

1. Response: Not a dismissal – this is a detailed response about using WP’s voice to generalize a fact from a narrow set of data that is contradicted by other systematic reviews. Recent discussion on the source in question at Project Medicine supports the position I put forth here. Rexxs had been referring to his expertise in stats earlier and was talking down to me and others. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comment here.

1. "did you not get the memo?" 07-05

2. Response: Context is important – Doc James had just recently started a new thread calling for editors to focus on content and not other editors (that is the “memo” I refer to. Rexxs started into dismissive and insulting rhetoric right after Doc James post. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comment here.

1. dismisses QuackGuru 07-01

3. Response: This is my talk page. After respectfully indulging QG by answering his questions, he repeatedly badgered me unnecessarily. My comment is justified. I make few edits beyond talk page discussions and he had the gall to criticize my few reverts of other editors, while he has reverted the majority of my attempted edits on the article itself. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comment here.

1. "Maybe if you didn't do so many hundreds of edits a day you would clearly remember all this and you wouldn't have to pester me here over this.1" 07-01

4. Response: Again, my talk page. I was being harassed by QG over something that was obvious and minor. The explanation he kept asking for was in an edit summary one edit earlier than a diff he linked to on my own page. I gave a detailed explanation even though I knew he was trolling me. More on that later. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comment here.

1. "my beef is with QG" 06-30

5. Response: Hmm, my post starts with the word “sorry”. Not sure why you picked this one? This is me making peace with Kww, who thought I was insulting him when I was referring to BR. In this post, I also admitted to previously being out of line. Not sure why you think this is a violation. There is nothing wrong with my comment here.

1. dismisses BullRangifer 06-30

6. Response: I was truly out of line on this one. Doc James pointed it out on my talk page and I immediately edited it. I was wrong on this one for sure, both because I misunderstood the policy on reverting socks, and more for the uncivil tone and undeserved assumptions about Brangifer.

1. battleground mentality 06-30

7. Response: QG makes many changes to the article (including a recent misrepresentation of Ernst 2011 that was found by several neutral editors at project medicine). The context here is that Middle8 had just done quite a few valuable edits and QG recommended reverting to a version before those edits occurred. At the time, I believed this was an attempt to eliminate another editor’s work in a sneaky way. I could have AGF’d more.

1. "Are you just randomly linking to make it look like you are making cogent points?" 06-27

8. Response: I truly did not understand what QG was getting at with all those links. See my talk page for more lists of links that seem to be intended to look like damning evidence but really just seem random. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my comments here.

1. You are doing this because several of us have disagreed with your recent work and you want to sneak around us by undoing everything that has been done. That's edit warring. I have no reason to believe you are doing this in good faith." 06-27

9. Response: This again is about the massive revert QG was proposing. I still do not understand why it was necessary, just undo the SP’s edits and you don’t have to go through the trouble of restoring the more voluminous good edits that occurred since the problematic edits began. Perhaps I could have AGF’d more, but QG has in my opinion made many dubious edits.

1. edit warring 06-27

10. Response: QG was doing original research and identified the Vickers systematic review as a “fringe” and “unreliable source” and labeled its conclusions as “POV” in the article. I removed it, correctly. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my edit here.

1. "the POV summaries the QG is always cooking up" 06-26

11. Response: I fully stand behind this comment. QG often cherry picks the negatives out of mixed reviews and words the conclusions as seeming more definite and generalizable than they really are in the literature. I was pointing out the need to present the facts rather than a POV take on the facts. There is nothing wrong with my edit here.

1. edit warring 06-25

12. Response: I was restoring sourced text. Roxy had removed it because it had been supported by “fringe pushers”. Roxy’s edit summary had no merit, so I reverted it. There is nothing wrong with my edit here (read my edit summary for my reversion), though I have more recently argued for greater attribution of findings like these so it would have been better if I made the text more accurate (contextualized the finding) rather than restoring an overly-generalized statement.

1. edit warring 06-25

13. Response: Same issue as #12 above

1. "Just use the actual friggin numbers ... Sheesh" 06-24

14. Response: My suggestion here is to stick closer to the source. QG is accusing people of sock puppetry and edit warring right after coming back form a short topic ban. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my edit here.

1. "Wow you did it again" (in reference to Alexbrn) 06-16

15. Response: This was actually me PRAISING Alexbrn for introducing me to something I was unfamiliar with (the second time is a short period). Why is this included here? There is nothing wrong with my edit here.

1. characterizes an article as a "hit list", battleground/dismissive with Roxy the dog 06-16

16. Response: I was not the first to suggest that article had issues. I did not dismiss Roxy, I pointed out that Roxy referred to all the subjects on the list as “this kind of nonsense”. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my edit here. I dropped the issue after Alexbrn showed me that someone had unsuccessfully nominated the article for deletion in the past.

1. "Really, this article is just a list of things a majority of WP editors don't like or understand." 06-15

17. Response: Same as above

1. dismisses Jytdog 06-07

18. Response: That's not a dismissal – look at the whole thread. I clearly answered JYTdog‘s questions, with follow-up clarifications, and then he acted perplexed and made assumptions about me wanting to present pro-woo equally in weight to anti-woo. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with my edit here.

1. accuses Adam Cuerden of bad faith 06-07

19. Response: I did not accuse Adam of bad faith. I gave a 3-part explanation of my stance. I argue against the proposition that more accuracy (attribution) = weasel wording. I react to the common wikilawering technique of “our hands are tied, we have to do it this way because of policy”. My wording could have been nicer, but it was not uncivil.

1. accuses "most people editing" of bad faith 06-05

20. Response: Poorly worded, but this is a response on my own user talk page discussing what I perceive as a general bias in WP. I did not accuse “everyone” of bad faith, just made an assumption. Again, on my own talk page.

1. dismisses Jytdog 06-05

21. Response: That’s not a dismissal, it is an in-depth content discussion. And I am quite even-handed in this one.

1. battleground, accusation of "bullying" 05-27

22. Response: This is me pointing out what I perceive to be double standards – many editors bite me and others regularly, but QG gets away with edit warring all the time. QG did finally get topic banned for a bit, but nobody reprimanded him for misrepresenting sources in the recent project med discussion. I shouldn’t have referred to Brangifers critique as “bullying” though, so I apologize for that.

1. "Your second post doesn't make a lick of fucking sense at all." 05-27

23. Response: I shouldn’t have sworn, but the post was a non-sequiter.

1. battleground 05-24

24. Response: I clearly must have mis-read something here because Zad and QG actually engaged the suggestion rather than dismissing it. I should have AGF’d better, but I was not uncivil.

1. "quack crusaders ... You guys (particularly QG, PPdd, DV, Roxy and Tippy) are just full of blood-lust and a desire to bury any alt-med subject." 05-22

Response: My point here is just let the article state the facts. The authors I name in that post are POV pushers, three of which have found themselves topic banned in the past, and Roxy has been warned on her talk page for unhelpful attacks on other editors. Perhaps this is a failure to AGF, but I have good reasons.

1. dismisses JzG as a "religious fundamentalist" 05-14

26. Response: I characterized the stance, not the editor. Please read the whole talk page entry. I do not believe there is anything wrong with my post here.

1. "Are you just choosing to ignore all other editors on these pages?" 05-09

27. Response: He was, and he did it again at project medicine discussion about his mis-read (and misrepresentation) of Ernst 2011. How can we generate consensus if some editors don’t even listen to the opinions of impartial editors that are asked to look at it with fresh eyes? I do not believe there is anything wrong with my post here.

1. "You are just full of it ... Are you capable of thought and consideration? 05-09

28. Response: Ok I clearly lost my cool a little bit. But look at what I’m reacting to – one problematic edit and he labels it “mass MEDRS violations” and wanted to undo other, well-sourced edits by doing a mass revert – others called him on it too.

1. jeez louise yet again ... Your ownership delusion is out of control." 05-07

29. Response: Read the whole exchange. I do not believe there is anything wrong with my post here, though I should have said “behavior” rather than “delusion”.

1. "Buzz off" 04-30

30. Response: Again, my talk page, and I am being told not to revert by someone that reverts most of my edits. Completely justified, and its on my own talk page.

1. accuses Alexbrn of editing in bad faith 04-13

31. Response: We he actually did it again, jumping on board with QG and Rexxs’ incorrect reading of Ernst 2011 (see discussion “acupuncture again” at project medicine). In the previous dispute with Tippy, Alexbr eventually walked his endorsement of their misrepresentation of sources back a bit. People accuse me of POV pushing all the time, but read my response. Maybe I shouldn’t assume what Alexbrn is thinking, but like Roxy, he regularly attacks me as a COI fringe pusher. I should get to fight back a little bit, especially when they are ignoring my correct reading of a source because they consider me a POV pusher.

1. "jeez louise ... You troll much? 04-13

32. Repsonse: Read QG’s question and look at the context its in, he was clearly trolling me. I asked him if it was a sincere question, just to be sure. It wasn’t. My comment was justified.

1. dismisses Second Quantization 03-11
2. edit warring / accusation of editing in bad faith 03-08

34. Response: I accused him of misrepresenting the source, which he has done more than once. This is about accurately reflecting the cited source. I do not know if it is willful misrepresentation, or lack of ability to read a scientific paper. I did not say it was willful in this post.

1. accuses Roxy the dog of editing in bad faith 01-09

35. Response: Please read the whole thread. Roxy is off-topic and out of line, as Roxy usually is. Roxy does not believe that Roxy has a strong POV and bias, and I am trying to point out that Roxy's rhetoric is evidence of this. I did not say that Roxy is disingenuous here, only that her bias is very clear and comments were inappropriate.

1. accuses BullRangifer of editing in bad faith 12-29

36. Response: I do not see an accusation of bad faith here, or even a dismissal. This is an "in the weeds" discussion of how to read and interpret scientific evidence.

1. insinuates without evidence that QuackGuru is a meth-smoking basement troll sockmaster 12-28

37. Response: Please read what I actually wrote. I would need to quit my job and smoke meth in order to edit at the pace QG does. That is different than suggesting he is a "basement troll" who smokes meth. Yes, I suggested his behavior is very similar to editor PPdd in this and one or two other talk page posts. In contrast, QG actually opened an official sock puppet investigation into me and 2 other editors that disagree with many of his edits - so which is worse?

1. "do you need some ether to wake up from your swoon Betty? ... Again with the over-the-top drama-Queen rhetoric." 12-28

38. Response: Bullrangifer actually had just accused A1candidate of malpractice and being a charlatan, and made assumptions about that editor's understanding of scientific literature. It was off-topic and uncalled for. I called him on it. My rhetoric was over the top, but was a fitting retort given the atmosphere BR had just created.

1. "for fuck's sake" 12-27

39: Response: Rude use of words but a heavy emphasis was needed for the misunderstanding that was being used to justify a weight problem in relation to Ernst as the "only" reliable expert on the field of acupuncture.

