Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive185

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

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jaakobou (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#Discretionary sanctions :

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

1. 01:05, 13 November 2015 Discussing the real world conflict
2. 12:13, 12 November 2015 Discussing the real world conflict

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 04:16, 8 March 2012 banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Didn't feel like adding every diff, but pretty much every edit made by the user since October 30th has been a violation of the topic ban. And add the stealth canvassing to a discussion opened in violation of the ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

This complaint is with no merit and should be quickly dismissed. I requested a review of a flaw in how policy is implemented. Following that suggestion to go to WP:UP, I prepared text and pinged multiple admins. I Listened to feedback as well. Discussion on UP was very slow and with little participation, thus I contacted French, who have some recent knowledge on militancy. I have no special reason to think they support Israel or my preferred addition to the polemics policy -- which you can see does not mention Israel:

• " Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight and other forms of political militant activism are not permitted." (on user-pages)

I did mention that there are a lot of stabbing attacks in Israel and changing clarifying the policy is not going to hurt the project. If there is real belief on Arbcom that by mentioning real-world casualties of terrorism in Israel I have crossed the line, I apologize. I've made a considerable effort to make the matter general.

Side note: Nableezy (talk · contribs) has a bit of a history of grinding axes with those "he is disallowed from naming". I actually believe he's in violation of WP:POLEMIC as well, keeping a list of wiki-enemies on his user-page. I hope that others who comment on this request will disclose any COI which they might have. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Also: this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

re: @Serialjoepsycho:

I contacted the French wikiproject and a few contributors on the article for the recent Paris attack. I did so due to low participation rates (RfC) and assuming they are aware of what "militancy" means nowadays. I had no reason to did not think they would favor my preferred policy amendments and I wanted to get the discussion going. I don't endorse a "let's count votes" mentality. I think they can add insight to the discussion. Perhaps persuade the parties of point a or b or raise a new point or new suggestion as well. In my process, I have contacted for input admins who have disagreed with me as well. I do apologize for losing my patience (after three days and more of this) and using emails. That wasn't a good idea was a bad idea and I will refrain from doing that. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) clearer Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC) + note, links, rephrase. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• re to:
  • For some reason, maybe "ideological struggle", maybe not, two prominent participants' statements do not comply with WP:BARS. On and off-wiki matters have been presented with low degree of truth. This happened as well. I am a firm believer in proper disclosure on these matters. Comments like this show you want a balanced reputable Wikipedia. Not sure why, but this came to my mind as well. I will use that last diff as opportunity to reiterate my apology and acknowledgement of misjudgement in sending out a few emails. We've had very few participants and I got impatient and reached out to a project with some knowledge on the issue presented.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC) + Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC) +balanced reputable Wikipedia Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC) + Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC) m Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

re :

"ban over turned"

No. That is a misinterpretation. I asked for a 'review on the way I was herded off'. Meaning, I felt my concerns about pro-stabbing content was mishandled. 'This does not require any review of my contributions, past or present' qualifies my lack of interest in discussing about the ban itself (a comment which was ignored). My first comment in 2015, btw, was to the same admin. Anyway, I found some less busy audience and kept the issue on the wider picture rather than making it user specific. e.g. "I did notice you wanted concrete samples but I am concerned that pointing fingers would end up with comments about how bad/acceptable a/b/c examples are and distract from the idea of establishing a clear no 'mukawama' policy." Yes, wider perspective included mention of propaganda that relates to real-world attacks on Jews, which is in some way connected to the conflict I am topic banned from. I did ping @Timotheus Canens: (a 3rd time), @Foxj:, @Kim Dent-Brown:, @Black Kite:, @Crazycomputers: -- involved admins (including ones who voted to ban me) to see the issue I was raising for discussion. While I can understand the interpretation you made from the word 'review', nowhere in there is a request to have the ban lifted. Also, you are seriously misrepresenting the upfront manner in which I addressed my concerns. There's a plethora of ways to it inappropriately, mine is pretty high on the "up-front". Also, I could care less about poking editors. My concerns are another 3 stabbing attacks that occurred today and this site's mishandling of its own policy where heavy political bias is introduced. This is easily applied to any ISIS, Taliban, Ukrain, Boko Haram, etc. conflict that includes attacks on civilians and writings which advocate for it.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have lost my cool back in 2012. Another four stabbing attacks today as well. The combination of terrorism and circumvention of policy are at the core of how I was herded off wikipedia.

1) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda...and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. (Passed 11 to 0)

The fact that anyone would be forced to argue about such things is absurd but Serialjoepsycho and Nishidani think there's nothing wrong with it. Anyway, I'm not asking back. Just that the POLEMIC policy is made abundantly clear for everyone. Either it is allowed for everyone, or disallowed.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC) +1 Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

re: @Nishidani:

Proper disclosure, though his user-page was the only a clear standout from the few I looked at, I refrained from bringing it as example to the POLEMICS discussion. "'Even Gandhi would understand the Palestinians’ violence" is one of a few things that caught my eye. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope that others who comment on this request will disclose any COI which they might have.

p.s. This is irrelevant, but Jerusalem is in Israel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

+ Since Nishidani's user page doesn't do any advocacy or use of the term "violence" I must take back every statement made and haven't made that he is not reliable and a long term detriment to the project, working behind the scenes with friends to block people he disagrees with.

Al Rosh HaGanav:

Proper disclosure on my part with this. Apologies for using an old and often humorously contexted proverb regarding the COI/'direct interest' issue, that wasn't helpful. I was taken by surprise seeing Serialjoepsycho showing clear bias (per: "subjugated population") after he repeatedly insisted that no one needs to disclose anything. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

p.s. Not intending to be rude, but a few statements made by Serialjoepsycho about the Israeli-Arab conflict are incorrect. Sample. Anyway, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Though, I hope wiki user-space advocacy and soapboxing favoring violence would find its way out the door.

Respectfully, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC) + link Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

With regard to my last note: polemics about Israel's military, Palestinian violence, and links to, among others, a dead child are not "nothing polemic".

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

re by @EdJohnston::

a) I am not claiming user-space on wikipedia causes violence. Obviously, people with guns don't go around reading wikipedia user-pages. This point is irrelevant.

b) I asked about bringing this to ARBCOM, but was answered that this type of material "is already prohibited"

c) Like I mentioned to @Callanecc: on their MFD suggestion. It would seem there's always someone reputable to defend policy violations when it comes to a certain small country.

d) 3 adjacent quotes/paraphrases about Jews, Israeli settlers and Zionism at the top of a user-page. One specifically links "sharpen the weapons with which he will secure his victory" against a certain group of people. Shakespeare, it's not.

e) It is: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups"

f) I have no intention of targeting a specific user or making this an Israel-Arab issue. It is the principle of polemics circumvention.

g) If user-space were to support and/or promote ISIS aggression against Europe, it would be promptly removed. Having to argue about this is an absurdity.

h) More-so when (outside the West-Bank) the wide scale wave of attacks include 80-year-old women (Rishon Lezion, November 2, 2015) and School teachers (Marseille. 11 hours ago) - not given exception, I am refraining from linking. The point in mentioning this not the conflict I'm living, but the general disrepute such activities can bring to the project and the environment that these type of writings creates for writers in already heated areas.

i) ISIS support and songs about how the Paris theatre massacre "scratched the enemy’s face, broke his dreams and stopped his satisfaction with time" could be viewed as "very profound and of great value to us in these revolutionary times." -- but are they "already prohibited" or not?

j) I reiterate my desire is to clarify WP:POLEMIC so that there won't be confusion anymore about what is allowed and what is not.

Big picture: Support and promotion of terrorism against civilians is inappropriate for wikipedia's user-space.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

re @Callanecc::

But is it already prohibited? I'm not allowed to talk about it anymore so this is my last. Who will speak for the trees? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

re @EdJohnston::

Should the policy read: "advocacy related to violent conflicts is fine as long as it is not the direct cause for violence"?

Also this just happened in "subjugated" Tel-Aviv.

Let me know. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

re @EdJohnston::

Why are you ignoring every single point I mentioned to you? (sample: ) Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

p.s. I won't ignore your note, though. I will refrain from further participation on that RfC. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

re @Nishidani::

That's not advocacy. - Nishidani 22:09, 20 November 2015

I cannot participate on the RfC and it seems proper to also refrain from further input on this one.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ARBCOM members should Please disclose your view on this. It appears many admins and fellow editors haven't got a clue what POLEMIC is about and these editors apply personal biases and whim (e.g. "unwavering belief in freedom of speech"), lending a hand to systematic bias. If users (mentioned here or not) start supporting "revolutionary" ISIS against "Western colonialists", can they use their Wikipedia user-space to advocate the righteousness of militancy against civilians or not? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

- "What on Earth does it have to do with Wikipedia, except expressing a political position"

- "I find nothing polemic about either thing"

I immediately disclosed that my motivation for raising the policy issue a second time was related to real world stabbings. To assume this is meant to circumvent the ban on Israel-Arab related matters and/or poke at certain editors; to prevent the conversation, is a horrible case of bureaucratic failure and lack of common sense. Just look at recent "jihadist" discussions in France. Serialjoepsycho disagrees with the policy completely but he, at least initially, felt (rightly so) that "This falls outside of ARBPIA.". He struck through this statement of support only following our discussion about whether it is OK or not to post a notice on Wikipedia project France. Btw, I did contribute here and there to Wikipedia in the time passed. Only without logging in and outside the scope of the ban. I wanted to address the policy issue up front. There's nothing wrong with that. The opposite is true. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This falls outside of ARBPIA. While the language used is nonsensical it does nothing to specially target the Israel Arab topic area. Poetic Militancy could just as easily target the Ukraine insurgency and it's supporters.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is stretching broadly construed far beyond intent. AE is not meant as a sword against your enemies. The subject Poetic militancy. It's core focus is not using Wikipedia to promote and support the violence of groups that have in someway been labeled terrorist. Or more specifically not using wikipedia to soapbox. This would target you nableezy and the soapboxing userbox that you have on your user page. That's why we are here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that this should not fall under WP:ARBPIA or more specifically discretionary sanctions should not be used to handle this. However noting Jaakobou comments I don't wish them walking away thinking their actions were appropriate. They contacted Wikiproject France ] due to the recent terrorist attacks in Paris hoping to find editors favorable to their position. In addition they emailed other users to the discussion. These are very clear violations of WP:CANVASS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you don't have to explain yourself to me. I really don't care. If you didn't know the canvassing policy before that's fine. You've been made aware of it now. It's unacceptable. WP:Canvass. Contacting wikiproject France would never be appropriate for this discussion. You can't target them at all period. Not because you think they will have a favorable opinion. You can not target them because you think will have some special insight because they were attacked by terrorists yesterday. WP:CANVASS explains how to do an appropriate notification. You can get impatient and seek further comment but with the appropriate notification.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jaakobou, that's not a COI. There's nothing to disclose.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I still don't feel should be held under WP:ARBPIA. I feel this is more of a matter for ANI. However this topic area is increasingly becoming the sole focus of the conversation. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Jaakobou, Clear bias? That's asinine. Palestine territories are a subjugated population. They have been under military occupation since 1967. They have been under the control of Israel since that time and have not been allowed to practice their right to self determination.

Further I don't have a conflict of interest. You suggesting that I do brings up a real question of competency. Competence is required here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This is actually becoming pure jackassery at this point. This is not a place to discuss the Palestine-Israel conflict, you are barred from doing so, and your passive aggressive attempts at doing so with out violating that are unclear anyway. I'm some how so wrong but it's not clear what I'm wrong on. Am I wrong that they are under military occupation? Am I wrong that they have been unable to practice their right to self determination? Showing that they have limited self government proves neither wrong, nor does it suggest either is wrong. I would respond to your other comments but like the comments I've already responded to they seem purposeless.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• At this point I just need to walk away. The discussion of issue is about a Wikipedia policy. Even if someone is topic banned from something they need to need to be given enough leeway so to discuss it if it's tangentially related to issues that the wikipedia policy discussion is about. Such leeway should be used with discretion certainly, but per the canvassing issue alone I don't think they violated any reasonable discretion. This is not the first time anyone has violated the canvassing policy with out knowing about it. Seems reasonable that they were not aware of it considering their reactions. Still it is concerning that they don't seem to understand the canvassing policy and their comments related to it after the policy was pointed out. Regarding anything else I can't argue that they used in reasonable discretion in this conversation. And thus I walk away.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to retract any statement of support here. Having a conversation with this editor has raised multiple red flags. Reviewing their editing history they stopped editing 2012. They came back at the end of October of this year. They contacted multiple admins in quick succession. First trying to discuss their and overturn their topic ban. This moves quickly into discussing polemics. Before making a decision or taking action it may be apt to review their editing history since returning.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with the policy at all. I disagree with your interpretation of the policy. I disagree with your proposed changes to the policy as well.
• Users should be given the leeway to discuss policy and bring up subjects that may violate their topic ban, especially when the policy is social in nature. However any such leeway should be used with discretion. It is only now that you are even using a modicum of discretion and that's only halfhearted. You forumshopped multiple admins, first trying to get your topic ban over turned. Then when that wasn't working you started using ambiguous language to get permission to violate your topic ban. The only thing you haven't done at this point is make a honest attempt at changing the policy. You've used loaded language and canvassed to promote it. I do not support giving you leeway now that it's clear that you are a disruptive editor that holds long grudges. I'm not even sure there's a valid reason to do anything other than indef you, of course this is for the admins to decide. Since leaving in 2012 you've made no meaningful contributions that I can see to wikipedia. Your using your account to sopabox and that's all. I think it's really time for this to stop.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

He's using examples specifically within the topic area. this is a direct reference to Tiamut's user page (the Incitement to "sharpen the weapons" against Jews, albeit masqueraded as a paraphrase on Shakespeare (quoted from an Arab newspaper) and whatnot), a user Jaak has an interaction ban with. That same diff discusses "Arab 'mukawama'" (which despite what the user thinks isnt an Arab doctrine of conflict enhancement whatever that is supposed to mean, it's the Arabic word for resistance). And pretty much every article he links to in for example this, this, and this is about ongoing attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The user is banned from discussing the conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, so I disagree that this falls outside of ARBPIA. He could have worded it so that it did, but he has not. nableezy - 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I really dont think its stretching anything, considering what caused Jaak to be banned indefinitely in the first place was pretty much this exact same discussion. Discussing the actual conflict on Wikipedia is part of his ban, not much need for any construal. nableezy - 07:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I did mention that there are a lot of stabbing attacks in Israel

Jaakobou. You might rephrase that to read 'there are a lot of stabbing attacks in Jerusalem and the West Bank', which are not in Israel.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Reading this it appears clear that you wish to return to Wikipedia to edit about 'Arab' stabbings, precisely the kind of 'militant' interest in advancing a POV that got you banned in the first place. We have an abundant number of socks, POV pushers, and IPs already diligently applying themselves to fanning the flames here, as witness the remarkable number of redlinked editors jumping into I/P articles since October. Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Once could consider this evidence of why Jaakobou should not return to Wikipedia. He pings me to reply to the following question: 'Q: Aren't you tired of promotion and legitimization of violence against civilians?. This is a gross distortion of what I do here, and a personal attack on my presence in the I/P area.It is effectively saying that in simply looking after articles on the death tolls of violence in that area, by noting down that there are numerous Palestinian casualties, I am encouraging violence against (Israeli) civilians. How long may Jaakobou be given leave from his sanction to conduct a polite form of character assassination?Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Jaakobou. This whole charade of 'concern' about polemic violations is a complete Potemkin village montage, dangling an absurd fantasy that named editors (in diffs) somehow subscribe to terrorism. It's deeply offensive, in both the military and etiquette sense of that word. You are now questioning also the integrity of admins, and badgering them in successive WP:TLDR screeds. This place is for concrete article-work, not for haranguing about some personal beef re the incumbent incitement of Islamic madness as a threat to Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph. I maintain, because no one else will, a comprehensive, day by day List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015 in which every stabbing, extrajudicial killing, etc. by either side is duly registered, for the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Jerusalem and Israel, the place on each occasion precisely noted. When I noted to Jaakobou he was incorrect in associating this phenomenon (exclusively) with what happens in Israel, since most of the violence is in areas internationally recognized as occupied, and outside of Israel's internationally legitimate boundaries, he came back and insisted, contra-factually, that Jerusalem was in Israel. That is his POV, fine, but it is not true technically. Stabbings of course take place in Israel, but not the majority. And of course, Israel is a duly constituted nation, with international legitimacy, questioning the right of which to exist is a sign of anti-Semitism. I don't know how many times I have said this, even to some pro- Palestinian editors, and one tires of stating the obvious. Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a statement not necessarily to prove anything one way or another, but the statement by Nishidni about the stabbings rubs me the wrong way. The fact that he had to make an edit just to say that stabbings are not done in Israel but are done in WB or what not does not make one confident that editing in the arena you will be dealing with someone who will be AGF and NPOV. There have been daily stabbings in Israel, and by Israel, I mean Israel proper. Just today, there have been two people killed in Tel Aviv, and I would like to ask Nishidani if Tel Aviv is considered Israel or occupied territories. And this is why perhaps polemics should not be included at all on userpages. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jaakobou: I'm at a loss as to why I'm mentioned in this request. I would appreicate if I could be dropped from the list of people you ping every time you post on Wikipedia about this topic. Thanks. — foxj 22:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

My total involvement in anything even potentially tangentially related to this entire situation was starting this ANI thread some three years ago.

I don't know how that makes me an "involved admin" in this particular arbitration case. I have no statement to make and I don't know why my name was brought up here. --Chris (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

• Yes linking to anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is a violation of the TBAN (which I didn't know about before) including the offwiki articles however I believe that Jaakobou didn't realise it was a violation. I don't believe that sanctions are warranted, so I wonder if Timotheus Canens would consider an exemption to allow Jaakobou to continue the discussion on WT:UP (or lifting the TBAN completely). In any case, Jaakobou, youplease do not make any further edits which relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict (including discussing or linking to 'poetic militancy' related to the Arab-Israeli) until we hear back from Tim. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:00, 19 November 2015‎

• I'm not inclined to lift the topic ban or to grant an exemption. T. Canens (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• I too would oppose lifting Jaakobou's ARBPIA topic ban or granting an exemption. In the early days of Wikipedia there were some userbox crusades. In the ARBPIA area it's enough work for admins just to keep on top of the article edits in hopes of keeping them neutral. On Tiamut's page we have a quote from Shakespeare where the word 'Jew' is replaced by 'Palestinian.' Tiamut's page was cited by Jaakobou in a message to Callanecc. It is hard to view this quotation as an argument for knife attacks on the West Bank. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough, do either of you see a need to issue a block or other sanction? I'd rather just remind them of the TBAN and IBAN and tell them to take extreme care (or just leave) the discussion they started at WT:UP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• This is a repeat violation by Jaakobou. See his comment at AN in March 2012: "..Proper disclosure: in what I consider to be an unethical decision, a few admins recently decided that raising this as an issue on WP:AE is disruptive enough to be topic-ban worthy..." That's yet another complaint about Tiamut, for those who have been trying to follow along. The idea that 'Jaakobou didn't realize it was a violation' is no longer credible. It seems like he thinks the March 2012 decision against him at AE was just a quirk, due to particular admins who showed up to rule on his case, so he keeps shopping his complaint around, hoping for a different answer. Anyone looking for the 2012 sanction log will find it on this page. The full AE decision was at this link, which has more details about the Jaakobou-Tiamut dispute. (Nine admins participated in the AE thread). If you review Jaakobou's comments in that complaint, you may get an idea of why the decision went against him. If he still wants to appeal his ban he can do so, but his recent conduct isn't reassuring. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  Since Jaakobou has already mentioned words from the I-P conflict in his statement of the RfC at WT:User pages#Rephrase suggestion to WP:UP#POLEMIC ("mukawama", "jihad") I don't see how he can continue the discussion there. Anything he says will be a contravention of his ARBPIA ban. Jaakobou's most recent addition to that thread is on 20 November. As User:Johnuniq stated in that thread, " It's pretty obvious that Jaakobou is proposing a change to WP:UP#POLEMIC in order to poke certain opponents in the P-I area.." If Jaakobou continues to participate in that thread, I recommend he be blocked as an enforcement action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• See the above post by User:Timotheus Canens: "I'm not inclined to lift the topic ban or to grant an exception." User:Jaakobou has now been made aware that his edits at WT:UP#Polemic are a violation of his ban and are risking a block. That's enough advice for now, and I suggest that this thread can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

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

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

S Marshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Discretionary Sanctions are explicitly extended for the Electronic Cigarettes topic area. Specifically, single purpose accounts may be topic banned or blocked (indefinite or otherwise), if in the view of an uninvolved administrator, they are being disruptive in the topic area.Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy; accounts whose primary purpose is disruption or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely; discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning. The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#E-cigs_case_closed

See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 23#Removal. On 31 March 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear. On 20 April 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear. On 19 November 2015 SM deleted info on tobacco harm reduction is unclear. The text about tobacco harm reduction was restored.

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_25#New_Images. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#New_.22full_range.22_image_uploaded. SM deleted two images and replaced it with one image. The discussion was still ongoing. SM also deleted another image, but another editor disagreed.

See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Safety_claim_in_Harm_reduction.. I did state it would be better to shorten the text. There was a discussion to relocate the text. The text was misplaced and it was eventually removed from the harm reduction section. I added some information to the safety section. SM stated my edit to the safety section was a "Rv pre-emptive Quackeditry".

SM stated in the recent AFD that "it was used as a holder for all the semi-relevant junk that disruptive people kept adding to Electronic cigarette to make it conform to their notion of "balance".". SM was making assertions about me without supporting evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SM is making comments about my current editing without specific diffs. SM previously made comments about me without diffs. I will not know what is your current concern without the specifics. If I disagree with a change on the talk page that does not mean I am being problematic. I am going to start a RfC to try an resolve this dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This comment did not state the text about the different volts was previously in the lede. Before I started a RfC the information about different volts was in the lede of the safety page. I explained on the talk page the lede did not mention dry puffing. I clarified the wording in the lede. The RfC on the e-cig talk page is about summarising text in the e-cig. QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

There are two separate pages. AlbinoFerret is not explaining the text was in the lede of the Safety page before there was a RfC and is not giving me credit that I clarified the wording in the lede. No editor at the Safety of electronic cigarettes page stated it should be removed from the page or the lede. In fact, AlbinoFerret has recently added a lot of content about the different volts to Safety of electronic cigarettes page. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Spartaz, The RfC has been productive. Things are moving faster than I expected. There are different proposals and suggestions on the talk page. I supported the 3rd and 4th proposal. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#RfC:_reduced_volts_and_aldehydes. This is a very controversial topic and sources often disagree. The disagreement among sources is often the cause of the disputes in this topic area. I am not a former smoker or e-cig user. But I did add most of the new material to the e-cig page this year. Until the known unknowns are knowns there will remain a dispute among sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, you wrote "Edits by Quackguru are causing concern." Can you provide diffs? QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

• Hi, Arbitration Enforcement admins! Please investigate QuackGuru's complaints in full and give him latitude to raise new ones against me. I am completely out of patience with this user's ridiculous behaviour since the Arbcom case closed, so it's entirely possible that I've been rude to him.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• If close this, it'll be back. QG's behaviour hasn't changed at all since the Arbcom case. In that case, a whole spectrum of problem behaviours came out: controlling; manipulative; editing the article and talk page with insane frequency; refusing change wherever possible; where a consensus is emerging that he doesn't like, making pre-emptive changes that partially implement what other editors are saying but without affecting text he's written; reverting subtly, in nickel-and-dime changes that end up restoring his preferred text over time; issuing spurious warnings to other editors; mischaracterising or misrepresenting others' edits; I could go on and on. QG has never admitted fault, has never acknowledged that there was anything wrong with his behaviour, and has never promised to change. And he hasn't changed one bit.