1. describes the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry as racist 12-24

40. Response: No, I characterized their report as racist. Perhaps "inappropriately ethnocentric" would have been more accurate. Read the whole thread for the explanation. At least one other editor read it the same way.

1. battleground 12-23

41. Response: I do not believe this should be characterized as "battleground", especially when I start with: " I agree that as an encyclopedia we must include multiple sources of information from multiple points of view, and appreciate your acknowledgment of a lack of acceptance of what "mainstream" means." Yes, I do go on to suggest that skeptics have a POV and favorite sources, but this is in the context of people making the argument that Ernst and Quackwatch are the ONLY reliable sources in alt med articles. In my post I draw a connection between this and "special pleading" - which is what many editors have labeled my arguments that there are multiple ways to view any phenomenon.

1. frustrated 12-14

42: My comment here is totally on-point and accurate. BR has taken shreds of evidence and generalized them into universal truths to discredit a whole system of medicine. I may be frustrated, but for good reason.

1. accuses fellow editors of bad faith 12-12

43: Response: How in the world is this an accusation of editing in bad faith? This is me basically saying "lets agree on what kind of sources are acceptable" instead of shifting the rules whenever its convenient. The systematic review by Vickers was under attack by skeptic editors because Ernst disagreed with its findings. Its not WP's job to say "well Ernst doesn't like that systematic review published in a respected peer reviewed journal, therefore it must not be reliable and we shouldn't use it" - I stand behind this post 100%.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Herbxue is a single purpose tendentious account who edits solely to promote Traditional Chinese Medicine, a system they practice, and is frequently frustrated with many different editors and with the collegiality requirements of editing here. This is a long-existing problem that shows no signs of resolving; a talkpage requirement would not be effective at curbing this behavior, though it would at least stop the revert-warring. Nearly every day that Herbxue is active provides a new example. There appears not to have been a formally logged notification of the sanctions, but Hipocrite (talk · contribs) gave notice here and Herbxue is well aware of the toxic editing environment on alternative medicine topics. Please note that while I am not involved in this particular dispute, I hold myself WP:INVOLVED on all pseudoscience topics. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein below - I do not want to mess with Herbxue's responses above, so I am not sure the best way to reformat this. Sorry about the excess of links - either the 20 link limit is newish or I just never paid attention to it when I was working this board. "Dismisses Second Quantization" is an example of Herbxue being dismissive toward their fellow editors, a recurrent problem. The edit warring links are part of a pattern of instigating and participating in edit wars per WP:EW, not the nice easy classic 3RR problem; context is important. There are certainly other problems surrounding this family of articles, and if someone wants to step in and take a look that would be good. As noted in my opening statement, Herbxue is aware of the sanctions but has never been formally notified or added to the log. That is probably all that is necessary at this juncture, though if the behaviors continue a topic ban of some length would be in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

First of all, there is no excuse for the swearing and some of the rude comments and I take full responsibility for those and have apologized or agreed to edit myself on most occasions.

However, I believe my edit history has been largely mischaracterized above. I will respond in greater detail later. For an example, look at the way my accuser words the "meth" comment above, then read my actual talk page entry.

Almost all of my contributions are talk page comments and almost all are civil, in good faith, and are sincere attempts to inform the discussion on sources and context.

The very few article mainspace edit conflicts I have engaged in have been about serious content issues, and my reading on the sources in question has been validated by impartial editors and has lead to article improvements (or at least avoiding unethical misuse of sources) on multiple occasions. When a compromise is offered, I always take it and settle.

I will write more detailed responses later, but I urge anyone passing judgements to view my posts in the full context of the talk page discussions and sources they were prompted by. Also, read my talk page to see how my initial good faith attempts to satisfy questions or concerns often get ignored or misunderstood.Herbxue (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added some comments on individual diffs above. I did not have time to go through all of them, but could at a later time. Again, please read the context each talk page comment comes out of. Also note, many are my own talk page.Herbxue (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the remaining diffs presented as evidence of my tendentious editing. In summary, I have been rude and/or used swear words in several article talk page posts and a couple edit summaries. I have previously apologized for that clearly inappropriate behavior in my first response to this arbitration enforcement request above. The lesson of this is not lost on me - I realize that the collegial atmosphere is essential to getting anything done here, and I have no intention on being known as someone who swears and gets mad all the time.

I do take issue, however, with the characterization that I am a tendentious and POV-pushing editor who is here to only "promote" traditional Chinese medicine. Yes, I am a TCM practitioner and I regularly butt heads with those that seek to discredit it (by over generalizing or otherwise misrepresenting sources, or using inappropriate sources). I do not believe that I have a COI any more than Doc James has a COI in various medicine related articles. The assumption that my situation is different than his is insulting, and holding that assumption requires believing that I am a charlatan or someone who intends to deceive. I teach hundreds of individuals every week who are sincerely seeking to help other people by tapping into a different way of looking at physiology and treatment options. They have zero interest in deceiving people, and if they did, they wouldn't choose TCM as it is simply not a very lucrative profession. They go to school for 4 years to earn a masters degree, knowing full-well that their practices are not fully accepted by mainstream medicine. Why? Perhaps we are all naive, or overly enamored with cosmological or esoteric ideas. That is very possible. But even Ernst pointed out that the majority of recent systematic reviews seem to indicate that acupuncture is an effective and safe form of therapy.

Edit warring has some specific definitions, and I do not believe I have run afoul of them. The only times I have maintained an argument for a significant time, they have been legitimate content issues, and while it has taken some time, impartial editors have come in and read the source the way I understood it. When those on the other side of the argument proposed compromise wording (usually attributing the text within the paragraph) I have accepted the compromise. As noted above in response to the diffs, I stand behind my positions on content and source issues.

If a warning about civility were the outcome of this arbitration enforcement request, I would take that warning very seriously. I did not realize just how much I had made rude comments in the past.

I have just read Lord Roem's suggestion of a 3-6 month topic ban below. Honestly, I do not believe such a severe ban is warranted. For context, when skeptic editor Quack Guru was found to be edit warring, he was given a much shorter topic ban, and after returning argued to keep an edit that clearly misrepresented the source it was attributed to. Is swearing at people a more serious offense than misrepresenting sources? Certainly incivility is a serious issue and I take full responsibility for it, but to characterize my behavior as edit warring is a reach, and in my opinion borders on censorship of a minority opinion. I would urge you to look more narrowly at article edits rather than talk page edits. In terms of talk page edits, the most egregious one, pointed out by 2over0 and highlighted by Lord Roem, was quickly edited by me when the civility issue was raised by Doc James. As Lord Roem points out, the atmosphere at these articles is tense, brought on by strong opinions on all sides. I again appeal to you to view each comment in the context it comes from.Herbxue (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the discretionary sanctions, I had not paid much attention to that notice in May as it was regarding the editing of "pseudoscience". Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine are not mentioned (chiropractic and homeopathy are). Also, I am not listed in the log (others who edit acupuncture are). My point is, it was not clear to me that I was subject to that sanction as I am not active at "pseudoscience". Seems to me a clearer warning would be in order before something so heavy as a topic ban, especially considering my issue is mainly a civility one and not edit warring. At this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience it says:

14) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

I am not sure an actual warning was made, just a general notification that said: "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date."

Thanks for considering.Herbxue (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: About your question to 2/0, user:Second Quantization is an editor. 2/0 wasn't accusing Herbxue of dismissing the theory of Second quantization.  ;) Cardamon (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2/0 was referring to this diff in his list: [1], (previously IRWolfie-) Second Quantization (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Herbxue: In answer to this comment: The discretionary sanctions notification given to you on May 7 was in proper form. If you continue to edit in the topic areas covered by WP:ARBPS it is assumed that you will read all the links given to you in the notice. Failure to read the links is not an excuse. Both Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine are included in Category:Pseudoscience. In fact, Acupuncture and Alternative medicine are included among the example topics at the bottom of our Pseudoscience article. Ever since Arbcom's motion of May 3, discretionary sanctions alerts are not logged in the related Arbcom case. They are flagged by the edit filter, which shows that a message was left for you with the tag 'Discretionary sanctions alert' on May 7. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Awaiting a response from Herbxue, though a cursory look through the statement above demonstrates this is a serious issue. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 2over0, can you please edit your request to make it more concise and understandable? For instance, you should limit yourself to about 20 diffs, and explain better what it is you think is bad about them. For example, "dismisses Second Quantization" is not a useful description because even if I knew what Second Quantization is, this does not make me understand how this amounts to a violation of Wikipedia's rules of conduct. Also, evidence of edit-warring should consist of multiple diffs that explain how the edit war happened (e.g., first revert on "Acupuncture", second revert 2 h later, third revert 4 h later), but individual diffs with the text "edit warring" are, to me, pretty much useless as evidence. Finally, you must cite the specific remedy you wish us to enforce, and if you request discretionary sanctions, you must show how Herbxue was previously aware of them, as described in WP:AC/DS.  Sandstein  06:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @2over0: If you do not amend your request as requested above within 24 hours, I will close it without action.  Sandstein  13:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• After a more in-depth review of the evidence above, I'm convinced that Herbxue's behavior on Pseudoscience topics is disruptive enough to merit a short topic ban. As early as December of last year, there's evidence of their uncivil behavior on these pages. Herbxue explains a point they make in the midst of conversation but then finishes their comment with completely unnecessary cursing. ([2]) This isn't to say saying 'fuck' is the issue, but seen against the broader pattern of behavior, Herbxue appears easily brought to frustration and personal attacks. For example, in April, "You have got to be kidding me! I think you need a break. Your ownership delusion is out of control." ([3]) ([4]) In one edit summary, they write, "wow, do you need some ether to wake up from your swoon Betty?" which Herbxue defends above as a "fitting retort." Looking at the context of most of these discussions, it's clear the environment Herbxue's editing in is far from calm and civil on all sides (see context of this edit). But, that doesn't excuse these disruptive comments. They were notified of DS in May, with clearly no change in behavior (see this edit last month). I propose a 3-6 month topic ban. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally agreed, but I'm not sure that these edits on their own warrant a sanction of this scope. But imposing it would be within admin discretion, so I'm not opposing the sanction.  Sandstein  11:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with User:Lord Roem that a topic ban of Herbxue is justified per the data he reviewed. I would suggest a duration of six months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 15 July 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

Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sue Rangell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Discretionary sanctions :

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

1. 11:37, 5 July 2014 Breaks expectations for Decorum described at Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors
2. 11:45, 5 July 2014 Breaks expectations for Decorum described at Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors
3. 12:41, 12 July 2014 Breaks WP:PA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor."
4. 13:05, 12 July 2014 Breaks Purpose of Wikipedia, Neutral point of view, Battleground conduct, and Seeking community input. (Among other edits, two whole sections, that had been in the article for months, were removed. That content added WP:BALASPS to the article and answered two questions a Wikipedia might ask: Why was this law passed? And was it ever challenged in court?)
5. 13:16, 12 July 2014] Breaks Neutral point of view, and, although the edit summary includes "Let's discuss," the content "Replaced" has been discussed in the recent past - without consensus to keep. In fact, the "Germany" section is part of what started the long war that lead to the ArbCom case that left multiple pro-gun editors topic banned, some other editors warned (though neither Sue nor I were involved parties), and discretionary sanctions being placed on articles related to gun control!
6. 13;40, 12 July 2014 Breaks Avoid inappropriate summaries. (Sue makes old allegation of "PUSH"; Battleground conduct: furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.)
7. 13:46, 12 July 2014 Breaks Avoid inappropriate summaries. (Sue removes sourced content with misleading edit summary and without community input.)
8. 13:47, 12 July 2014 Breaks Avoid vagueness. (Sue removes sourced content with misleading edit summary and without community input.)
9. 18:55, 12 July 2014 Breaks expectations for Decorum described at Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 15:08, 20 January 2013 Rollback rights removed for failure to properly understand the meaning of "vandalism".