  I'm fairly bitter and disappointed that after a four-month Arbcom case, QG's still pulling these stunts exactly as if nothing had happened. It's this feeling which is making me snarky.

  I'd suggest that the resolution is this:- (1) QG admits -- actually articulates -- that his controlling behaviour in this topic area is problematic; (2) He promises to desist; (3) He agrees not to make pre-emptive edits, but to allow consensus to build on the talk page, and to allow the consensus text to go into the article without trying to undermine it later; and then (4) I promise to drop it and desist from the snark.—S Marshall T/C 20:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, QuackGuru. Do not forum-shop by starting an RFC. You've tried to resolve this here, now finish resolving it here. If he starts an RfC then please would an AE enforcement admin close it.

  QG, you're asking me for diffs. Before I produce them, please confirm that you have read what Arbcom said to you with the appropriate care and attention but you still need me to produce diffs to show you specifically how and why your behaviour is problematic.—S Marshall T/C 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Well, this is completely out of order. So far, QG has started five discussions about this revert: 1 (my talk page); 2 (unilaterally adding me to AlbinoFerret's clarification and amendment page); 3 (starting e-cigs 2 in front of Arbcom); 4 (finally starting discussion in the right place, which is here) and now 5 (RfC when this discussion didn't go his way). On past form I predict that he will become unresponsive in this venue.

  I need an AE sysop please to close the forum-shopping RFC and bring QuackGuru back here to answer what I'm saying.—S Marshall T/C 11:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Gamaliel: Whether they're the same disruptive behaviours is worth discussing. Arbcom specified five particular disruptive behaviours in remedy #3 which I'll paraphrase:- (1) Exhibiting a double-standard for sources; (2) and (3) are about gaming full-protection; (4) Edit warring; and (5) Opposing edits which he then makes. There were many other disruptive behaviours discussed while the case was ongoing. I do fully realise you can't treat every complaint editors have about QuackGuru as an arbitration enforcement issue, but I think that in context, Arbcom's list of problem behaviours should be understood as representative, not exhaustive.

  Awilley is the administrator who enforced AE restrictions against QuackGuru in connection with acupuncture, and he made a useful edit on the proposed decision talk page here. Awilley mentions inappropriate notifications as one of QG's problem behaviours ("For instance, the list of notifications at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Electronic_cigarettes seems inappropriate to me. In my mind it should be uninvolved administrators handing out the template notifications to involved problematic users, not involved users handing out the notifications to everyone who has ever made an edit to an e-cig related topic...") and within a scant few hours of the case closing, QuackGuru placed an inappropriate notification on my talk page.

  I have previously expressed a reluctance to come up with a laundry list of QuackGuru's problem behaviours and try to get him to stop them all, not least because (as Awilley notes), QG demonstrated in the Acupuncture topic area an ability comply with the exact letter of the restrictions he was placed under, without the disruption ever abating in any way.

  This is one of the reasons why I reacted as I did to QuackGuru's challenge to supply diffs. Foreseeably, I will come up with diffs of problematic behaviour and then QG will say "But Arbcom didn't say anything about that!", so I've reacted by asking QG to confirm his understanding of the case (a challenge which he has yet to address).—S Marshall T/C 10:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Spartaz, the first thing that really got my back up was this edit two days after the Arbcom case closed, in which QG presumed to issue me with a "warning" for "edit warring". The actual pretext for this warning was that one of my edits on 19 November bore a vague resemblance to one of my edits from 31 March. (Yes, really. Go ahead and check the diffs he gives in the edit I just linked, see for yourself. I'll wait!)

  This was the same month when I had asked Arbcom not to topic-ban him, incidentally (and I was clearly wrong to do so and I regret that decision now). He's going for control of the article via chilling effect, which when directed at me is comically off-base but I bet it works with some other editors. I would suggest that your remedy includes a provision banning QuackGuru from issuing notifications or warnings of any kind to people who have edited in the topic area.—S Marshall T/C 18:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

QG is misapplying the findings of the arbcom case. S Marshall is as far from an SPA per his edit history. Even if we were to double the 446 edits he has made in the area of all e-cig pages and the arbocom case, his total edits of 21,071 make the SPA possibilities a rather bad joke. Of note though is this finding from the case. "QuackGuru (talk · contribs) is warned that continuing to engage in a pattern of disruption to Wikipedia will result in further sanctions." One of the issues from the case is forcing his desired outcome on the page, and making edits to pre-empt changes while discussion is ongoing. AlbinoFerret 12:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

As a NAC with over 200 closes, I can honestly say the RFC QG started is malformed. It consists of his preferred version with no questions. AlbinoFerret 08:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

After now changing the RFC for I think the 4th time QG has a non neutral RFC question/statement that predisposes his preferred version in the header. This is the kind of behaviour that got him the arbcom warning and should be addressed here. AlbinoFerret 20:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark, I dont think S Marsall suggested collecting diff's, I think he was referring to the massive amount of diff's I had already collected for ARCA. Most of which pre-date the Arbocom case closing so I dont believe can be used for AE. Due to the constant disruption QG causes, I wonder how many chances this editor will get. He has been banned numerous times and warned by arbcom. The comments of the arbs in this section are worth reading QuackGuru Warned. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

QG started an RFC for the summery of Safety of Electronic cigarettes in the main article, and it appears that consensus is against him at this point. But he has already started to edit the changes to his preferred version on the Safety page. The Summery on the main article and the lede Safety page should be in sync as all other daughter pages. Editing the text now while the RFC is ongoing is pre empting the RFC. These are the type of problematic edits that arbcom has warned QG about. AlbinoFerret 03:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is some evidence of QG's editing from during the arbcom case, but after evidence closed, it should be applicable here.

The first one is damning, it shows that QG has known for months that the claim he is pushing to have in the current RFC is the product of failed methodology. He is also pushing in the current RFC to keep out wording that shows it is the product of failed methodology. This is a NPOV problem that points to negative slant advocacy which most of the other diffs continue to prove. It also shows another problem, re-arguing things over and over till you get the results you want.

• On August 21, 2015 Johnbod started a section about the new review from Puublic health England showing that the review found "A high level of formaldehyde was found when e-liquid was over-heated to levels unpalatable to EC users". QG then defended his addition of the formaldehyde findings, sourced to the NEJM that the Public Health England on page 77 showing the failed methodology that the NEJM study used. His response was that he had changed it to balance it but the resulting edit "While high voltage (5.0 V) e-cigarettes may generate formaldehyde agents at a greater level than smoking, reduced voltage e-cigarettes generate negligible levels of formaldehyde" makes it sound like this is normal and the harm is the ecig, not the product of failed methodology. In fact QG was warned that the source was based on flawed methodology months before , with a link to a website of a known expert who had authored reviews used in the article, but it only made QG look for it all the more and do searches for it.
  • This talk page section on the topic is a perfect example of QG arguing in circles and not really discussing the problem.
  • Even after the problems with the NEJM article on formaldehyde have been pointed out and discussed.talk. QG placed the material in a position of prominence at the start of a paragraph in the lede. then added it to the Safety article .
• 9/14/2015 Talk page section on new sources, Johnbod points out that QG does not list positive ones.
• 9/18/2015 I changed a claim to reflect what the source actually said as discussed in this section. QG flagged it as a MERDS violation but QG was the person to add the claim originally. A talk page discussion was opened Talk:Electronic_cigarette#MEDRS_violation where it was pointed out that the edit by QG was OR trying to insert that it was either smokers looking for "alternatives" or of smokers as a whole.
• 10/11/2015 QG Replaces positive claim that e-cigarettes contain fewer toxic substances that tobacco cigarettes with one that says they contain lower levels of toxic substances.
• 10/14/2015 QG replaced formaldehyde with carcinogens.
• 10/28/2015 QG is against adding the NHS website when he has added other government websites. Moves the claim out of Harm reduction to bury it in the Position statements. this is also a possible competency issue. Cloudjpk shows up out of the blue and reverts what QG wants gone. then QG does a ref maintenance afterwards to stop easy undo.

• 9/21/2015 There was a discussion on creating a Regulation page with consensus to wait for the regulation from the FDA to be released. 9/23/2015 QG starts another discussion about breaking out Regulation from the Legal status page. Other editors suggest someone else, johnbod, write the article and that QG collect the sources. QG says he didnt have time to gather sources. Then QG without any other discussion or warning creates the page.
  • • Afterwards QG had the page speedy deleted rather than allowing other editors to fix the page.
      • (Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
      • (Deletion log); 01:03 . . RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Regulations of electronic cigarettes ‎(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)
• 9/25/2015 The lede of the Construction of electronic cigarettes page was 4 paragraphs long. QG originally wrote the lede. I started a talk page section pn the articles talk page. QG argued against WP:LEADLENGTH and misrepresented the guideline and the articles size. calling it "well written". The lede at the time was a collection of claims jumbled together and did not read well.
• 11/3/2015 I brought a new source to the talk page to be discussed and figure out what can be added. QG prempted the discussion by editing it in.

• 9/14/2015 QG wants to use a blog as a source.
• 9/14/2015 E-cigarettes are a battery and an atomizer anyone who has been involved for a day in the topic should know this does not need a reference.
• 9/21/2015 Requires a citation that an electronic device has a switch to activate it.
• 10/10/2015 Shows misunderstanding of WP:VER in that QG believes it says everything "must" be sourced.
• 11/2/2015 QG replaces 2015 review with a 2014 book to get the claim he wants. There is a mistake in the date, but this issue shows its a 2014 source.
• 11/10/2015 QG places a FV tag. then two minutes later removes the claim and substitutes source. There was no discussion, or description of what was wrong with the summery.

The 10/28/2015 NPOV instance eerily mimics the events that led QG to be topic banned from Acupuncture. AlbinoFerret 21:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz would you also consider a clause against editing on topics under discussion to any e-cig page until the discussion has ended? The pages are very intertwined and making an edit on one effects the others. AlbinoFerret 14:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that since being banned from Acupuncture in October , QuackGuru has become a SPA on e-cigarette topics with at least 90% of QG's edits in the topic or closely related topics like nicotine,contribs. As such he is also in violation of the SPA clause of the arbcom decision. AlbinoFerret 20:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

1. S Marshall recommended to AlbinoFerret that the latter collect diffs of evidence that QuackGuru tends to take pre-emptive action against proposals under discussion.
2. QuackGuru takes pre-emptive action against this suggestion by filing a complaint against S Marshall for not having gathered the evidence himself.

Admins should have zero patience for such antics. QuackGuru's block log suggests they will continue to be incorrigible. A one year topic ban would be a restrained response. Rhoark (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: SM seemed to be specifically addressing incidents after the e-cig case closed, so I assume he meant something other than the diffs already collected. Not a key point.

@Cla68: I have no involvement in this beyond the present filing.

I'm not seeing prima facie disruption in the positions QuackGuru is taking on content issues, nor do I see it as a problem that QG started the RfC in parallel with this AE filing. The RfC is about content, while this should be about behavior. This filing itself, along with QC's block history is all I need to see to recognize disruption, but in any further evidence what would be important is patterns of disregarding or pre-empting consensus more than the fact they said this or that about e-cigs. Rhoark (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest to S Marshall, AlbinoFerret, and Rhoark that you take the topic in question off your watchlists and let QuackGuru have it to himself. Putting up with the nonsense that you're having to put up with is not worth the time it drains from your lives that you could be doing more fruitful and productive work elsewhere. Notice that the admins responding below aren't going to do anything to try to rein-in QuackGuru's behavior. So, just let him have the article(s). Just pop in to the article talk page and leave a comment or try to improve the text every few days or so and then don't pay attention to the inevitable revert or snarky response that immediately follows. This will have the effect of chaining QuackGuru to the article as he checks his watchlist every few minutes or so to make sure the article stays the way he wants it while the rest of you get on with your lives. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask for help on this as it is ongoing. QuackGuru is going about reverting items for his point of view. I have spent a great deal of time researching some of these topics, and begun edits to make the pages much more accurate. Only to see those edits removed in mass by QuackGuru. When he edits he does it with very very little information in the Edit Summary.

Most recently an article which had a rewritten conclusion from the source study...I went to the cite, and confirmed that information was not accurate to the conclusion of the researchers. I too the authors conclusions and word-smithed slightly to be used in the page. ONLY to have QuackGuru revert to his text, and claim in the TALK page that I was somehow putting in a copyright violation. I quoted the authors conclusion, of public study, and cited and credited the authors. That is not a copyright violation, I am sorry, it just is not. A journalist doing the same is also not violating a copyright.

On another matter QuackGuru, took a study which indicated that Electronic Cigarettes in a standardized trial were shown to be AS effective as Nicotine Patches and other Nicotine replacement products. The cite actually shows they are more effective but the author was not comfortable with the as a full out statement, but that was his data. The that was in the Page said "Electronic Cigarettes have not been shown to be MORE effective than NRT patches. That is skewing and conflation. Repeated data within peer reviewed journals reflects the E-Cigs are AS effective. To assert they fail a bar, when that bar is not the part of the cite, is a problem. Some of the approved therapies are using powerful psychotropic medications that effect brain chemistry, that are black box warnings for suicide. So when something without risks of effecting dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine and their balance together in the brain, has efficacy on par with black box medications....its something to reflect. I have no issue with using the most current research, I have no issue with feedback on undue weight.....but I am very concerned by an aggressive OWNER of multiple pages like QuackGuru.

HELP! Mystery Wolff (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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

• QuackGuru if you are going to relitigate the arb case again then I will simply close this as no action. Please remove all the historical stuff (the case closing is a bright line that deals with previous events entirely) . Also take out all the assertion and reformat this with exactly what the restriction is, why it was broken and diffs to both. You shouldn't need more than 3-4 lines max and that means that you don't need to rehash all your bad blood and history with this user, which is not only wearisome to read but suggests you are still carrying a grudge. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems a bit pot and kettle for you to accuse SM of casting aspersions when you have been chasing a single edit of his while relitigating the case around AlbinoFerret's ARCA request, your own withdrawn RFAR and now AE - all the while the article talk page seems to be hosting an notably constructive discussion of the change that SM wants. As far as I can see, while the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, no restrictions have yet been made to normal editing (i. WP:BRD has not been disallowed on the article. Further, SM is not an SPA, nor was he made the subject of any personal sanctions nor was his conduct admonished by the committee. The same decision, however, admonished you for behaving disruptively and warned you that continuing this pattern could lead to further sanctions. Despite that, as soon as the case is over, you seem to be right back to the same disruptive behaviour. This seems very problematic to me. I do not think that we can possibly consider imposing any form of sanction for an editor who makes single edits and then proceeds to engage in civil and productive discussion on the article talk page to help establish a consensus on what the outcome should be. In fact, this kind of behaviour in a contested area is something that should be applauded. Indeed, it is your disruptive behaviour that is obstructing useful discussion. So let me be very clear QuackGuru, I am seriously considering whether you should be topic banned or forbidden from raising spurious noticeboard complaints in order to allow the other editors in this area to continue working towards a consensus on this article. Alternatively, you might wish to reconsider whether it might be more productive for you to stop personalising disputes with other editors and restrict yourself to discussing edits and content rather than pursuing the editors making the comments. I'd be very interested in any comments or thoughts you might have on this and, of course, those of other uninvolved admins. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • QuackGuru That sounds like amn eminently sensible solution to me. S Marshall Cann you cut out the snarky edit summaries please? Waiting for further input before closing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
      • It would be good for another admin to pitch in.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Tumbleweed.... I'll delay closing this until I have time to review the issues raised following my exchange with QuackGuru. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
          • I apologise for the long delay in picking this up but its not the kind of thing you can look at in 5 minute chunks between RL commitments. I have had a look at the article talk page and article history. To be honest I'm not seeing a significant amount of disruption on the actual article - 1 revert by SM and partial changes but not something that reaches an actionable threshold on its own. However, is QG continues to misrepresent sources than that is a problem and I'd like to see a diff of that to consider further. That then leaves the forum shopping and disruption to talk page discussion. Both complaints appear well founded but given the recentness of the case and an arbitration decision not to ban QG from the article despite the finding of disruption, I'd be loath to down that route immediately without trying something intermediate first. This therefore suggests that we look at the following close. "QuakGuru is prohibited from raising complaints about editors they are in dispute with without first confirming with an uninvolved admin that their complaint is actionable. Further to this, QuackGuru may not raise a complaint about another editor in more than one forum for the edits/actions complained about. QuackGuru is also prohibited from disrupting or derailing talk page discussions for items that are already under active discussion. This means specifically that they cannot open a new section while another section is active, raise any RFCs on matters already being discussed unless there is an agreed consensus that one is required or make any edits to the article about material being discussed on the talk page unless there is a stated (i.e. written) consensus that they are applying". The latter restrictions are to prevent QG trying to control the focus of discussion on the article. My intent is that QG can edit elements that are not contentious and contribute within existing discussions about contentious elements on the talk page but cannot move or alter the discussion to their own agenda. If this does not work and QG continues to disrupt than I do think the next step is a topic ban. Leaving this here for a minimum of 24 hours for further discussion and comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    • If Quackguru is engaging in the same disruptive behavior less than a week after the closure of an ArbCom case where this behavior was noted in the findings, then a topic ban is the appropriate remedy. Gamaliel (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Edits by Quackguru are causing concern. I'll accept User:Spartaz' conclusion that there is enough bad behavior here to justify admin action. If so I recommend against issuing sanctions which are too complex. There is a risk of thousands of words of future discussion as to whether the exact letter of the complex sanction was infringed. If you want to do something short of an indef topic ban, consider banning Quackguru from the topic for six months. Spartaz has taken note of a well-founded complaint of "forum shopping and disruption to talk page discussion". A short ban would qualify as 'intermediate' per Spartaz's suggestion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I agree with Ed. Spartaz's idea is a well-intentioned attempt to get to the root of the problem, but I fear it will prompt more wikilawyering and AE filings. A topic ban, with an opportunity to appeal before the end of the ban should Quackguru attempt to articulate how they would approach the conflict differently, will allow an opportunity for this editor to reassess their behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Very well... I also accept the 6m topic ban but it should be all pages related to broadly construed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Realskeptic (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#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. Nov 16, 2015 Edit summary shows attitude to sourcing
2. Nov 17, 2015 Fourth unblock request failing to get the point
3. Nov 17, 2015 More failure to get the point
4. Dec 5, 2015 Obvious declaration to push a fringe theory

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Nov 4, 2015 Edit warring on autism related material
2. Nov 15, 2015 Edit warring to significantly soften description of Wakefield's fraudulent study.

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

Nov 4, 2015

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Looking through Realskeptic's contribution history, one quickly realizes that they're here to promote the idea that the 'autism-vaccine link is not "fringe" or "anti-vaccine"; the consensus against it is not a scientific consensus'

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

1. I cited Statesman Journal, which meets WP:RS. I am not sure what the complaining admin's issue is with this. I do not believe "anti-vaccination" is justified as it is a WP:NPOV violation.

2. I wanted an admin to address the substance of my original unblock appeal, but the first reviewing admin refused to do so and instead failed to assume good faith on my part because of a misunderstanding I had about sourcing with another editor, for which I apologized. I stopped appealing after the last reviewing admin suggested I would be blocked longer if I continued appealing. So I did not. The admin who blocked me for a week later admitted to making reverts to my page in breach of WP:BLANKING, and accused me of edit-warring after I called out another admin for wikihounding my edits

3. That referred to my concerns about Washington Post and LA Times' independence from the CDC, for which an admin admitted I was right despite disagreeing with me that it was a problem: "Journalists being taught how to properly report on medical news? Must be a conspiracy...You're going to need a very, very good source suggesting malfeasance on the CDC's part, not simply that they work with journalists." My point was that these mainstream newspapers simply lacked the independence that should be expected of the press. Nonetheless, the complaining admin used this to comment on the contributor instead of the content.

4. My response here following my responses to the initial threatening admin on a talk page in which he asked for reliable sources that significantly disputed what he claimed was the scientific consensus on thimerosal and autism. I delivered on this request. He has yet to respond. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing activity:

1. I admitted to lack of complete knowledge about 3RR rule. Nonetheless, following the editor's next revert, I updated the source to a more reliable one that was not self-published on the reverting editor's request. Yet it was reverted again not for being an unreliable source per wikipedia policies, but for being "anti-vaccine propaganda" - proving the editor is POV pushing as opposed to following Wikipedia guidelines.

2. My edits here referred to edits that collectively took issue with gross WP:BLP violations, particularly WP:BLPCRIME as the article currently makes accusations against the subject that he has either never been fully charged with or that have been overturned on appeal. I discuss on the talk page. There is a faction of editors who clearly despise the subject and wanted the subject's bio to reflect their hatred for him - including the admin calling for my sanctioning. The complaining admin engaged in edit-warring. When I started a thread on the talk page to discuss edits, the complaining admin instead used it as an opportunity to get me blocked as a punitive measure. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments:

I will appeal any sanction taken. Realskeptic (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

RealSkeptic keeps on demonstrating his extreme POV pushing. The latest example is a clear example of IDHT. In response to a nice request by Kolbasz to get him to stop the battlefield discussion behavior and make a constructive edit suggestion, he replied with this IDHT reply. I then commented as follows:

"So after all this disruption by you, you have learned nothing and propose we accept a previous edit of yours which was roundly rejected? That's a very blatant example of I didn't hear that behavior, and since it comes after all of the above, it's very disruptive. It's time for a topic ban or long block. You are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, but to advocate a fringe agenda."

This editor has been blocked a couple times (by EdJohnston & Acroterion), learned nothing from the experiences, and immediately returned to the same types of behavior. Numerous editors have engaged, explained, and warned him, but to no avail. A few of them are, in no particular order: NeilN, Guy, TenOfAllTrades, Jpgordon, Anthony Bradbury, Dave Dial, Huon, PhilKnight, MaxSem, RJaguar3, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, AgnosticPreachersKid, MastCell, Anthonyhcole, and myself. A more experienced group of editors and administrators would be hard to find, but even they have had no luck with him.

A very long block will likely be the only way to protect the encyclopedia from disruption, especially since most of his disruption is time-consuming misuse of talk pages. Since he is likely incapable of reforming, an indefinite block might be even better. Previous experience indicates that repeated unblock requests should not be allowed, and removal of access to his own talk page will be necessary, the sooner the better.

There is zero evidence of a positive learning curve, and no evidence of an ability to learn. On the contrary. He just gets further entrenched in his delusional beliefs. He demonstrates the classic signs seen in true-believer syndrome (not a true psychiatric diagnosis, but useful here) and the Dunning–Kruger effect. He is here solely to push a fringe agenda. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Realskeptic's edits have concentrated essentially exclusively on softening Wikipedia's coverage of vaccination related topics, particularly with respect to the once-hypothetical and now-discredited suggestions that there are links between exposure to vaccines or vaccine ingredients (especially the preservative thiomersal) and autism in children. Realskeptic would like us to present a fringe viewpoint – the idea that a link exists – on a substantial or equal footing to the established scientific consensus: a link is not supported by any good-quality, recent, reliable sources, and that the earlier works suggesting such a link was preliminary, low-quality, or outright fraudulent.