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

• Participated in recent ArbCom with comments, statements. Has participated in a previous ARE here. Has recently edited articles that have a discretionary sanctions notice at the top of their talk pages.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

She took me to ANI for "vandalism" once and it almost boomeranged on her.[5]) This is related to old "sanction" above (removal of rollback rights) because she appears to see at least some of my work as "vandalism," which no one has ever agreed with.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here: [6]

@Lightbreather: "But I want to ask, what personal information does an editor with account creator rights have access to?" Users involved in the account creation process with the Account Creator flag Do not have any more access to private information than a user without the flag. The flag allows users to create accounts pass the "six per twenty four hour period" limit and are also able to create accounts which trip the anti-spoofing and titleblack list checks. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, pulled into yet another waste of time by Lightbreather. This is exactly why I do not edit where she edits, and in my very humble opinion, exactly why she was topic banned. I really don't have anything to say here. If somebody has a serious question, I'm happy to answer, otherwise I think this request is pretty much self-defeating. Be well, everyone. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one of the topic-banned pro-gun editors is harassing me. Perhaps someone who's not been involved in these disputes. But I want to ask, what personal information does an editor with account creator rights have access to? I will be happy to provide diffs in addition to the ones I gave above, and I'll spend the rest of the day getting a few to support the comments that I just made. Thanks, as always, for your time.

Looks more like a fishing expedition than anything else. LB has a quite significant proportion of her total edits on the Gun articles, AFAICT well over 40% of total edits, with another 10% in user space mainly on the same topic, not even counting project space edits on the same topic. SR has about 5% of her edits on that topic.

Thus the implication that SR is a SPA in any sense on the gun issue, or that she is behind a mysterious IP threat is not gonna get a particularly strong response here, and the fact is the OP has, to put it charitably, misstated his "case" if one looks at the offending diffs she has posted. Collect (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LB -- I did not refer to numbers but to percentages. If you made proportionately the same number of "gnome edits" on many other topics, I suggest you would not be at over 50% on one topic. In my honest opinion, a person who devotes more than half of all his edits to a single topic - even if they are "gnome edits" which is problematic looking at them, is likely to be excessively interested in that single main topic. As for a "degree in journalism" - that and $4 will buy you a latte at Starbucks. Maybe. Collect (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is OK, I will place my replies to individuals here. (The way I did replies in the Scal ARE was confusing.)

@Mlpearc: Thanks for the info about account creation rights. Lightbreather (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sue Rangell: Listen, could you please not talk to and about me like that. If we worked in the same office and I was standing in the room with you, would you talk to or about me like that? Lightbreather (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Of course, you and any other admins who will decide this request are the ones that I most wish to understand me. My frustration right now reminds me of that I felt when I was a new editor to gun-control and in a "discussion" with about 10-12 experienced editors using jargon I'd never heard and referring to processes I knew nothing about. I learned pretty fast, but I guess I'm not doing as well with this enforcement request process. I almost feel like ones needs to be or know a lawyer to edit here. I've read the instructions up-top repeatedly, not to mention the ones you're given when you actually hit "Click here" and start working on the form.

I thought I was pointing to the correct "sanctions" above, based on the Principles highlighted in the ArbCom's Final decision, but I guess I didn't. Although the diffs themselves won't change, I'll try to figure out what exact "sanctions" language I should be citing. Also, I would be happy to lop off about 80% of my comments above, if someone would please enforce the Decorum guidance and remove the insults and character assassination. I'll say what I've said many times: I'll be happy to respond to evidence that is brought against me, but it's hard to respond to "Great, another waste of my time, "Looks like a fishing expedition," and "LB was showing CRUSH behavior." Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod: First, I absolutely disagree that the question I asked at the diff you gave is accusatory or sexist, unless maybe if you take it out of the context in which it was presented. Considering the blackeye WP has received for its 85% male make-up, it is a question that admins and higher-level WP management should be asking themselves. As for your saying that Sue and I "share the same outlook," and Sue saying that she and I are on the same side (or something to that effect), her edit history gives clear evidence to the contrary. However, that's not the problem. The problems are the aggressive reverts and the personal revtalk and talk-page comments:

• Revtalk POV/Pushing:[7]- misleading, too [8][9]-incorrect analysis [10]-misleading [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
• Revtalk Ownership:[20][21][22][23]
• Revtalk SPA:[24][25][26][27]
• Revtalk Vandalism:[28] At ArbCom, Sue mentioned that I was taken to ANI for vandalism - but not it was she who took me there, or that it was judged that my edits were not vandalism, or that the allegation almost boomeranged on her.[29]
• Other revtalk lectures naming me:[30][31]
• Revtalk ("No you stop") and comments to TParis [32] after he asked her to stop hounding me.[33] I know admins don't need to be treated like gods, but wow! Lightbreather (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned it here and on this article's talk page, but would someone please remove the comments of Collect and Capitalismojo from this discussion? They're only "evidence" that these editors have a poor opinion of me, and they're examples of what I have been experiencing since I was a newbie on WP last August. In fact, Sue's comments here are ad hominem, too, though I think they should stand as evidence of the kind of comments she makes to me over and over and over again regardless of the forum, and without evidence. (Meanwhile, I bite my tongue and bend over backward to keep my responses civil and to provide ample evidence, and Sue has found a way to give that an offensive label - based on an essay; she calls it "crush" behavior.)

Once an editor is labeled as something - SPA, vandal, "crusher," "pusher," whatever (and Sue has called me all of these things, repeatedly, on as many pages as she could) - regardless of whether any evidence ever accompanies the allegations (it didn't) or whether anyone was ever sanctioned for any misconduct (until recently, I wasn't), it seems to follow her/him around regardless of how many times you ask others to either 1. Provide evidence, 2. Stop using the label, or 3. Take it to the proper forum. It is not WP:5P to call other editors names and make allegations of poor conduct over and over again without evidence.

Even if my efforts to get others to stop doing this in edit summaries and on other talk pages has failed, surely here, where DS Decorum says, "Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted; and may remove statements, or restrict or block editors, as necessary to address inappropriate conduct" you could, please, honor this request. I have mentioned it elsewhere, but I believe one reason many women avoid or leave WP is because these kinds of attacks are, from my experience and observation, routine. Lightbreather (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reply to EdJohnston's request. I will focus on "Diffs of edits" number 4.

One of the things that came up last fall while there were a lot of disputes on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban page is that the article had no section explaining the background of the ban. Why was the ban proposed and passed? I developed numerous versions of a background section, which most of the editors weren't opposed to in principal. I sought a lot of input from other editors in developing the section. On March 14, I added the Background section [34] and Gaijin42, a pro-gun editor, tweaked it to his liking.[35] Then Sue made a series of edits, including removing one whole paragraph [36] that was key to the ban's background per numerous high-quality sources. Gaijin42 helped me restore and keep the content [37][38] The content stayed there until July 12, right after my topic ban was proposed, when she deleted the whole section [39] (and another one I'd added - without opposition by or conflict from other editors - about Legal challenges[40]) with the edit summary "Various fixes and restorations". If that isn't evidence of vindictive editing - hidden behind a misleading edit summary - what is it?

If she's willing, I think my old mentor, StarryGrandma, could add some evidence of Sue Rangell's not WP:5P behavior, though considering some of the things Sue has said to SG, I wouldn't blame her for declining. Lightbreather (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston et al, considering the months of anguish Sue has caused me, and the damage to my reputation without evidence, I'd hoped she would be topic banned along with Scalhotrod and myself, but it is a huge relief to know that at least she is on Admin radar and warned. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't know if there's a place to give feedback on this process, but I think that more emphasis should be put on one aspect of the "How to file a request" instructions at the top of this page: Conduct on this page says: Most editors under Arbitration Committee sanctions are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still assume good faith. Arbitration Committee decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Messages posted here that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be redacted and may be deleted.

I think if there were an announcement that Admins were going to start coming down hard on the kinds of behaviors below "Counterargument" on the WP:TALKNO pyramid, there would quickly be a Wiki-wide improvement in civility. ("Egregious" here, I hope, doesn't mean you have to call someone a four-letter word or make your-mama remarks. That's a bar you'd set for a locker room, not a board room.) Lightbreather (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it must be painful to be topic banned. One would like to respond to those who are seen to have argued against you. This request seems to me to be an effort to retaliate against someone who criticized the OP during an ARE debate. Sue Rangell stated that she felt that LB was showing WP:CRUSH behavior, and that LB's editing had caused her to avoid all areas (guns) where LB was editing. Though I did not participate in that ARE discussion, I feel the same and also have striven to avoid this editor's area. Apparently uninvolved admins believed that there was something to this as well, if the ban is any indication. I would suggest that the OP take a deep breath, withdraw the complaint, and contemplate a more collegial approach during the term of the topic-ban. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were seriously warned by an admin then and you have been topic-banned now. That banning was not done by admins without thought and without the "proof" you say that no one has provided. Many editors and admins have attempted to give suggestions and guidance, it hasn't helped yet but perhaps this time off will allow you to consider. Sue agrees with you philosophically and you have driven her (and others) from an entire area of the project. Your response to being topic-banned is now apparently to lash out against her for sharing her concerns. I don't find that helpful, nor do I see much value in this Request. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, having just been the subject of a previous process like this and also accused by Lightbreather, Sue Rangell and I have edited many of the same articles, had discussions on Talk pages, and have been able to find common ground and find consensus on content pretty much every time. As stated previously, SR and LB share the same outlook, but only LB seems to have difficulty in working within the WP Community. I feel this speak volumes about LB's attitude towards Wikipedia. Obviously I do not have the perspective that LB has of the situation, but I have never felt the need to make accusatory (and somewhat sexist) comments about the Editors or Admins as was done here. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sue Rangell does not require a DS notice for Gun Control because she participated earlier this month in the Scalhotrod AE case.