After a couple of recent blocks for edit warring, he's moved to perpetual WP:IDHT bickering on article talk pages. It's frequent and unpleasant enough – including repeated, unsupported accusations of BLP violations and libel – and spread across enough pages that a topic ban on all vaccine- and vaccination-related articles, broadly construed is warranted. (Since this constitutes essentially all of Realskeptic's editing, such a topic ban would be functionally equivalent to the out-and-out ban proposed by BullRangifer—and I admit that the risk of moving Realskeptic's editing approach to another topic area is concerning.)

Here are a few examples.

• 4 denied unblock requests in 24 hours (18 November). The IDHT and ask-the-other-parent and help-I'm-being-oppressed are all on clear display.
• Talk:Andrew Wakefield#This article is not neutal. It is very one sided. Period., Talk:Andrew Wakefield#Suggest an edit or move on (continuing to present). After a month of bickering, I observed that talk pages were for discussing their associated articles, and that the encyclopedia would be best served if editors would suggest an edit or move on. Realskeptic first declared that he was making "irrefutable declarations", reiterated his spurious allegations of BLP violations and libel, but at least said he could "leave it there".
  Sadly, he reneged on that a couple of days later, once again repeating again the spurious BLP and libel allegation.
  The following day (within minutes of his response to this AE request) he finally suggested an actual edit. Unfortunately, the suggestion was simply to revert the article to his preferred version from mid-November, over which he had been nearly blocked (a third time) for edit warring.
• Talk:2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference#Rife with BLP issues This talk section illustrates that Realskeptic's grasp of BLP and libel is just...bad. He cites BLP without understanding it, and asserts that well-sourced, factual statements are libel.

Realskeptic has clearly exhausted the community's patience. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to @Gamaliel: Realskeptic has been editing Wikipedia since 2011, albeit very infrequently—not for "two weeks". His recent, active editing began in late October, about five weeks ago. (He's spent eight days of that time blocked for edit warring, however.) He was advised of discretionary sanctions in this area just over a month ago, during his first block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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

• I'm not sure we're at the point where we can say "Realskeptic has clearly exhausted the community's patience" so a block would be inappropriate. Looking at Realskeptic's history, this user has been here for two weeks and appears to have only edited in a single topic area. It is tempting to conclude that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Realskeptic admits ignorance of some fundamental rules of Wikipedia, but insists that long-time editors are using other fundamental rules incorrectly, and throws around the term "libelous" far too freely. I am going to WP:AGF and assume this editor wants to edit Wikipedia in a positive manner, so I think this editor should gain familiarity with our rules by editing is a far less controversial and contentious topic area. I would support a topic ban of three to six months from this topic area, voluntary or otherwise. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• @TenOfAllTrades: Facepalm I'm an idiot. I thought I clicked on "oldest" when examining his edit history, but maybe I only clicked on "older 50"? Well, I'm no longer concerned about newbie biting. If you've been here since 2011 you should have a better handle on policies and such if you are going to loudly challenge others regarding those policies in controversial areas. My "not opposed" for the indef has moved to "support". Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• I was surprised to see that Realskeptic has only 86 edits to articles and 76 to article talk space given the disruption that he is claimed to have caused. Just to be clear, this complaint focuses on edits to primarily Andrew Wakefield along with Trace Amounts, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference and Joan Walsh on the subject of vaccinations? If DS are applied, it's important to know the scope of any problems that exists so a sanction can be targeted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Anyone who thinks that was a BLP violation should not be editing Wikipedia, full stop. I would like to hear arguments from other administrators as to why an indefinite topic ban from anything relating to autism or vaccination, at minimum, would not be appropriate. NW (Talk) 17:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not opposed to indefinite with possibility of reassessment after six months. My concerns are based on WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but neither one should prevent us from dealing with a disruptive editor appropriately. Gamaliel (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• You're a better person than I, Gamaliel. I assume very little good faith to new POV pushers. I will close this as you suggest, an indefinite topic ban in the areas of vaccination and autism with appeals as allowed in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications. NW (Talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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) 22:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

TruthIsDivine (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 :

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

Personal attacks : (lying, stupid, idiot, fraud, etc )

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defensive_gun_use&diff=694065670&oldid=694065223
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defensive_gun_use&diff=694063983&oldid=694063681
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clpo13&diff=prev&oldid=694064461
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defensive_gun_use&diff=prev&oldid=694058420] (summary)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defensive_gun_use&diff=prev&oldid=694058642 (summary)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defensive_gun_use&diff=prev&oldid=694068806

Whatever. You're an stupid redneck hillbilly who is too uneducated to understand the most basic axioms of logic you're also a liar, . Enjoy your fraudulent encyclopedia, you intellectual fraud. i hope you enjoy mastrbating to your gun collection at night and your middle school education which thinks it's possible for there to have been 33 million gun uses. , but you have zero intellectual honesty or integrity and you might be the single dumbest two individuals I have ever met. Wikipedia is truly the last refuge for idiots who failed out of their formal education and cannot understand the most basic elements of logical argument. And you had no business removing all the other well sourced content I added showing that there WERE ONLy 1600 ACTUAL CASES REPORTED. God, how does someone as stupid as you manage to live?

Edit Warring/NPOV:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Kleck&diff=prev&oldid=694065348
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Kleck&diff=prev&oldid=694060291
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Kleck&diff=prev&oldid=694059915
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Kleck&diff=prev&oldid=694047326

Asking for sources, being pointed repeatedly directly to the relevant sources, and then insisting the source does not say what it plainly says, while continuing to make personal attacks (whole section) https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Talk:Defensive_gun_use#Pro-gun_fraud_in_this_article

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TruthIsDivine&diff=694065203&oldid=694064479

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

new WP:SPA editor, WP:NOTHERE, WP:TIGERS. Pinging Clpo13 who is also target of subject's personal attacks and edit warring.

UPDATE : as I was making this report, the user was already blocked for 3 days for harrassment, but given the other diffs, I think more may be in order. However, if this closes without additional action, I see that as valid too. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TruthIsDivine&diff=694069147&oldid=694069070

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 did block the user for WP:NPA for 3 days. I suspect that further sanctions may be needed, but being out of touch with how discretionary sanctions work, I will leave that to you folks to decide. --Rschen7754 22:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

One last personal attack before being blocked: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defensive_gun_use&diff=prev&oldid=694068806

Prior to this account being created, the IP user 2600:1017:b416:1586:bc10:35ea:70fe:b008 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) edited the same pages with the same concerns.

I can't speak to most of their changes to Defensive gun use, but I did note their refusal to discuss the changes on the talk page. They chose instead to focus on the 33 million figure at the high end of defensive gun use estimates. Despite numerous explanations about where that figure came from (such as ) and its nature as an estimate, they obstinately stuck to declaring it was a logical impossibility and anyone who thought otherwise had "zero intellectual honesty or integrity" and that Gaijin42 and I were "the single dumbest two individuals I have ever met". clpo13_(talk) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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

• I've seen all I need to see here. Imposing an indefinite topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Champaign Supernova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#Tea_Party_movement:

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

1. Date November 30 Makes minor edit to Watchdog.org, a project of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a family of pages which HughD was blocked for one week for editing in October
2. November 30 Makes substantial reversion of disputed content on Watchdog.org
3. November 30 Makes another substantial reversion of disputed content on Watchdog.org
4. November 30 Makes substantial edits to the Clarion Project, including section where funding by Donors Capital Fund is discussed. HughD has been told repeatedly to avoid editing content with connection to Donors Capital Fund, as the Fund has received money from the Koch brothers and he is banned from editing content related to them.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. August 28 HughD topic-banned from "any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, for one year."
2. October 11 After AE request, HughD warned that "further violations of the TBAN will likely result in a block (even if just minor)."
3. October 29 HughD blocked for one week "following editing on Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity." An appeal of this block was declined at AE .

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

HughD has repeatedly shown that he is not capable of editing within the confines of his discretionary editing ban related to the Kochs/Tea Party. His repeated failure to comply with the sanctions against him suggests that he should be banned from editing all of post-1942 U.S. politics. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand from the helpful comments on this complaint from various administrators that an article must explicitly state a connection to a topic-banned area in order to be considered a violation. Per SafeHaven's suggestion below, I believe I removed any shadow of a doubt regarding a Tea Party/Koch connection to Watchdog.org with this edit . Hugh is, however, still editing the article. I don't know how much clearer a connection can be than "Watchdog.org represented the largest media investment to date for Charles and David Koch." If an editor banned from Koch-related articles continues to edit an article representing the Koch's largest media investment, I'm not sure what the point of such a topic ban is. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

No violation of topic ban. Sad, pointed, harassing retread of previous failed request for enforcement. Hugh (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC) A content dispute improperly escalated to AE; respectfully request involved editors to return to the article talk page in good faith. No disruptive edits reported. No boundary testing; our project's articles Watchdog.org and Clarion Project are clearly out of scope. Respectfully request decline again. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

In evaluating this complaint readers are respectfully requested to note that the April 22, 2013 Columbia Journalism Review article cited by commenting involved editor Safehaven86 below is not currently included in our project's article on Watchdog.org, nor is it involved in any of the edits cited above by complainant. Please also note that on 10 July 2013 a fellow editor added a connection to the Kochs to our project's article Watchdog.org, supported by that very source, and the commenting involved editor Safehaven86 deleted it within minutes with an edit summary of WP:SYNTH, then today comes before our project's arbiters claiming a connection sufficient for enforcement. Hugh (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hugh has been given more than enough chances to show that he can meaningfully comply with his topic ban. See User talk:HughD#Editing ban, User talk:HughD#One week block for violation of topic ban, User talk:HughD#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HughD, User talk:HughD#Draft WP:TBAN addition, and numerous discussions at User talk:Ricky81682. The ins and outs of the ban have been discussed at length, and it has been made clear to Hugh that he should not touch articles broadly defined in the Tea Party/Koch Bros realm. Whether the topic ban is too confusing because it is a unique and individualized ban or whether Hugh is willfully disregarding it doesn't really matter at this point--he's been given enough warnings and explanations. I agree that a broader ban is in order. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

He was banned for one week for editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity because of that group's Koch connection. Watchdog.org is the main project of the Franklin Center. If the Franklin Center was found to be in scope of the ban, it only seems logical that Watchdog.org would be, too. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, that makes sense. I think the issue at hand here is that while it doesn't currently appear that any Koch-related material is in the Watchdog.org article, there does seem to be a connection. See this Columbia Journalism Review article, which says "But there is a key clue to the Koch brothers’ vision of the media— the Kochs’ leading media investment to date, an ambitious right-leaning investigative outlet called the Franklin Center and its watchdog.org network..." So I guess the question is, does an article need to explicitly state a connection to Tea Party/Koch to be in violation of the topic ban, or does there just need to be a connection that a reasonable person could ascertain through basic research, whether or not such a connection is stated on the page? I don't know the answer to that. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

In his previous violations, he has made it clear by his edits that he believes that the article is related to the Kochs, whether or not that is actually the case. Objective analysis as to the degree of the relationship was unnecessary. Here, it seems more complicated. I'm not saying I think Hugh is a constructive editor of a benefit to Wikipedia; just that an objective analysis of politics, basically a subjective field, may be required to determine whether he's violated his TBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In other words, many of his previous blocks were for making an edit to an article where he had previously made a Koch-related edit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at some of the diffs, it looks like a "simple" content dispute not a edit war. And the claim of tea party or Koch brothers topic ban seems too far, after all anything can then be claimed to be relevant to the topic by guilty by association. It seems to be that this is just a content dispute and other means should be used to resole before ARBCOM decides to banhammer someone. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