Many people are aware that Lighbreather and Sue Rangell don't like each other. At first glance the behavior of the two editors on talk pages seems comparable. Short of an actual block for personal attacks, it's not obvious what can be done about that. Some of LightBreather's complaints appear random. It is unclear what a recent request for Rollback (now successful) would have to do with Sue Rangell's editing of Gun Control articles. If we were to go through this page and throw out everything that is off topic it might shrink to 20% of its size. I would suggest we take no action on this unless Lightbreather can boil down this report to verifiable examples of sanctionable misconduct on articles. In her list, only #4 through #9 are edits of articles. Perhaps she can explain how these constitute edits which are not allowed under the Gun Control decision. If she herself reverted any of these changes, that could be mentioned. And she could link to any talk page discussions she herself participated in about these changes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the same mind as Ed, only seeing some frustration with LB on Sue's part; not seeing (with the evidence presented so far) the type of disruptive behavior in cases that usually lead to topic bans. Unless there's something more, I'd concur with closing this with no action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am under the impression that user under TBAN is not allowed to raise issue in the area that does not directly involve them, i.e., I don't think LB actually can make this request. Under this, I would completely throw this out (which is a stronger position than close without action). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case, the admin who imposed the topic ban exempted this request from the topic ban because it was made immediately prior to the imposition of the ban. The request may therefore be processed. On the merits, I see a higher-than-acceptable level of personal animosity in the edits by Sue Rangell in evidence, and I would warn Sue Rangell that she may be made subject to sanctions if she continues to focus on contributors rather than content in this manner. I do not think that sanctions beyond this warning are required now, if only, as a practical matter, because the mutual animosity isn't likely to flare up again soon now that Lightbreather has been topic-banned.  Sandstein  15:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• LB, I think it's possible the diff you have above was vindictive based on your history with her, but even if that were the case I'm not seeing enough to warrant anything more than what's suggested above. I would warn Sue Rangell as Sandstein suggests and will close this with such a result unless there's some additional comments by other admins within the next 24-48 hours. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the proposal to close without action, though I find some of Sue Rangell's comments disturbing. If the incivility continues and the the problem comes back to AE I imagine that some kind of gun-control topic ban will be discussed next time. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Khabboos (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, imposed at [[41]] and [[42]]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notified here

It has been three and a half months since I was topic banned (please see the link provided above). I am appealing that my TBan be lifted again now after a month based on the advice given to appeal again in a month when I appealed the last time here. If you admins see my contributions, you can observe that I have first discussed my edits on the Talk Page everytime, before editing the article. I therefore request you admins to lift my Topic Ban.

TenOfAllTrades, a discussion on the Talk page of an unrelated topic shouldn't be brought up here (we're discussing my TBan with respect to religion and ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan)!—Khabboos (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:GAB, I read, "that (the blocked user must appeal that) the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead", so let me admit that I was blocked for citing a reference that did not say the same thing as the sentence I added to a wikipedia article, I promise not to repeat it again (I haven't ever repeated it after my TBan) and I will make productive contributions. If you admins see my contributions, you can observe that I have first discussed my edits on the Talk Page everytime, before editing the article. I therefore request you admins to lift my Topic Ban.—Khabboos (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, I've replied at the SPI on Khabboos (re User:Saharadess); that isn't me!An SPI clerk has checked and found that it is not me and closed the case.—Khabboos (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last unsuccessful appeal was a month ago, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive151#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Khabboos. Because this appeal does not address the reason for the ban, and does not explain in any detail what has changed since the last appeal, and also in view of the concerns voiced in the statement below, I am not confident that problems with original research, misuse of sources and non-neutral editing will not reoccur if the ban is lifted. I therefore recommend that the appeal is declined and that the frequency of future appeals is restricted.  Sandstein  18:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm 'involved' in the weighty, Wikipedia-specific way or not, but I'll add my remarks in this section to avoid any distracting debate. I have had no interactions with Khabboos on articles related to India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, and I can confidently say that I have no idea what his past disputes were about, or which 'side' he happened to be on. To my recollection I've never made any significant contributions in the area covered by his current topic ban.

Where I have encountered Khabboos is in the area of homeopathy, chiropractic, and other fringe medical therapies. As near as I can tell, within a few days of being topic banned from one contentious area – India et al. – Khabboos jumped in with both feet to another. His very first substantive edits after the close of his last topic-ban discussion were to begin posting long lists of dozens of references onto Talk:Homeopathy: [43], [44], [45], [46] (There are more consecutive diffs; I just got tired of copying at that point). It was obvious that he had not read the references he named, and that they were simply copy-pasted from other websites (which he did without attribution to the original sources). He proposed no specific edits, just made repeated, poorly-argued demands that negative, well-sourced descriptions of homeopathy be removed from the article.

Efforts were made to return him to the straight and narrow, but the lists of unread, contextless references were back again a couple of weeks later: [47]. The discussion at Talk:Homeopathy#WP:MEDRS (and elsewhere on that page) pretty clearly illustrates the issue. I officially notified Khabboos that discretionary sanctions applied to homeopathy and related articles on June 4 ([48]), and he received a final warning on July 8: [49].

He has noted that his primary purpose in editing these articles was to build up a track record to support this topic ban appeal: [50]. If this is what he does when he's on his best behavior, I have grave doubts about what would happen if his editing restrictions were relaxed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, these edits, posted a few minutes ago while I was writing the above comment, capture an essential problem with Khabboos' attitude:

"A discussion on a Talk Page doesn't break any rules, does it? I haven't even indulged in an edit war here!—Khabboos (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

At this point, I really can't tell whether he's just being disingenuous, or if he truly can't grasp the notion that it's possible for conduct on a talk page to be disruptive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Based on the evidence in the statements above, I would decline this appeal and limit their ability to file further appeals for some period, perhaps six months or longer (based on other topic-ban timeframes). --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Less than a month has gone by since Khaboos's last appeal at AE. I agree that this appeal should be declined and that Khabboos should not be allowed to file further appeals more often than once every six months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with decline per my comments on their user talk. Zad68 21:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that this request doesn't adequately address the requirements listed in WP:GAB which is what I said Khabboos needed to show. That is, the reason the sanction was necessary and imposed (a reflection on their behaviour), and why with evidence it isn't required any more. I would also support a restriction that they not appeal again for at least six months. Also, for disclosure, I've filed an SPI on Khabboos (re User:Saharadess); I'm not convinced it's Khabboos but the evidence is too much to ignore. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 14 July 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

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision :

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience :

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

IP files a Request for Clarification of arbitration ruling: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&diff=616739574&oldid=616719355 Please note that, because an RFC is in progress as to the pseudo-science status of Cold fusion, this filing was an attempt to game the system by asking the arbitrators to bypass consensus.

IP removes a discussion of editing by IP addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACold_fusion&diff=617100203&oldid=617090622

Chaheel Riens restores it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACold_fusion&diff=617103815&oldid=617100203

IP collapses the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACold_fusion&diff=617109665&oldid=617106497

Administrator Binksternet states: "Please do not hide the discussion": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACold_fusion&diff=617110112&oldid=617109665

IP hides the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACold_fusion&diff=617110112&oldid=617109665

Filing party unhides discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACold_fusion&diff=617116627&oldid=617116416

IP rebukes filing party on talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&diff=617117157&oldid=616790408

IP collapses the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACold_fusion&diff=617117185&oldid=617116627

Jim1138 restores the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACold_fusion&diff=617117389&oldid=617117185

IP collapses the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACold_fusion&diff=617117618&oldid=617117389

Jim1138 restores the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACold_fusion&diff=617118082&oldid=617117618

IP collapses the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACold_fusion&diff=617118312&oldid=617118082

At this point Acroterion blocks the IP for 48 hours. (IP is at 5RR, and talk pages are not exempt from 3RR.)

NeilN restores the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACold_fusion&diff=617119788&oldid=617118312

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Notified of applicability of discretionary sanctions by an administrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:84.106.11.117&oldid=616521792

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cold fusion has been semi-protected indefinitely due to disruptive editing by IPs. There was one previous edit war on the talk page, but the IPs had not yet been warned of DS. There have been too many demands for edits, in which the IPs have expected the volunteer editors to respond quickly. (Also, the demands and questions have been supportive of cold fusion, and the registered editors have mostly been skeptical of cold fusion.) Request, at a minimum, a weekly 1RR restriction against this IP in the area of Cold fusion and other fringe areas. Request consideration of extending the 1RR to other IPs in the 84.104.*.* to 84.106.*.* range, since these addresses shift. Request consideration of a topic-ban by this particular IP from Cold fusion.

User:Lord Roem asks for evidence of the IPs shifting. Another editor has stated that he thinks that all of the 84.104.*.* through 84.106.*.* editors are the same. The total number of IPs is large, leading a reasonable editor to think that they are dynamic. However, that is not provable. (Checkuser is of course not applicable to IPs. Whois can determine whether they co-locate.) I have not researched whether there is consistent quacking. Thank you for advising me that talk pages can, in special situations, be semi-protected, a less extreme measure than the use of discretionary sanctions. (The periodic massive disruption to Talk: Cold fusion is such a special situation.) If the disruption resumes when the IP comes off block, I will request talk page semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A84.106.11.117&diff=617141655&oldid=617126678

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.

Talk:Cold fusion has been plagued with people wanting to discuss various side issues such as whether certain factors might be the cause for the failure of reliable sources to confirm the CF phenomenon. One recent revert is 19 June 2014 where my attempt to close an unproductive discussion was challenged. Note that the whole talk page at the time of that diff concerns off-topic stuff, and similar had been going on for some time. It appears that 84.106.11.117 is familiar with the history of the CF talk page and was attempting some WP:POINT scoring by closing sections that are off-topic, but which might be considered reasonable under the unusual circumstances of such hotly promoted pseudoscience. Johnuniq (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Do you have evidence of the IP shifting? The diffs provided are just this one IP, who's already been blocked for edit warring. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The IP has already been normally blocked for the edit-warring, so I see no need for further admin action unless problems reoccur after the block expires.  Sandstein  14:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The cold fusion article itself remains semiprotected. In the past, the article's talk page has also been semied for as long as two months. If the activities on the talk page become too big of a waste of time for editors trying to follow policy then another two months of talk semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, looks like semiprotection would be enough to help the situation over there. Beyond that, as Sandstein says, seems this IP disruption is being handled through the normal channels. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:51, 16 July 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

Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Pigsonthewing_and_infoboxes : "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes"

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

1. 18 July 2014 - editor adds an infobox template

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was asked to self-revert and declined to do so.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[51]

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 have been mindful not to breach this restriction since it was imposed, ten months ago. And in this case, I did not do so.