• I'm not a fan of HughD's boundary pushing, but the edits in question have absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party or the Koch Brothers as far as I can see. There are a limit to topic bans. For example, editors topic banned in the American Politics case are allowed to edit articles regarding climate change, despite the fact that climate change is a hot button issue in American politics. Perhaps HughD should be topic banned from American Politics (and there is certainly merit to this viewpoint as he demonstrates a clear battleground mentality), but a more limited Tea Party/Koch Brothers topic ban should not be treated as a de facto American Politics topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• I assume that Safehaven86 is referring to User_talk:HughD#One_week_block_for_violation_of_topic_ban when they say that "He was banned for one week for editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity because of that group's Koch connection." What I see there is Ricky81682 blocking for making very specific edits that involve the Kochs ("You added content that specifically refers to the Koch brothers"). Edits to Watchdog.org (this, this, and this) do not seem to involve the Kochs at all. What I see is some slippage here, by Safehaven and by the complainant, Champaign Supernova, from "making a Koch edit in an article" to "making an edit in a Koch article"--that is, and I'm citing the complaint here, "following editing on Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity", the accusation was incomplete, and should have said "following Koch-related editing etc." Likewise, I don't see anything that violates the topic ban in this edit: HughD wasn't banned from editing that article either. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Safehaven86, you have a point, and one or two of the fools suckers reverend editors running for ArbCom have pointed in that direction also--the direction being "broadly construed". One could construe this topic ban broadly but since the connection with Koch is really, really tenuous in those edits, "broadly construed" practically extends to, as Gamaliel points out, "a de facto American Politics topic ban" (good thing Gamaliel isn't running for ArbCom--he has too much common sense) and that's stretching the original topic ban too far. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am asking for a Full Protection premised upon the outcome of the last ARB, and that uninterested editors would be reviewing, and discretionary actions would be available as a product of those ARBs

Full details are found here https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Request_for_Full_Protection_---.3Evia_the_ARB_to_exercising_its_defined_Discretionary_Powers_reflected.2Fasserted_in_the_posted_ALERT

If there is an alternative approach please tell me. My method seemed correct, efficient and expedient. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A logical approach of course would be to remove the cause of the disruption.--TMCk (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel:, the premise of this request is that by delivering the generic Alert to all editors of Electronic Cigarettes, that it created an on going obligation to have people revisit to determine if further action is needed. I this body won't pick up my plea for action, I just need to be told that. Here in a nutshell is the most compelling reason for my request for the Admins to take up a Full Protection of the page.(broadly defined). S Marshall states quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=694133819&oldid=694129808

(Partial sequential quote, please see original source)I have described my intentions on this talk page on a number of occasions previously, but this may have been before you started editing. I intend to rewrite this article so that it's accessible to a schoolchild -- a vulnerable person who's heard of e-cigarettes and is considering taking a puff. This is the kind of person who is likely to be turning to Wikipedia for information. Everyone else here has heard me say this.
At the moment the article is written for and accessible to people with college degrees who make decisions for a living.
No, I am not going to submit each of my changes to the Article Edit Approval Committee on the talk page before I make them. I fought a four month Arbcom case so that I wouldn't have to do that. It's needless and bureaucratic. I do intend to discuss each controversial change on the talk page.

The above is a clear POV, a clear agenda, and clearly wanting to take over the entire page. IT IS VERY CLEAR. I am asking this body to enforce the sanctions required of it. When an ALERT is given, it must not be abandoned. The words of S Marshall are exceptional and remarkable. He is going to craft his very own advocacy handout, and use Wikipedia as his publisher. He is asserting that content needs to be removed to appeal to his target audience. This is simply outrageous. If you won't act PLEASE tell me. I think this is a consequence of ARB interplay....and the ARB can take it under their own impetus. You are however notified. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Spartaz: Can you look at this? You closed out a ARB case on S Marshall via the topic ban of QuackGuru. The case was stopped on the premise that QuackGuru originated the case on S Marshall. Afterwards an Alert was posted. I am asking for Full Protection of the article. I am asking that it be done via the ARB you are named on. I believe a review of the latest from the talk pages will show you way, but I can respond to questions. If this is not a method to use....please tell me and I will work on it elsewhere. Why it should be done by the ARB, is because of the imbalance that ARB created and what is a blizzard of edits with POV agendas. No can help? Please just tell me. @Gamaliel: has not been responding, and I do not know why. reference https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive185#Result_concerning_S_Marshall Mystery Wolff (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Prokaryotes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

JzG (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions:

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

1. 16 December 2015 Removes study reference, which is the scope of the article (1RR)
2. 16 December 2015 Removes key info per source, why study was initially retracted (1RR)
3. 14 December 2015 Removes long standing article content without prior discussion (NPOV)
4. 14 December 2015 Removes study reference, which is the scope of the article (NPOV)
5. 15 December 2015 Removes long standing article content without prior discussion, which was used to explain work of BLP. (NPOV)
6. 14 December 2015 Removes mention of award for BLP. (NPOV)

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)

• Commented on the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Genetically modified organisms case closed / 14 December 2015
• Previously, there have been several requests by involved users to add JzG to the Arbitration case linked above. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms
• Has received several Arb sanction notifications in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&action=history&tagfilter=discretionary+sanctions+alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Admin JzG/Guy, today violated the 1RR remedy (see Difs above). He made highly opinionated comments at the Glyphosate talk page yesterday, states in response to my proposal for content addition, "Ah yes, legislative alchemy, the process by which nonsense becomes science". Glyphosate talk page / 15 December 2015 As mentioned above, other editors have requested his inclusion in the case about Genetically modified organisms for several reason, which can be read on the case page.

Misrepresents source content at talk page RfC Séralini affair 16 December 2015

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/User_talk:JzG#Arb_enforcement

@JzG Ofc we can begin discussing each single edit, but you are one of the most active editors on GMO articles lately and you primarily focus on removing key infos. Yes the other regular editors support you, but all these RfC are fresh and the one you cite above is very marginal (4v3), and the other you mentioned is like (2v2), depending how you judge the comments. prokaryotes (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Only in death There has been no discussion prior to removal of those two reverts for 1RR, and there is certainly no consensus. JzG just reverts, after that i started today in one instance a RfC. prokaryotes (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish What you call canvassing is in response to JzG posting here https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Talk:S%C3%A9ralini_affair#Prokaryotes.27_request_at_AE

@Alexbrn The article about Federation of German Scientists is not about GMO's. Everybody who is interested should take a closer look at the talk page of that article, where another editor called Alexbrn's edits incomprehensible, additional Alexbrn tried to intimidate me on my talk page here. He is also not mentioning that i removed this RfC point he quotes. prokaryotes (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark This Arbcom request is about a 1RR violation, if you think my comments Kingofaces43 linked need attention, then this should be dealt with in a separate venue, not when we discuss the KEY contents of one of the most controversial pages on Wikipedia, where admins and editors (who post also below), remove large quantities of long standing content, and prevent improvements when teaming up. Same goes for Alexbrn's claims. prokaryotes (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Parabolist So it is perfectly fine for you when an admin is breaking Arbcom sanctions?

• Notice
• Editor Kingofaces43, Alexbrn, and to some degree Tryptofish are involved in related page edits.
• JzG is canvassing here. prokaryotes (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Capeo and Tryptofish point out that i canvass, but they seem to have no problem with that when JzG/Guy does it.
• In response to (SPACKlick), i changed the notification, also notice that Tryptofish is concerned about my notice at the Glyphosate talk page, also part of above Difs. prokaryotes (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Announcement I retract my request for Arbcom enforcement, since editors are more concerned with my past edits, then actual the DIFS and sanction breach i intended to report. I also have to note that my impression was that Arbcom requests are judged by Arbcom people, not what basically turns out to be the same as over at ANI. prokaryotes (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment in response to editors which ask for enforcement against me

On which grounds do you want me topic banned, care to post some difs? Tryptofish mentioned my conduct, what does this mean, why so vague? Others refer to my talk page post by MastCell, which was a warning. After that I edited the last 2 days at Gilles-Éric Séralini, and Séralini affair. I got often reverted, actually almost all of my edits got challenged, and then i took it to talk page. Also i stopped editing there now, because it is not possible, when i post well sourced content it is removed. Not sure how these articles will look in the future but my impression is that readers will seek other places to find some neutral ground. prokaryotes (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, JzG alerted involved editors, i asked for uninvolved editors, JzG reverted his 2nd edit, i retracted my request, yet you only ask for punishment for me. When i edited i basically had do deal with about 4 editors who disagreed with my edits, hence why i created these RFCs. Asking to punish me now based on unrelated past edits, from an entirely different perspective, a different situation, with different editors involved appears more like an effort to remove one of the last editors with a more critical input from GMO articles. prokaryotes (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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

The diffs show single reverts. The reverts have not been repeated, and have been discussed on Talk. In each case there have been solid policy-based reasons for removal. There has been no violation of WP:1RR as far as I can tell, just edits made once and followed up on talk. Unless you define a revert as any edit that removes text, however long it's been there? I don't think that's the spirit of the thing, especially since the edits remove different items of text and Talk page discussion unambiguously supports the view that removal is a valid interpretation of WP:PAG.

Re the diffs:

1. 16 December 2015 is the only one I would consider potentially actionable; I removed this source onDec 14 as not supporting the actual text (see below), while supporting its inclusion elsewhere in the article. Prokaryotes reverted that removal on Dec 16 and I reverted the reinsertion. That appears to be the catalyst for this report.
2. 16 December 2015 is not a revert, and my edit has clear consensus on talk as of the time of writing. I rephrased the text to more closely reflect the actual source, this also appears to have support.
3. 14 December 2015 described as "Removes long standing article content without prior discussion (NPOV)" - when discussed on Talk, Minor4th describes this as "fair enough".
4. 14 December 2015 Described as "Removes study reference, which is the scope of the article (NPOV)", this was the link discussed above, which was supporting the wrong text - I have no problem with linking the republished study in the right place, just not to support a fact about its per-review status, which it does not discuss.
5. 15 December 2015 Described as "Removes long standing article content without prior discussion, which was used to explain work of BLP. (NPOV)", Alexbrn says: "I'd ditch the list of articles since we're WP:NOT a bibliography, and particularly not a bibliography of dodgy papers. Any articles that have got sound secondary coverage can be described in the narrative text in the context of that sound coverage"
6. 14 December 2015 Described as "Removes mention of award for BLP. (NPOV)"; this award was cited solely to the awarding body's own website, and there was no evidence of its significance. Now review the subsequent discussion: Alexbrn has now found a reliable independent source that establishes context, and I support any edits Alexbrn makes based ont hat sourcing.

This is not, as Prokaryotes portrays it, a bilateral dispute. In fact Prokaryotes is being reverted by other editors, e.g. Prokaryotes reverts me and Kingofaces43 reverts Prokaryotes.

Example: which removes a redundant quotation to a paper which was inserted as a source for a discussion of the peer-review around the paper, with the content about the peer review cited to a source that actually discusses the peer review. I understand why Prokaryotes wants to reference the study, I have already said on Talk that I fully support its inclusion in the article, but not there. The study itself is simply not an appropriate reference for the text in question: "In June 2014 Séralini republished the article in in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, which did not conduct any further peer review. Reviewers checked only that the content of the paper matched the retracted original."

Example: removing text added by Prokaryotes which has been discussed on Talk at with, currently, Prokaryotes supporting his edit, and three editors including me opposing it. In fact I included what is IMO a more neutral statement of the facts which is unquestionably much closer to the original source:

Example: I removed a paragraph discussing a petition to republish the 2012 Séralini paper which was sourced solely to a website set up to host the petition: .

I would stress that in each case there has been discussion on the Talk page. In most cases Prokaryotes is in a minority of one. You can see this at Gilles-Éric Séralini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Séralini affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

The core issues here are WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRINGE. Where I have removed content, it is generally because it is sourced to a primary source, often one whose neutrality is disputed.

Prokaryotes has already raised these concerns on the Talk pages, e.g. and (Prokaryotes now appears to have struck the aggressive third item in this RfC, for which he should receive credit).

When the content is addressed specifically, e.g. , it is clear that the case is not, as Prokaryotes characterises it above, tendentious removal of sourced content, but instead a supportable exercise of editorial judgment on which reaosnable peopel may differ.

In summary, then, this is a case where Prokaryotes disputes my content edits, where these edits are discussed on Talk, and where consensus, as much as it can be judged from such small numbers of involved editors, favours my edits and not his.