What I did do, was to fix a malformed infobox, added here by a good faith, but naive, new editor (this article represents their only edits), including the code:

'''Born''': Albert Ernst Giovanni SCHRAM, 2 September 1964, De Bilt (The Netherlands).

'''Residence''': Lae (Papua New Guinea) & Negrar (Italy).

'''Nationality''': Dutch (The Netherlands).

'''Alma Mater''': European University Institute, Fiesole (Italy).

'''Occupation''': University President.

That had the dreadful visual appearance shown alongside. My replacement had more usual, correct formatting. The restriction does not disallow me from fixing existing infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Nor is there a restriction on me discussing (on an article talk page or elsewhere) improvements to an existing infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing did not violate the terms of the arbcom ruling. He did not add an infobox to the article in question, but corrected the formatting on a very poorly constructed infobox that had been uncontroversially added to the article nearly a year ago. If one looks at this narrowly, in terms of the coding, one could argue that he removed one infobox and added a different one containing the same content, but that is pedantry. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This accusation is absolute nonsense.

@Callanecc: You don't need to make up a definition of an infobox from thin air. We already have a definition of an infobox in the very first line of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes:

• "An infobox template is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section, (in the desktop view) or at the very top of an article (in mobile view), that summarizes key features of the page's subject. Infoboxes may also include an image, and/ or a map.

A panel ... that summarises key features of the page's subject.

How on earth can you possibly not recognise this edit as adding a panel ... that summarises key features of the page's subject.?

Not only that, but it was "in the top right, next to the lead section".

Look at it - reproduced here as it was when added by Erganbjem, who started editing on 8 August 2013 and who had made just 35 edits by the time he added the infobox (i.e the panel that summarises key features of the page's subject) on 22 September 2013.

It is abundantly clear that not only was the intention to add a panel in the top right of an article, next to the lead section, ... that summarises key features of the page's subject., but the effect was to achieve that. Nobody is contesting that it was a rather suboptimal implementation, even if it was the best that such a new editor could manage - especially as he never edited any other article, and was trying to use the visual editor to add the infobox.

So now we are in the ludicrous position of an editor who stalks Andy's contributions asking for a sanction to prevent him from even improving a very poor infobox. This needs to be thrown out and some examination made of the number of times that Nikkimaria has arrived at an article for the first time just to take issue with Andy's legitimate edits. That needs to stop. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: If you remain concerned about Andy getting too close to the limits of his sanction, then I'll make an offer: I'll give Andy the opportunity to draw my attention to any article where this kind of grey area exists and I'll examine it afresh. If there is the opportunity for the sort of improvement that is so blindingly obvious as in this case, then I'll make the improvement myself in my own way. I have no intention of doing an end-run around sanctions, but I will not stand by and see genuine improvements to the encyclopedia thrown away because of this kind of process for process sake. --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with RexxS here, and I'm really not a fan of infoboxes. Any attempt to assert that this particular edit breached the ArbCom ruling seems like pedantry. The thing was already there, just poorly constructed and obviously in need of a fix. If Nikkimaria were that concerned, she could have simply reverted Potw and then done the fix in their name. Let's use a bit of common sense. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit helped a new user and improved the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how this makes me feel? Sad. Seeing a productive editor making a change to an article that is so obviously an improvement (and was obviously fixing what was intended as an infobox and doing it properly, and was not adding a new one) being dragged here by a pedantic process-wonk out of battleground spite saddens me a lot. Seeing a couple of Arbs admins actually supporting the accusation using nothing but pedantic process-wonkery while ignoring the plain fact that Andy's change was simply a fix to an existing but badly-formed infobox - well, that saddens me even more. What have we come to when pursuing personal vendettas and pedantically enforcing the (incorrect) letter of Arb sanctions matters more than supporting editors who only desire to make articles better? Those bringing this accusation and those supporting it should carefully read what Rexxs said above - and you should be ashamed of yourselves. If Arbcom admins should actually go ahead and sanction Andy over this, I'll be more than sad - I'll be disgusted. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC) (Corrected per below — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Boing! this is arbitration enforcement, not ArbCom. Those commenting and deciding for or against sanctions are administrators, not arbitrators. The distinction is important, as it allows arbitrators to (mostly) respond at the next level up (typically the clarifications and amemndments page) rather than here. Though arbitrators do sometimes comment at enforcement requests, it is relatively rare. Carcharoth (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an important point, thanks for the reminder - I've corrected my comments. But it doesn't change my underlying criticism of the report here and of those admins supporting it. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: I'd also like to offer a tip of the hat to Callanecc for this - it's always nice to see admins being honourable enough to change their minds when they think they were mistaken and to openly say so. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sandstein: Can you see one person common to all these requests for enforcement? I can, and it's not Andy! — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is really hair-splitting. Andy's first edit was here. No infobox. The article in question had a manually-created "infobox" made out of an image template that in terms of syntax, was . Andy then took ONLY the existing parameters plus one very logical addition -and put them into a template here. In essence, he took an improperly formatted infobox and made it into a proper one. Criminy, this is beyond ridiculous: it's a witchhunt. Montanabw^(talk) 18:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This looks like a crystal clear (this was a bit too far, see further comments) violation of the restriction for which I would suggest a one week block. Given the denial on their talk page I'd like to wait for a statement from Pigsonthewing. Based on Gerda's comment on my talk page I'll clarify the reason I wanted a statement and more admin opinions. Pigsonthewing added an infobox to replace that summary which is where I see the breach of the restriction. Putting it another way if Andy had got into a discussion about this on the talk page (or the talk page of the user who added the summary) I would have considered that a violation so by extension and my reading of the restriction this is a violation. I am open be being more lenient with the one week block after a statement from Andy and from other admins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether this was fixing or adding, both Help:Infobox ("fixed-format table") and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes ("Infoboxes generally use the template software feature. (It is possible to hand-code an infobox using table markup...)") seem to define an infobox as a fixed-format table which the original was not. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the clarifying comments and discussion I have no problem with this being closed with no sanction. Thank you to everyone who commented it definitely helped to define this sanction. As I've said before whilst I take a fairly hard line to what is and is not a violation (and no ill will intended Andy) I am very happy (and generally prefer) to be proved wrong in cases like this. Thank you all, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The request has merit. In the edit at issue, Pigsonthewing added an {{Infobox}} template to the article that was not there before. In addition, what it replaced was a thumbnail image with a caption, which is not an infobox, as Callanecc explains above. What Pigsonthewing did therefore wasn't merely fixing an existing infobox. Pigsonthewing is an experienced editor and should have known better than to try to game the limits of an Arbitration Committee restriction. They also should have immediately reverted themselves when asked to, instead of accusing the editor who reported them of stalking. In view of their uncooperative response to this request, I am of the view that a two-week block (considering the range of up to a month provided for by the enforcement remedy) is necessary to prevent Pigsonthewing from future noncompliance with the restriction.  Sandstein  14:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This administrative response strikes me as counter-productive. Why do we have to enter into a debate over whether or not what was there on the page before Pigsonthewings' edits "really was" an infobox, and whether he was just "fixing" one or "inserting" one? The simple fact is that it was obviously meant to be an infobox. The previous editor wanted there to be an infobox, and had tried to insert one; Potw helped him finish the job. The intention behind Potw's restriction is to stop him from alienating other editors by pushing for the insertion of boxes in articles where others have previously chosen not to have any. Penalizing this edit would be counter to the spirit of this sanction.
  I also do think it would be counter to the letter of the rule. Pace Callanecc, I do not consider the use of template code as a defining feature of what an infobox is. An infobox is defined by what it does for the reader, not by what wikicode it is produced by. If I add something to an article that looks like an infobox, quacks like an infobox and swims like an infobox, but I have done so not through a template but through static table code, then I have still added an infobox. An infobox is a box at the top of the article that contains certain pieces of basic information in tabulated form. In this sense, what was on the page clearly was one.
  Incidentally, I find it ironic that this is now (I think) the second time that I, a card-carrying infobox hater, have felt the need to defend Potw over these arb sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I am with FPaS here. Whilst technically PotW was adding an infobox, in reality he was merely fixing what was an attempt to add an infobox but ended up as a malformed mess (but, none the less, a recognisable attempt at an infobox). A sanction here would be counterproductive. Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm on the fence. Looking at the revision prior to Pigsonthewing's edit, there was an "infobox," though malformed. Reading the letter of the restriction, Pigsonthewing is prohibited from "adding... infoboxes," which read in context with the rest of the decision seems to jive with what FPaS discusses above. The restriction is intended to remove his disruptive presence from discussions or disputes about adding an infobox on an article that wasn't already there. Still, I do believe that this is on the line, that Pigsonthewing should not be making edits to infoboxes period to avoid these issues. I'm uncomfortable with this edit, cause I can see the case for how this is gaming the system, or more importantly, could lead to that mindset down the road. Nevertheless, I'm leaning against a block based on the strong argument Pigsonthewing did not substantively "add" an "infobox" that wasn't already there. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the type of push the boundaries edit that is inherently problematic. Needing to have this discussion over whether a particular set of formatting qualifies as a preexisting infobox is contrary to the spirit of the sanction. Still, I think what was there does narrowly come down on the side of a preexisting infobox, so per the letter of the sanction, I'm opposing a block this time. I'd still advise Pigsonthewings to avoid anything that could even be argued to be adding or removing an infobox going forward, because if you keep ignoring the spirit of the arbitration sanction, your likely to end up blocked even if you abide by the letter of it. Monty₈₄₅ 23:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the discussion above, it seems there's growing consensus this is not a violation of the editor's restriction. I'll close it with no action within the next 24-48 hours unless someone wants to add something to the discussion. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For my part, I still think the edit is in violation of the terms of the sanction because it added an infobox template where there was none before. But I see the arguments for the opposite view, and given that many administrators here are of that view, and the edit in and of itself wasn't disruptive, I'm OK with closing this with no action. But Pigsonthewing should be aware that they risk being blocked if they continue to push the limits of the restriction.  Sandstein  17:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering the request below, it appears that the conflicts that gave rise to the "Infoboxes" are becoming active again. Under these circumstances, I am concerned that closing this request without action would give the impression that administrators are not willing to give practical effect to the Committee's sanctions. For this reason, I'm asking the committee to clarify, at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Infoboxes, whether the edit at issue violated the restriction applying to Pigsonthewing.  Sandstein  13:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit is a violation of the letter, but compliant with the spirit of the sanction. Since it is not a breach of what the sanction was intended to protect I recommend no action. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:58, 21 July 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

RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction and remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Nikkimaria admonished : For edit warring with Pigsonthewing, Nikkimaria is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes #Enforcement of restrictions: Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

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

1. 01:51, 16 July 2014 Stalking of Montanabw: reversion of her edit. Nikkimaria's edit summary rv: net negative, no consensus for mass additions, please discuss on talk first
2. 23:12, 17 July 2014 re-reversion with the same edit summary rv: net negative, no consensus for mass additions, please discuss on talk first
3. 23:21, 18 July 2014 re-reversion with the same edit summary rv: net negative, no consensus for mass additions, please discuss on talk first

There were no "mass additions" (Nikkimaria means an infobox). This article had lain dormant for over two years and per WP:Be Bold, editors are not required, nor normally expected, to discuss changes to articles beforehand in these sort of cases. Yet we have a single-minded insistence by Nikkimaria that no changes can be made. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Ever since the close of the arbitration case, Nikkimaria has followed the edits of those editors she perceives as being on the other side of the case. She regularly arrives at articles she has never edited before in order to revert an edit by one of those editors. This is stalking and is contrary to her admonishment by ArbCom "to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator". Her modus operandi is invariably to edit-war her version into the article, while staying short of the bright line of three reverts within one day. An inspection of her contributions and her talk page reveals many such examples, and this behaviour is not confined to edit-warring with others involved in the ArbCom case, as her block log also confirms. This edit-warring is precisely the behaviour that ArbCom was concerned about last year and Nikkimaria has done nothing to address their concerns in the interim. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Monty845: If ArbCom had wanted an admonishment for edit-warring to have no effect whatsoever (and this one hasn't), I have to ask what is the point of ArbCom making such a remedy? Why is it in the Remedies section of the case if it's not intended to remediate anything? What's the point of ArbCom Enforcement if it's not to enforce the remedies that ArbCom has decided upon?

@Ealdgyth: You don't need to sanction two dozen editors to stop all of this nonsense. You just need to have Nikkimaria under the complementary sanction to that meted out to Andy and Gerda: no removing of infoboxes. These problems would go away in an instant. --RexxS (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

15:42, 21 July 2014

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.

13 additions in a short span of time to articles in an area where project guidelines advise against such additions is something that requires at least an attempt at discussion first. 13 re-additions after being reverted absolutely require discussion first. It is indeed unfortunate that there was edit-warring instead, and I continue to invite Montana to discuss her proposed changes. Other than that, I'm leaning towards Ealdgyth's opinion. Rex, your proposal wouldn't make the problem go away. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting just insane - all three of these AE requests (plus all the associated sniping by ALL sides all over the place). Personally, I'm of the opinion that all the people involved in the infoboxes case (those that were sanctioned and those that gave evidence or participated in the discussion) should be barred from typing the word "infobox" at all. The whole thrust of the decision in that case was that things needed to calm down, and the battleground behavior needed to stop. Near as I can tell, it's just continued at a lower boil. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ealdgyth to the extent that this is insane, BUT my view is that 99% of the problem is that Nikkimaria has made herself the self-appointed cop who stalks the edits of Andy and Gerda hoping to "catch" them. That's just childish. Frankly, both of them should have their restrictions lifted, and this war against content creators on wikipedia needs to stop. As noted in my comments in Gerda's section above, I added 13 infoboxes to abandoned stub articles about some young pianist BLPs, ones that appeared to not have ever been edited by Nikki, only to have Nikki immediately appear and revert them. It is high time that the WP:BOOMERANG takes a look at Nikkimaria's edit-stalking and edit-warring, and I suggest that she take her obsession with Gerda elsewhere. Gerda and Andy abide by their restrictions, and here, Gerda made ONE slipup that may not have happened were it not for Nikki's baiting as regards infoboxes, edit-warring over parameters, altering guidelines and template instructions to align with her own POV, and so on. I am not sure what will get Nikki to back off, but she needs to. Montanabw^(talk) 16:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to the good admins at AE, you can act on AE complaints as normal admin actions. They won't have the same heft as a DS protected action, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Dismissing this and sending it to A3 or ANI when you already think admin action is warrented is just bureaucracy for bureacracy's sake. You still have regular admin hats and are still empowered to use them. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion on the aspects of this complaint, at this point at least, other than the alleged stalking. On that topic, I note that this is a concern that others -- including me -- have raised with Nikki. For over a year.

See here, and here, and here. And my experience here and here.

AGF is a presumption, but it is a rebuttable presumption. And Duckish behavior in this regard can lead to a behavioral analysis, that can rebut the presumption. I stand by my concerns about being stalked by Nikki that I raised in the above diffs, as Nikki has appeared at other articles which - similarly - are unlikely to have attracted Nikki's attention unless Nikki were engaging in wikihounding. Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I refused in the arbcom case to supply evidence against editors whom I respect and keep doing that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy writing articles together, such as The Company of Heaven and Anna Kravtchenko. I also enjoyed this discussion. (A battle? I doubt it.) Did you know that I made suggestions in the arbcom case? (I see that I didn't stick to my own, see above, I got angry at three reverts.) What do think, Nikkimaria, of voluntarily not reverting harmless infoboxes (such as these young pianists) for a month and see what happens? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, I have interacted with Nikkimaria only twice, both times in the last few weeks. On both occasions Nikkimaria has refused to reasonably discuss the concerns of other editors. This is not the conduct which I expect from any experienced editor, let alone an admin, especially one already admonished for lack of professionalism.

My first discussion with Nikkimaria was on 1 July here, where she refused to stop removing material from references. The discussion was degraded by Nikkimaria's repeated attempts to misrepresent what I was asking [52]. The entire thread was eventually deleted by Nikkimaria [53] with the disgraceful edit summary "rm trolling".

I subsequently reverted her unexplained removal of info from other articles, and in each case it was repeatedly removed again with no further explanation. I filed an AN3 report on which no action was taken [54]

On 19 July, Nikkimaria removed the nationality from infobox on article I had created [55]. (Note that the infobox had been added by another editor, not by me.) Nikkimaria's editsummary neither noted the fact of the removal, nor any clear explanation of the reason, so I reverted[56], and raised the matter on Nikkimaria's talk [57].

In the subsequent discussion, Nikimaria justified her removal on the basis of a section of a guideline which she acknowledges has no consensus, and which she has edit-warred to sustain.

Her response to my complaint about her edit summaries was to a) misrepresent my request as a demand for "paragraphs of information", when the suggestions I made were of a few words [58]; b) repeatedly demand [59][60] that I point to examples of other editors use of summaries, even tho I know no others who follow her focus on removal of content. She accused me of "speaking only in the abstract" [61] even tho I had offered [62] concrete examples of how comply with WP:EDITSUMMARY ... and rounded off her repeated refusal to engage with my many suggestions by asking "please in turn try to be more collaborative in your efforts to resolve perceived problems". [63]

Other editors report similarly frustrating experiences of trying to resolve problems with Nikkimaria. Both my encounters with her have left me feeling that I was engaged in a futile attempt attempt to reason with a petulant child. I plan to open an RFC/U on Nikkimaria's sustained refusal to work collaboratively or discuss disagreements maturely, and I am unsure whether my evidence above is relevant here. If not, sorry for bringing it here ... but whatever the venue, something needs to be done to curtail Nikkimaria's sustained and repeated lack not just of professionalism, but of simple maturity of conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is one of those cases that shows we need a binding Community admin recall process - Nikkimaria has displayed such appallingly bad behaviour that there would be no chance of an RfA success now, and I think a recall (if we had the power to do so) would be inevitable. We see stalking and hounding, tendentious edit-warring, vindictiveness, a continuation of the battleground behaviour that everyone should be trying to stop, and a complete failure to engage in the collegial manner that is required here. That Nikkimaria is an admin, and also an involved one at that, makes this behaviour that much the worse - we expect better-than-usual behaviour from admins who should lead by example, we do not expect the kind of behaviour that would get mere editors hauled up at ANI and blocked or banned. Whatever the admins decide below, I think we need to follow with a community topic ban from anything to do with infoboxes (including policing the topic) at ANI. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't think an admonishment is sufficient to give AE any special authority over Nikkimaria. Monty₈₄₅ 15:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverting repeatedly using the same edit summary, and without bothering to discuss on the talkpage, is edit warring. But while ArbCom may elect to impose a restriction, it hasn't yet done so and an ArbCom admonishment is not something that can easily be enforced here, so I have to say no action on Arbitration Enforcement, but perhaps WP:AN/EW can do something. It feels unfair when I have voted to sanction Gerda Arendt one section up, while recommending no action here. It is solely because Gerda is under an infobox restriction while Nikkimaria is not that I am not recommending equal treatment here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This should be at AN3 (there's no Arb restriction to enforce or DS relevant to this). But, Nikkimaria looks to be edit warring with Montanabw and should stop immediately. Further reverts of each other will likely result in a block. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd suggest this needs to go to WP:ANI per the discussion in the Gerda section above. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Black Kite, with a short look at Nikkimaria's editing pattern, I see definite and concerning signs of edit warring on multiple articles against multiple editors; and a definite pattern of stalking edits of certain other users. Needs to go to AN/I. Dreadstar ☥ 20:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point, I consider Nikkimaria's actions to be both a) being involved and b) wikistalking. Either an interaction ban needs to be requested at ANI, or a topic ban of their own needs to be implemented. This nitpicky crap like the above 2 threads is wholly unbecoming of anyone. The latter could, I believe, be decided here the panda ₯’ 23:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not a regular here but I did follow the Infoboxes arbitration case and have, as time permits, followed with interest the topic since. The three sections on this page show very clearly that Nikkimaria needs to stop having anything to do with infoboxes for the good of both her and especially the project. Personally I think that while a topic ban cannot be imposed at this venue, we can and should block Nikkimaria for one month for her appalling lack of professionalism displayed in all three sections (and many times previously). I read the Arbcom sanction as the equivalent of being bound over to act in a professional manner or face the consequences. She has demonstrably not done so, so really we have no choice but to enact those consequences. A topic ban discussion needs to be implemented at a suitable venue as well otherwise she and those she disagrees with will be back here early and often. Thryduulf (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The edit-warring by Nikkimaria is a cause for concern. There are no enforceable remedies in the Committee's decision that would allow administrators to impose sanctions with arbitration enforcement authority, because the enforcement provision relates to "restrictions", and an admonishment is not a restriction. As such, this thread should be closed without action. However, administrators may impose normal blocks for edit-warring, which may be requested at WP:AN3 (although this incident is probably too stale by now for a standard 24h block). Also, this may be a case where a request to amend the case at WP:ARCA by an interested party may lead the Committee to decide to impose sanctions such as a topic ban from infobox matters.  Sandstein  09:20, 22 July 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

Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda_Arendt_restricted : "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create."

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

1. 21 July User restores an infobox that had been deleted.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. User has violated the restriction on multiple previous occasions without sanction - see for example Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Request_for_clarification_.28October_2013.29 this Clarification request in which several arbitrators commented that the user had breached the restriction
2. Several times when confronted the user has claimed "I forgot" to justify the violation - see for example [64]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[65]

@Olive: I have reminded her, more than once; I've already given her a "final warning". Others have reminded her also. "Run[ning] over here" was not my first choice, but ultimately, Gerda needs to choose whether she will follow her restrictions or not. Per Panda, had any of her previous violations been reported she would already be blocked. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite, I brought two issues here because there were two issues, and this is the place we're to bring them. I gave both warning before doing so, but ultimately they got themselves in trouble - Gerda in particular has violated her sanction on multiple occasions, and really should have been brought here months ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 21 July 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.