As per , this looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia processes to gain an advantage in a content dispute, by an editor who is currently not prevailing in talk page discussion. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Minor4th: Are you trying to relitigate the ArbCom case and retrospectively make me a party? What is your opinion of the actual edit diffs that Prokaryotes cites above, removing primary sourced material per WP:PAG and then discussing on Talk? That seems to me to be how Wikipedia is supposed to work: disputed content is removed, discussed on talk, and if agreed, reinserted, potentially with better sourcing. Can you find any examples where I have opposed the reinsertion of content with improved sourcing? Guy (Help!) 15:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason I stepped back until the end of the case is very simple. I was allowing my inability to communicate effectively with SageRad, to get to me. Hence my subsequent apology to SageRad. After an arbitration case, it is usually time to go back and review the articles and see about fixing any remaining issues. Doing this during the case often just adds fuel to the flames anyway. As to "ideological opponents", I think it would be extremely hard to categorise my ideology with respect to those involved. I am very keen on sound environmental policies, renewable energy, and humane treatment of animals. I support sustainable development and sustainable agriculture, but I oppose the organic movement because it is founded on a fallacy, the appeal to nature, and because it is self-deluded, using "natural" chemicals that are every bit as problematic as the non-"natural" ones, but often less effective so used in larger quantities. I support GMOs because there is no credible evidence of harm and substantial evidence of potential to do good, for example golden rice or pest-resistant varieties that need less spraying. One of my favourite foodstuffs contains a neurotoxin to keep insects at bay. It's not genetically modified, it's coffee. I do have a strong opinion on abuse of science. By industry, by anti-science groups, by "big pharma" and "big herba" alike. I got accused of being a climate change denier in the last couple of days. That's quite funny. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: Yes, I often remove stuff. Not just here. One of my pet peeves on Wikipedia is that editing never seems to involve pruning cruft: articles get longer and longer. And in this specific case, every edit is being discussed on Talk and seems to enjoy support. There is nothing wrong with removing text from an article and talking about it. It's what we're supposed to do if article content appears to be poorly sourced. It all gets fixed before the WP:DEADLINE. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@ Tryptofish: I see you are correct. I have self-reverted and tagged it instead: . I will take it to Talk. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Noting that I warned and notified JzG about the GMO editing restrictions during this same time period, here: and warned him also about his divisive/polarizing comments in the topic area, here:

As mentioned in the OP, many requests were made that JZG be included as a party in the recently-closed case and his poor behavior was commented on by several arbs. Now that the case is closed he appears to be back at the same behavior while other editors are at least attempting to work more collaboratively.

I think a time limited topic ban would be appropriate. Minor4th 15:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@JzG:. No Im not trying to relitigate the Arb case, just providing some historical context for the current request. As far as the diffs - I won't comment on whether your edits were "correct" or justified by PAG - that's irrelevant; the point is the case just closed with pretty clear cut editing restrictions, including some topic bans for individual editors, and the purpose is to slow things down in this controversial topic area, yet you have ploughed ahead by removing swaths of sourced content multiple times in multiple articles in the topic area. And you have still been engaging in dialogue that promotes rather than alleviates discord among editors.

While you might "technically" consider your revert streak a single revert (since it took a while for other editors to intervene), making multiple contentious reverts like that without even starting a talk page discussion is something you should have anticipated would stir up more controversy rather than stabilize the content. Your judgment and motives also come into question because you only started this multi-article revert streak after the case closed and when several of your ideological opponents were topic banned. Minor4th 15:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Policy based edits, brought to the TP, that never broke 1RR. Why are we here exactly? Capeo (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• I guess technically there was a 1RR violation today. A minor one I hadn't seen that has been since reverted. Looking at the totality of behavior surrounding the pages in question the only sanction I see necessary would be a TB for ‎Prokaryotes honestly. Capeo (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Prokaryotes, just a clarification but this isn't an ArbCom case nor are many Arbs likely even to respond here. AE requests are resolved at the discretion of any uninvolved admin. Capeo (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• DrChrissy, even a technical breach of 1RR, let alone 3RR, is not a guarantee of sanctions. Hence Admin discretion. Unless intent to disrupt or a pattern is shown after a self revert the usual course is a warning to be more careful. A 12 month TB is ludicrous. Also, like AN or ANI, the actions of everyone involved are scrutinized. Its not uncommon for the person who requested enforcement to actually be dealt enforcement. Capeo (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• DrChrissy, I just realized the articles being discussed here are part of your TB. It might best to steer clear of this subject lest an admin sees this conversation as falling under you TB as well. Capeo (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Prokaryotes, I'm pretty sure the way that's worded falls afoul of canvassing.Capeo (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• In regards to canvassing my view mirrors that of SPACKlick below. Capeo (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

There is probably a bit of a gap here - the revert rules are fairly rigid in that reverts of different material on the same topic, counts as multiple reverts. However implementing consensus as per talkpage discussion would seem to fall outside of that. Given JzG's edits were in line with the talkpage consensus, I dont think this qualifies under 1rr. (Arguably they are not 'reverting' edits, they are editing in line with consensus to improve the article) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It saddens me to say this, but there is one clear violation of 1RR. These two edits by JzG, and , are successive reverts today, with intervening edits by other editors, a little more than an hour apart. They are good edits on the merits, but they violate 1RR, and an experienced admin who was very active in the ArbCom case should be fully aware of the restrictions. The earlier edits cited in the filing statement do not qualify as 1RR violations, as far as I can tell. That said, there is way too much battleground on both sides going on at that page, and I would urge some scrutiny of Prokaryotes as well, starting with the threaded comments here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes is also canvassing about this AE: . --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Two notes: (1) Prokaryotes has moved the threaded comments here, after my pointing it out. (2) Alexbrn makes good points about Prokaryotes. An examination of the Proposed Decision in the case shows that the Arbs were divided about whether there should be a topic ban, and the conduct following the case close does indeed seem to me to indicate imposing a topic ban now (perhaps not a site ban as Alexbrn suggested). The topic ban could be worded the same way as those issued to other parties in the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

In response to the discussions about canvassing, although it is not the central issue here, let me explain it this way. JzG's statement at the talk page of the article where the reverting took place may come close to canvassing, but does not quite reach it for two reasons: that he was defending himself, and that it was at the talk page where the reverts were actually being discussed. In contrast, Prokaryote's notice was at a talk page of a different page, so it was not simply made as part of an existing discussion, and when Prokaryotes said this here, that is an outright admission that the intent was to attract editors who disagree with JzG. I note that JzG acknowledges his 1RR mistake and has taken measures to correct it, whereas Prokaryotes is maintaining a posture of denying his own mistakes, and appears not to be "getting it". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I would be very disappointed if this AE were to be closed with no action simply because Prokaryotes has realized that there is a boomerang heading his way. As for JzG, I'm willing to accept that he has acknowledged and corrected the 1RR, and there is no need for a serious action, but he also needs to understand loud and clear that admins in particular should not allow themselves to be in such situations to begin with, and that any repeat will not be tolerated by the community. But as for Prokaryotes, enough is enough. ArbCom came very close to enacting a topic ban, but dropped the ball. If AE is now going to drop the ball too, it will be the editing community that suffers. As soon as the ArbCom case opened, Prokaryotes largely disappeared from editing. As soon as the case closed, he returned with a vengeance, and has resumed his previous conduct. Even in trying to withdraw, there has been zero acknowledgment by Prokaryotes that he understands the concerns about his conduct. He just says that he does not want scrutiny directed at him. If the admins here are going to be so negligent that you just say, well the OP withdrew it, so let's close it, then you are failing appallingly. There are DS in effect. Enforce those DS! For goodness' sake, don't just drop this back in the community's lap. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I see Prokaryotes has asked that I and others should link to evidence. Having just finished the ArbCom case, I have a sense of "been there, done that", but in addition to what has already been talked about in this AE (including but not limited to the recent editing history at Séralini affair), which already includes numerous diffs and links from many other editors, I will at least link to and . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no knowledge and no opinion about the content. But I know that it is very easy to break WP:1RR, even by mistake. In WP:ARBPIA, the common practice is to warn others that they have broken WP:1RR, and only if they refuse to self-revert, bring them to WP:AE. My own practice is to self-revert if asked, no matter what the merits of the complaint. I simply perform the edit 24 hours later (assuming there is talk page consensus etc.) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Was called to this topic by RFC and was surprised at the level of battleground displayed by Prokaryote on the talk page when I spotted this Arb. Technically JZG has violated 1RR today, although the edits themselves should not be seen as problematic. I think a WP:Boomerang should be heading back at Prokaryote, however. In light of his POV issues, threaded comments on this page and battleground. SPACKlick (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Dr Chrissy, While I fully agree that "Technical", "Stale", "consensus" and "minor" are not mitigations for a breach of 1RR they should be seen as factors used in discretion of the sanction. As you seem to think that pointing out that the major problem in the article is with the proposer here rather than the "accused" is a distraction, I'll put my POV in plain text. JZG should receive a short topic ban for breach of 1RR, somewhere in the region of 24hrs to 7 days with a warning that further breaches will lead to 6-12month length bans. However once that sanction is in place I also encourage the admins to look at Prokaryote in this matter. Please don't act in bad faith and suggest people are saying Prokaryote is a problem just to protect JZG. Maybe they're saying it because Prokaryote appears to them to be a problem. SPACKlick (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

On Canvassing. I don't believe JZG is canvassing. JZG notified the relevant talk page that a complaint was filed against him for actions nder discussion of that page. Prokaryotes however was canvassing now involved editors discuss the topic banning of me, not even bothering to judge the actual 1RR violation. The issues evolves around one of the most controversial pages on Wikipedia, and is at its heart about neutrality and verifiability of content. Therefore i invite all Wikipedians to participate and give some feedback, thanks. Spinning the issue in a specific way, seeking specific replies. To Quote WP:Canvassing In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions...canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. SPACKlick (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Since Prokaryotes narrowly avoided sanction by Arbcom their behaviour, which should have been cautious, has been the opposite. For example, in my interactions with this editor within the last 2 days I have seen them:

• Launch an RfC at Talk:Séralini affair which invites participants to decide "Should Arbcom enforce discretionary sanctions for admin JzG".
• Focus on me personally when we should be discussing content: ("What you doing here is to try to remove editors from editing this article, because you think this article is yours. WP:OWNBEHAVIOR Btw. Do you have any conflict of interest when editing these pages?") - a reprise of the "are you a shill?" tactic at the root of the Arbcom case.
• Seriously propose truth-out.org as a reliable source for GMO content.

And in the light of the complaint here, ironically:

• Violate the 1RR ban on GMO-related topics by twice reverting GMO-related content at Federation of German Scientists. I warned Prokaryotes of this here in case they wanted to self-revert (which opportunity was declined).

I think the community's patience must surely by now exhausted, and propose an indefinite site ban for Prokaryotes is the only solution that seems likely to bring relief. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Responses to comments in other sections

@Prokaryotes says above of the 1RR violation "The article about Federation of German Scientists is not about GMO". In fact, both edits concern Gilles-Éric Séralini, a central figure of the GMO controversy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Accusations against Guy are largely stale at this point. The minor 1RR violation has been self-reverted 3 hours after the edit. Nothing more than a warning was needed in the first place given the context of edits as Kingsindian and Tryptofish describe above. If it were a blatant revert war over the same content, that would be more of a serious problem.

Prokaryotes is starting to look like the backbone of this current issue. What has happened here is the exact kind of gaming of 1RR Guy responded to that was cautioned against during the case where editor 1 adds controversial content, editor 2 reverts, and editor 1 adds more controversial content unopposed in something of a WP:BLUDGEON fashion. A drafting arb specifically mentioned they intended the discretionary sanctions to deal with edit warring situations like this..