We are talking about this history. I am sorry, I forgot the part of not restoring, I don't look at my restrictions every day. I will not do it again, as long as I remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, several times I claimed "I forgot", because several times I forgot that I had not created an article. We are talking about articles from 2010, for example. Yes, I could have looked up the history, but I remembered my work on them so well that I failed to do it. I asked to apologize that already before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that I am restricted to not restore an infobox for the first time today. I confess that I got angry at the many reverts on that article (and others, such as Anna Kravtchenko), sorry for that as well. - I can't force you to believe me that I forgot that I didn't "create" Richard Adeney and others, but it is true. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Please distiguish: I forgot that I didn't "create" Richard Adeney (where I had added an infobox). I so far had nothing to do with José Carlos Cocarelli where I restored one, carried away by being angry about three unsubstantiated reverts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up history. I added infoboxes to three articles I believed I "created" (in the strict sense of turning red link to blue) but didn't:

• Victor Bruns, created 2012, infobox added December 2013
• Polish Requiem, created 2010, infobox added February 2014
• Richard Adeney, created 2009, infobox added June 2014

All three are DYK articles (I created more than 80& of the content), all three were reverted within a day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What good will blocking Gerda do? Belle (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjakkalle:; I know what purpose the block is intended to serve, but do you think that it will do so? She got angry and let herself get dragged into Nikkimaria's and Montanabw's little spat; now she's getting her knuckles rapped and she's not going to edit war again, so there's no need to exclude her from the encyclopaedia where (as you say) she is normally productive. This block looks to me as if it would be purely punitive and I don't think that is the aim (actually, let's put that in caps; "THE AIM" [portentous music plays]; that's much better). Belle (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. I added the original infobox for Jose Carlos Cocarelli, which was an abandoned stub about a young pianist. I added a grand total of 13 infoboxes to similar BLP stub and start-class articles that no one but bots and vandal patrollers had touched for a long time, including no edits by Nikki or Gerda. Nikkimaria, who appears to be stalking both my edits and Gerda's as a self-appointed cop, reverted ALL of them within about 24 hours with her usual non-specific edit summaries, adding "rv net negative." In most cases, she also added a subsequent edit of a bit of content. I carefully kept her additions but also restored the infoboxes. These were not opera articles, not composer articles, not composition articles. This is absolutely spot on proof of Nikkimaria's stalking edits of myself and Gerda for the express purpose of edit-warring over infoboxes and I am very disappointed that Nikki has resorted to "GOTCHA!" behavior to go after Gerda. Nikki is long overdue to be sanctioned for her WP:BAITing and stalking. Montanabw^(talk) 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not punitive.. An editor reacted against the battle ground behaviour of an admin who already has been admonished. Stalking is battle ground behaviour. Edit summaries which because of their lack of information (and Nikki has been asked repeatedly to explain her edits more carefully) do in fact mislead, and constitute battle ground behaviour. Did Nikki suggest to Gerda that she had made an error per her arbitration and ask her to revert the mistake or did she run over here to see if she could get a sanction? More battle ground mentality. What is the behaviour we expect in a collaborative community from an admin. Gerda is a prolific editor, (do all of us remember the articles we worked on years ago. I doubt it.) with an reputation for kindness and generosity. She explained her position honestly and apologized. At what point do we look deeper to see why such an editor might be upset. Why are we so quick to shoot first and look around later for behaviour that is hugely positive to this community, that indicates this is an editor who is honest, so we can AGF. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

@Lord Roem: Don't you think you should give more of your fellow admins time to see this and offer their own opinions rather than deciding all by yourself? You know, that old consensus thing? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The request has merit. Because Gerda Arendt has previously violated the restriction multiple times and claimed to have forgotten it, as shown in the submitted evidence, I do not consider her statement that she forgot it again to be credible. To give preventative effect to the sanction, I believe that a block is now necessary. In view of her prior unsanctioned infractions, I also believe that the maximum block duration of one month is appropriate.  Sandstein  12:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unambiguous violation of their restriction. Saying "I forgot," especially at least a second time in a two-month period is both not persuasive and not helpful to their case. However, I disagree with Sandstein that a first block on someone's violation should take into consideration past times it was 'close' or that we didn't block. If we took no action in the past, we took no action in the past. Something like a week or two seems more appropriate. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that unfortunately a block is necessary with this blatant violation with the hope that it will prevent further violations. In this case the page history fits on one page and it was during an edit war I don't accept that Gerda forgot that she didn't create the article. I'd rather a block of a maximum of 2 weeks though. While we're here I'd also warn Nikkimaria and Montanabw that their reverts on the article are pretty clearly edit warring and they should avoid continuing to revert users and discuss instead. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the admins above, this one is an unambiguous breach of the restriction. Responding to Belle, the point of enforcing the restriction is to deter edit warring over infoboxes. As for length, Gerda Arendt is usually a productive editor so I support some leniency, a week at most.Sjakkalle(Check!) 16:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the thoughtful comments by Black Kite, and further consideration of Gerda's conduct in comparison with that of Nikkimaria, I am shifting position to final warning. I noted in the section for Nikkimaria that it felt unfair to block Gerda while going with no action for Nikkimaria. I still think that a block in a sense would be policy compliant since restoring the infobox is a breach of the restriction's spirit and letter, but since there are extenuating circumstances and a promise to stop, I am OK with this being an orange tintet yellow card this time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I see this differently: to me, it's the "last warning" - no block as I don't recall seeing Gerda's face here at ArbEnf until now. The purpose of a block is not to punish, even when it relates to ArbEnforcement. So, we have confirmation from Gerda that this will not recur - which means a block would be punitive. Should there be a future repeat of the action, even with an "I forgot", I suggest we start the blocks then at 2 weeks and escalate from there the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While I disagree with some of what Sandstein wrote above, his description of past issues regarding this same restriction is reason enough to believe this behavior may be repeated. Barring new information in the next few hours, I'm going to close this with a two-week block. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally agree with Montanabw and disappointed with some admins here who can't see the bigger picture. Not only should there be no block for Gerda here, but we should start looking at sanctions on User:Nikkimaria for bringing multiple issues here (see the PigsontheWing section) which indicate that they are stalking other editor's contributions whose POVs do not agree with their own, looking for the tiniest issue on which to block them. This is not what a colllaborative encyclopedia is about, and we can well do without "editors" whose raison d'etre is to get others into trouble. I'd suggest a topic ban on Nikkimaria for a period of time from bringing any infobox-related issue to this page (I'd actually suggest more, but I don't believe it would gain any traction). Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're right, re: your thoughts on Nikkimaria, and I wouldn't be opposed to such a sanction. Though, I don't believe we have that power at AE since there's no DS in this area. If something like that was brought up at AN/ANI, I'd support it. In terms of the request before us, it's clear they violated the restriction (likely more than once). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that Gerda genuinely made a mistake and I would be very loath to "reward" this type of behaviour by Nikkimaria. Therefore, I would close this as a final warning. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We're dealing with Nikkimaria's issues in the request below; that doesn't change that we have this before us. This is at least the second violation of the editor's restriction. My concern is that failing to enforce it in such an instance, due to an excuse that is flimsy at best (considering they were reminded in early June), risks undercutting the remedies ArbCom put in place. If there's good cause to believe the editor doesn't deserve the restriction as-worded, then a request for amendment can be filed. But until that takes place, I think giving a third chance to an editor sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee and reminded of their restriction within the last 50 days is inappropriate. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but I don't think pointing to Nikkimaria is sufficient. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering Gerda has created 450 pages, plus expanded innumerable DYK's (over 500), completed significant work on many FA and GA articles, I'm quite unsurprised she made a couple of mistakes like this. Dreadstar ☥ 21:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am with Montanabw and Black Kite. Anybody can make a mistake, even the same mistake more than once. I am inclined to believe that she will not repeat this mistake again. I have not examined Nikkimaria's edits in detail but it may be that this editor needs some intervention if they are indeed stalking the work of others. A block on Gerda achieves nothing. Please don't. --John (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Per John and Black Kite, I too think these were genuine mistakes by Gerda, and believe a final warning is appropriate instead of a block. A block achieves nothing. Regarding Nikkimaria, having just started looking at the editing patterns (edit warring and stalking in particular), I also agree that Nikkimaria needs intervention; with a possibility of an AN/I case or an RFC/U. Dreadstar ☥ 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per my comment above, almost a thousand pages created or significantly expanded for DYK by Gerda, I'd think a few mistakes is certainly understandable. Dreadstar ☥ 21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria per the above, editors don't give 'final warnings' regarding blocks or other enforcement actions to editors they're in conflict with. That's not the kind of 'final warning' I'm talking about, and I highly doubt it's the final warning others are talking about here either. Dreadstar ☥ 22:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• While I believe the editor did clearly violate their restriction, I'd be okay with closing this with a warning, iff we're agreed that there should be no "I forgot" excuses in the future. This request itself should be sufficient notice (if the Arb case wasn't enough) of the extent of that editing restriction. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the renewed discussion above, it looks like there isn't consensus this possible mistake on Gerda's part is worthy of a block. Barring new information, I'll close this with no action taken in a bit. Noting I still believe the opposite, but recognize many disagree with my position. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:45, 23 July 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

Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA :

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

1. [66] POV/Vandal
2. [67] POV/Vandal
3. [68] Restoring POV/Vandal
4. [69] Removal of content contrary to editor's POV

Ezzex recently made an ANI post where previous behavior was an issue

1. [70] more POV
2. [71] Personal attacks

And a previous ANI against Ezzex which ended with a firm warning from Go_Phightins! for soapboxing. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#User:Ezzex

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

User_talk:Ezzex#Discretionary_sanctions_notification

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Obvious case of WP:NOTHERE could notmally be cleaned up fairly easily, but 1RR and applied DS puts at risk of edit warring since this is not over vandalism.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[72]

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.

Gaijin42 ! you have been blocked 3 times in 1 year. Is this some sort of revenge?? --Ezzex (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• One of the diffs (16:52 9 July 2014): "It looks like its written by IDF. Much jewish crap. Should not use operation-titles".. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Another diff (17:23, 21 July 2014), adding a line to Operation Protective Edge, to describe the shelling of a hospital: "Probable done by purpose to punish the citizens of Gaza".

This looks to be POV-pushing in article space. I recommend a topic ban. The pattern is consistent with a 12 July ANI thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#User:Ezzex, where Ezzex was warned for calling Wikipedia a 'tool of Israel' and for referring to the murder of the three Israeli teenagers as 'just killings on occupied land.' EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreeing with Ed that a short topic ban is appropriate. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:49, 23 July 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

WeijiBaikeBianji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Captain_Occam_topic-banned

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Ferahgo_the_Assassin_and_Captain_Occam_site-banned

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

1. 24 July 2014 I.P. editor visits talk page of editor Maunus to recommend Captain Occam's off-wiki advice on a point-of-view forum on how to edit articles within the scope of his topic ban (which was later expanded to a site ban)
2. 25 July 2014 First I.P. editor link to same off-wiki forum on talk page of editor WeijiBaikeBianji, soon deleted by that editor to counteract an attempt to evade the site ban
3. 25 July 2014 Differing I.P. editor link to same off-wiki discussion on talk page of editor WeijiBaikeBianji, soon deleted by that editor in light of content guideline against linking to external harassment (I hope that other editors who see this external link on their talk pages will also remove the link on the same rationale
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

linked above

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The sanctioned editor appears to be using off-wiki forums regularly and persistently to run a drawer full of POV-pushing socks.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I visited the talk page for Captain Occam to attempt to give him notice, and I see that that what I post on his talk page is covered up by a template announcing that his access to that page is blocked. My 25 July 2014 attempt to notify him is in the talk page history. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:48, 25 July 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.

I donøt understand the request. Captain Occam is not editing, he is offering off-wiki advise about how to edit to people who are otherwise mostly clueless nuisances. I think that can only be good. Those people are going to edit anyway. This way at least they have an introduction to how to go about it. Also at this point I should disclose that I have consulted with Occam about my recent edits to the Race and Intelligence article. This is a necessity because there are no editors currently on wiki with interest and expertise in the hereditarian view which needs to be represented in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What precisely are you seeking? Your talk page post is not covered up by a template - the page was hatted by Beeblebrox, which appears a reasonable act. You are not being prevented from doing anything there as far as I can tell. More to the point, what actual acts do you wish the committee to exert over off-wiki sites? King Canute is not currently serving on the committee that I am aware of. Collect (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Not actionable. Even if this offwiki conduct by Captain Occam were sanctionable onwiki, Captain Occam is already sitebanned and blocked, so there's nothing we can do here. We should re-add the question what specific action the complainant requests to the request form.  Sandstein  06:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noting that I did deliberately leave an open-ended hat on CO's talk page, because there is really nothing to discuss there as they are banned and can only appeal through BASC. That being the case I can see no purpose to this request. We cannot control what banned users (or anyone else) does on external websites. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 26 July 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

BullRangifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

The topic banned Khabboos is back with a vengeance:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Khabboos

Here is his failed appeal of his existing topic ban:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive153#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Khabboos

He has also been properly warned about his disruptive behavior in the pseudoscience/fringe area:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Khabboos#Notification_of_discretionary_sanctions:_homeopathy_and_pseudoscience

The person who started the following thread, User:John19322, is very likely a sock of Khabboos (or someone else):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Bias_or_accurate_information_about_homeopathy

TenOfAllTrades correctly questioned him at the end of that thread. Here's what he wrote:

Incidentally, @John19322:, you mentioned that you posted sources above on the page. Under what account? As far as I can tell, you only created the John19322 account a few days ago, and you've only made one edit (to start this thread) to this talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously John19322 is a sock of someone who posted above....He blew his cover! This is the type of amateurish mistake Khabboos and User:Dr.Jhingaadey could make.

I will notify Khabboos. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION :

Khabboos should be topic banned in the alternative medicine/pseudoscience/fringe area, "widely construed."

He should likely be blocked for sockpuppetry as well. A likely suspect is one of the numerous socks of the indef banned User:Dr.Jhingaadey. They share numerous behaviors, obsessions, POV, and amateurish use of socks. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified -- Brangifer (talk) 07:10, 28 July 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 section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Summarily declined as unclear. Please resubmit with a link to the remedy to be enforced and to dated diffs that explain how these edits are problematic. Be advised that continued unspecific or unproven accusations of sockpuppetry may result in sanctions against yourself.  Sandstein  08:23, 28 July 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

Ignocrates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Ebionites 3

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

1. 19 Feb 2014 John Carter explicitly mentioned my name in a comment about our mutual interaction ban on Ret.Prof's talk page.
2. 22 Feb 2014 John Carter commented on my request to AGK for admin oversight of mediation.
3. 22 Feb 2014 Diff from the same thread in which John Carter responded to my comment to AGK by threatening me with an I-ban violation.
4. 19 July 2014 John Carter directly commented on my comment in a conversation on PiCo's talk page.
5. 28 July 2014 John Carter responded directly to my comment on Ret.Prof's talk page.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Please take whatever actions are required to make the interaction ban violations stop.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

John Carter has been made aware of the request for enforcement 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.

FWIW, at least to my eyes, the comment on PiCo's page was actually directed at PiCo, and I was operating on the possibly mistaken assumption that indicating a baseless allegation of assuming bad faith, which is effectively a personal attack in and of itself, was not necessarily considered within the scope of the sanctions. If I was wrong in that I regret the honest mistake. It is I believe worth noting that the review of Ret.Prof's talk page history I indicated would I think indicate Ignocrates had acted as a kind of tutor to Ret.Prof, which would counterindicate any assumption of bad faith on his part, or in effect be defending him against the assumed allegation. Also, would be willing to agree to a short self-imposed topic restriction if such is indicated to finish User:John Carter/encyclopedias which I already lost in internal memory once and transfer the final data to Bibliography of encyclopedias and related. On unrelated points I wonder whether the decidedly prejudicial and I believe questionable section title Ignocrates used in his notification to me of this discussion is appropriate conduct or potentially actionable as well. The confusing apparent lack of editing this request, or perhaps lack of attention to the request or even of how to file a competent request, makes it harder for me to know how some of the material above relates to this request, if it in fact relates at all. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Just to confirm that Ignocrates contacted the committee prior to making this request and I told him AE would be the best place to handle it. No comment on the request itself. Worm^TT(talk) 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• In my mind, the 2 diffs within last 10 days are clearly violations. Since John hasn't been sanctioned under the case before, I recommend either a block of 2 weeks or 1 month (which is the maximum we can block him for, given by the remedy in the case). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• John, I cannot find a way to construe this as being not directed at Ignocrates, as the first of that edit would make no sense. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with a 2 week block.  Sandstein  20:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Though this complaint might have been organized better, it does appear to show John Carter violating his interaction ban from Ignocrates. A two-week block is appropriate. The comments by John Carter that are quoted don't put him in a good light. Note that two sections above are not pertinent and should be struck out: 'Diffs of previous relevant sanctions' as well as the entire section about discretionary sanctions. This arbitration case does not provide any discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 30 July 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

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA :

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

1. 28 July 2014 Replacing word Israel to Palestine - clearly POV push to deny Israel existence.
2. 28 July 2014 Replacing word Israel to Palestine - clearly POV push to deny Israel existence.
3. 28 July 2014 Source falsification the source only contains political statement of some body and doesn't support the text that was added by the user moreover the source doesn't talk about Bedouins at all
4. 28 July 2014 Again source falsification the source doesn't talk about Bedouins at all moreover such controversial statements should be properly attributed.
5. 27 July 2014 Deleting sourced information without any explanation.
6. 26 July 2014 Deleting Israeli cities/settlements just because their Israeli moreover Mevaseret Zion is not settlement at all.
7. 20 July 2014 Creating one sided article without any shred of WP:NPOV.The original name of the article was Shuja'iyya massacre .

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 12 May 2014‎ zero-revert restriction on all articles already subject to the ARBPIA 1RR for one week, expiring at 08:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC), due to tendentious editing at Falafel and Palestine League.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 12 May 2014‎ by Darkwind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user is clearly not here to edit in WP:NPOV it seems that his Modus operandi is to deny Israel existence as clearly shown by his edits when he deletes an Israeli cities or exchange Israel to Palestine and he doesn't really hide it as he clearly states in his second user box [73].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[74]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

I repeat that I do not accept any distortion of the Palestinian history as many Israeli users are doing. How many times have Jewish sources been fabricated and used for your agendas and interests without any questioning. Wikipedia is owned by Israel and its followers. Its up to me if I deny Israel's existence on my user page because there is something called "freedom of speech". The article about Shuja'iyya massacre was absolutely not one sided because I wrote only the stuff I found on different websites. Shrike you are only here to polishing the ugly face of Israel, but I am sure that you will fail.--Uishaki (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got time to look closely through that yet, but, some of those edits are poor, yet the first two complaints are nonensical and consist of content disputes. The article on olives speaks of from western Mediterran to Israel, and Uishaki replaced Israel with Palestine. What (s)he should have done is written 'Israel/Palestine'. But using Palestine, the historical term, is not a denial of Israel's existence. Olives are a very sensitive issue here: it is often said Israel has uprooted 800,000 olive trees from Palestinian land since the occupation began (1967). I don't know if that is true, but the numbers are huge, the destruction of non-Israeli olive plantations ongoing, and a considerable amount of the uprooted trees are transported into Israel to be replanted there. To a Palestinian eye, a text that says 'olive cultivation extends to 'Israel' means the exclusion of the fact that olive has been long before the establishment of that state a fundamental product of Palestine, and properly NPOV requires that one write Israel/Palestine, for intense cultivation extends past Israel through to the border with Jordan. Rather than deny Israel's existence, the text ishaki changed denied the fact that olive production extends east of the Mediterranean through to Palestine (West Bank/Gaza), and he was probably reading it to be a denial of the existence of Palestine. So you should remove those two at least.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Shrike's use of those diffs makes a comvincing case, (what he did in creating the Shuja'iyya article is done every other day by editors whom Uishaki perceives to be opposed to him, and is never reported, rightly so, because you Afd such stuff, and if the community approves, it passes, as this did) because bad editing in the I/P area, and I might attitude belligerent personal attitudes like the one he displays, are normative and almost never reported. On the other hand, as per Lord Roem and Sandstein, Uishaki's response here alone is sufficient to show that he has a battlefield mentality, a conspiratorial view, and an insouciance to WP:NPOV to warrant a strong sanction. I have never seen an 'attitude' sanctioned, but that may reflect my ignorance, of course.Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Based on the evidence above, the prior sanction from May, and the editor's own statement, I think they've committed themselves to being disruptive and therefore propose a topic ban. Due to the editor's record, I think the timeframe should be, at a minimum, six months. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Based only on Uishaki's statement, it is evident that they are not here to contribute to Wikipedia as a neutral reference work, but to promote what they believe is the truth. Their statement exhibits a degree of prejudice towards editors of a different background that is incompatible with being a productive part of a collaborative project. I think that an indefinite topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area is needed. As an aside, there is no right to free speech on Wikipedia; we are not here to exchange opinions but to write an encyclopedia.  Sandstein  08:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Lord Roem and Sandstein as to the problem. I would support an indefinite topic ban with the possibility of appeal after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]