That being said, Prokaryotes behavior really does need a look in the context of this issue. Earlier, MastCell specifically warned Prokaryotes they would personally topic ban them under discretionary sanctions for a litany of behavior issues described here. It doesn't appear MastCell has been online during these new events, so I would encourage admins to read MastCell's "final warning" remembering that Prokaryotes was one vote short of being topic banned themselves. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

In response to AlbinoFerret's comment below that "both should be warned that this is the last chance to stop . . .", Prokaryotes was already given their final warning as described above before the incident. Most of the issues described with Prokaryotes so far are independent of Guy's actions, so it's rather inappropriate in this case to say Prokaryotes is just reacting to Guy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm only seeing only a content dispute here, but content positions can be part of a disruptive pattern. Regarding the content,

• Séralini's is unavoidably a necessary point of view regarding the Séralini affair, and must be represented according to NPOV.
• Primary sources, even biased primary sources are not a bright line criteria for removal. All else being equal, better sources are preferable to worse sources, but if a necessary PoV is present in reliable sources of any kind, you use the best of what you have.
• While representing the view, we must avoid undue quantity or credence in our coverage. Per WP:ONEWAY there would be less leeway if were were discussing glyphosate or genetically modified organism, but some removed content was not excessive in quality or credence given the context in articles on the controversy or the man himself.
• It does not seem necessary or desirable to cite Séralini in addition to Nature regarding the retraction, unless citing Séralini separately for a claim that differ's from Nature's account.
• What JzG calls "special pleading", I'd call WP:HOWEVER. Qualifications about the reasons for retraction have a place, if properly sourced, but not as a parasite on another sentence.
• An award body is primary regarding the award itself, but secondary about the recipient and his work. It's functioning in this case more in the latter role. The Federation of German Scientists should itself be regarded as more qualified to confer notability than most news outlets, but the award did receive significant media attention in Germany. Per NPOV, it should be noted that that attention was largely negative.

The violation of 1RR should be noted, but not dwelled upon. It doesn't seem to be a locus of actual disruption or necessary preventive intervention. If anything in this might be construed as disruptive, its overreach in using WP:PRIMARY as a reason to removed cited claims. There's just not enough here to construe it as a pattern of disruption when backed only by vague insinuation about prior behavior. I'm not familiar with JzG's or Prokaryotes' history in the topic, which others seem to believe is pertinent. If that history is going to be part of the discussion at all, it needs to be backed with diffs. Rhoark (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

MastCell's collection of diffs as linked by Kingofaces43 above seems to me like enough evidence to topic ban Prokaryotes on the basis of personalizing disputes. Rhoark (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to be a grouch here, but as was pointed out a few times, there was a 1RR violation. Whether or not the other user is an evil editor is yet to be determined and ARBCOM can take up that case as well. What we have here, again, is an administrator about to get away with violating Wikipedia policies. While it may seem trivial, especially in this case, an admin has to be editing above and beyond. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston,I was blocked for 24 hours for violating 1RR without knowing about it. If you look at the logs, and on my talk page Archive 2, my block was done the exact same time as the DS notice was placed on my talk page. I was not given a chance, nor was I even given the notice that there are sanctions in place. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It is quite clear (per, e.g. Tryptofish, Minor4th, Capeo, etc) that 1RR has been breached. Suggestions that this might be "technical", "stale" or "minor" in some mitigatory way are distractions and should be ignored completely. 1RR should be viewed in the same way as 3RR and we do not describe 4 reverts as "minor". Similarly, the fact that the illegal edits might have consensus has absolutely no bearing whatsoever - if this were the case, an editor could make 20 edits on a 1RR page and expect to get away with it as long as they had consensus. The rule has been broken and the editor must take full responsibility for their actions. This is even more so because the editor is an admin. I support Minority4th's proposal that there should be a time limited topic ban related to the locus of the ArbCom case. I suggest this time is 12 months, to be consistent with the remedies already issued during the ArbCom case.

I further suggest that the suggestions of any sanctions against the OP are treated as deliberate distractions by supporters of JzG. Let's deal with the main issue here which is a clear breach of ArbCom's decision.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment of Sir Joseph. Admins should be held to a higher standard of behaviour. JzG is aware of the case having participated in the case. They should be aware of the restrictions. They have violated the restrictions. In addition the large removal of material from articles under the restrictions without discussing said removal beforehand is a questionable move for an admin to make so soon after the closing of the case. This deserves a look at by those deciding this section and possible consequences. I will also point out to JzG that your statement is more than double the 500 word limit. AlbinoFerret 19:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

In response to Tryptofish's plea. As someone who is uninvolved in editing in this area I see two editors behaving in questionable ways. One is an admin who should know better, and the other is an editor reacting to the questionable actions of said admin. Two wrongs never make a right, and focusing in on one and not the other, offering a slap on the wrist to one and a sledge hammer to the other is inappropriate. It smells of winning a content dispute on the noticeboards by favouring one side who shares a point of view. IMHO the arbs made a mistake and JzG got off on a technicality (one they created), and Prokaryotes scraped by a sanction by the skin of his teeth. Since the admins here are thrust into the role of parent having to teach the two wrongs dont make a right lesson they should do what most parents do. So, IMHO, there is a choice in which way to go in teaching that lesson, both should be warned that this is the last chance to stop this senseless, useless, and time consuming drain on the project and start to work together, or both of them end up topic banned and end the senseless, useless, and time consuming drain on the project once and for all where it concerns them. Focusing in one one or the other is a mistake. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Striking and adding, still reacting to questionable battleground edits. While Prokaryotes may have been warned before, JzG is an admin and should be held to a higher behaviour standard. As I see it, its a wash on warnings/expectations. So perhaps its best to just topic ban them both if further warning isnt an option. AlbinoFerret 20:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I will also point out to any admin, anything that has happened before the close of the GMO case is stale. The arbs judged on it and found what they have found. To keep revisiting old evidence that has been gone over by the highest level of DS is wrong when done at a lower level. If those who present old evidence think there is a issue that was not examined they should be directed to WP:ARCA. AlbinoFerret 22:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As an editor new to the area, having seen some of the conflict spill over into noticeboards over the last couple days, it is my opinion that this is a boomerang scenario, regardless of any "sides" to this. More so than anyone else that I've seen posting on these pages, prokaryotes seems to consider this a battleground, and their editing inflames tension rather than encouraging collaborative editing. Also, the insistence on turning every single minor edit request into an RFC before even seeking any comments on the talk page seems at the very least exhausting, at worst tendentious. Parabolist (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I see the 1RR violation, and I see that it was self-reverted here. I don't do much at AE, but don't we generally forgive and forget where the editor in question has self-reverted? I see other editors suggest as much, above, and that is my recollection as well. Of the accusations above, that was the only even slightly credible one - and it's already been addressed. I defer to the closing admin on this one, but I very nearly closed it with nothing more than a trout to JzG to be more careful.

Also, No recommendation on sanctions against Prokaryotes - but taking a break from this topic area would be a wise decision on their part, I believe. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit: As this has been withdrawn by Prokaryotes (here), there seems to be no further complaint against JzG. I'd recommend that this be closed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

If this sort of behavior continues I am going to recommend topic bans for both JzG and Prokaryotes. The close of the ArbCom case was followed immediately by the resumption of battleground behavior by multiple parties. I'm afraid admins are going to have to show that they are prepared to intervene decisively in order to stop it. These two are the worst offenders, and their behavior is especially egregious because both received negative attention in the ArbCom case -- Prokaryotes barely escaped without a topic ban. But it isn't just them: we have seen edit-warring at glyphosate that required page protection. GregJackP (talk · contribs) placed a "retired" banner on his talk page, but then popped up immediately after the close of the case to participate in an edit war and template one of the involved editors. This sort of behavior will continue as long as editors think they can get away with it. Looie496 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this should be closed even with the withdrawal. I notice that JzG was requested as a party to a recent ARBCOM case is some how relevant to this discussion. This among other things puts me in the mind of this being an attempt to game the sanctions process to serve a vendetta.I think admins should take time to review if this is the case here, if at the very least to give a warning. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

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

• Per this edit the submitter, User:Prokaryotes, is asking to withdraw this complaint. User:JzG broke the 1RR but has since self-reverted. The statement by Ultraextactzz is also worthy of attention. I recommend this be closed with no action. JzG should be aware that 1RRs need to be enforced, so sooner or later people will have to dial down the speed of their changes, regardless of their good intentions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Closing with no action per my comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Only in death (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

DrChrissy (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#DrChrissy_topic_banned :

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

Opening a discussion on a third parties talkpage canvassing them to edit on their behalf in violation of their topic ban. Clearly not covered under WP:BANEX.

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

DrChrissy is well aware of what is and is not allowed when topic banned. See discussions related to this here, here and here. Despite this being explained in various ways, DrChrissy still does not get it. While I do not consider the appeal to Jimbo a violation (as it would be an appeal under BANEX) it does illustrate the point that DrChrissy cannot drop the stick.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

• Will the OP please clarify which part of my topic ban they believe I have violated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• It is 24 hrs later and the OP has still not clarified which part of my topic ban they believe I have breached.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Please note that I have struck through the single diff put forward as evidence in this case. I would have completely self-reverted, however, I am mindful this is another user's talk page and I would not do this without their permission or the support of someone in authority (e.g. an uninvolved admin).DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The complaint here is that DrChrissy watched the talk page of a page where he is topic banned, and raised a discussion about it at the user talk page of a potentially sympathetic administrator, was reverted, and then reverted the revert. I hate to say this, but it does seem to be a battlegroundy continuation of editing about the subject where he is banned. He is discussing an RfC about the topic of his ban, what the outcome of the RfC should be, rather than discussing his own restrictions. That's a ban violation. As it happens, the edit that he complained about on the administrator's talk page is an edit that I made. The edit is being openly discussed at Talk:Glyphosate, so it can be resolved by editors who are not topic banned, and I have in fact requested at AN that an uninvolved administrator review my edit: , so there really is no need for DrChrissy to have gotten involved here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I note JzG's reference to WP:Griefing by DrChrissy, and I do not think that this choice of terms is accurate. Intelligent, high-achieving people (who are the kind of people we should want editing Wikipedia) are prone to taking criticism personally (perhaps I speak from personal experience). DrChrissy (who has now struck the inquiry at an administrator's talk page, that led to this discussion in the first place) is neither a griefer nor a troll, but rather someone whose feelings have been hurt, and who feels the need to keep asking about the boundaries and keep asking for reconsideration for that reason. I hope that we can cut DrChrissy some slack in that regard. I also note that DrChrissy has felt mistreated following the community topic ban, by editors seeming to play "gotcha", and I want to point out that here, in an ArbCom ban instead, any attempts at enforcement will have to go through AE, which is a process where vexacious accusations are more likely to be shut down. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that this user has no intention of strictly abiding by his topic ban. Topic bans are, as a rule, construed to include any and all on-wiki discussions that relate to a subject. I find topic bans to be a little ridiculous because of this (see WP:ADMINBESTPRACTICE#Bans), but your duly-elected arbitrators for better or worse imposed this ridiculous constraint and the question now is how much administrators here at AE are willing to let the user poke at its boundaries. jps (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy is now under two topic bans, and has a long history of griefing about the first. I do not think the edits complained of constitute an unambiguous violation, but there's little doubt that DrChrissy is pushing the boundaries, and almost certainly doing so either as a deliberate testing of the limits or out of a lack of acceptance of the findings against him (see ). I advocate a warning but nothing else at this stage, per WP:ROPE. Any action will be contentious and vigorously argued, and IMO it will not be long before a slam-dunk violation occurs. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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

• In my opinion, there was no need for User:DrChrissy to post at User talk:SlimVirgin. He is complaining that others are taking advantage of his ban to make certain changes. This message to SV isn't justified by WP:BANEX. It doesn't fall under any of:

• asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party ..
• asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban.
• appealing the ban.

I would close this request, but warn DrChrissy that they will be blocked if there is a recurrence. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Since User:DrChrissy has struck through their post to User:SlimVirgin I think this is ready to close with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)