Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive208

Appealing user

Junosoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Junosoon (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Junosoon (talk · contribs) is topic banned for six months from content related to the economy of India, including taxation, currency and associated policy/practice. —SpacemanSpiff 00:02, 31 December 2016 ,

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Notification to the administrator of the notification.

The biggest concern with which , i appeal for this imposed ban is, what was my behaviour after the final warning, due to which , ban imposing action was taken?. An important part of this appeal is to also bring forth the problems encountered, by me during various discussions, which I feel quite discouraging as a contributor to Wikipedia, This appeal is not aimed to point others mistakes or create a war like situation.With due respect to all participants I raise my concerns below,

• Appeal
• I would request the specific reason of imposing the ban, as ban was imposed without any citation of my actions as disruption after the final warning. Kindly cite the distruptive action/ any misconduct in terms of diffs after final warning.

• The ban imposed on me should be lifted, as all edits have been made in good faith by me, with due consideration of wikipedia policies, and any if violated in ignorance, were corrected, immediately. I even encouraged other editors cooperation during discussions with addressing of concerns. The ban was imposed after this final warning, , there is no specific reason of claim of disruption by me, nor any citing evidence of imposing the ban by nominator, other than , creation of article Specified Bank Notes in good faith as it was an important part of article which was being addressed with inline citation, as per proposed deletion , request to improve. Following which the next edit was by nominator of ban ,, it is highly discouraging as far the contributions to Wikipedia are concerned.

• As far as my knowledge, though it may be limited, as my account is new, if a violation of final warning has been done, providing with a link to violation after the warning, a ban is executed. It is serious issue, that a ban has been imposed, on my account, without any citation of disruption after the warning. If there has been no disruption after the warnings it only shows, that all previous warning instructions were taken care of and complete abiding to Wikipedia policies was enacted by me. Thanks.Junosoon (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• As far the complain of spin off articles, an article authored by me, was self blanked and self speedy deleted in good faith as concern by proposed nomination .Junosoon (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding concerns of copy right violations, I had got two articles, Self created and self speedy deletion, with concerns of Wikipedia copyright policy.Junosoon (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the ANI issue raised , the issue was raised there, which involved an incident, where I had requested an admin intervention, against the disruptive behaviour, in merge action, the claim raised by me was closure of a discussion, by an involved editor in the discussion, not giving time to improve the article, which was recognized as disruptive there. As an editor it was my responsibility to bring in notice of that incident to ANI.Junosoon (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Kindly note, I cannot ascertain and comment exactly what role User:Winged Blades of Godric is playing as a contributor to Wikipedia policies, that is for other editors to look.

Since User:Winged Blades of Godric has expressed the justification of ban, i am citing few dif to look at role, the user as a fully involved, non admin, editor is taking part has been participating , in these discussions here with an appreciation of few good articles , is simultaneously is on dubious role now, in nominations of articles for deletion authored by me( I have no ownership of content, by using word me), as per my talk page message,.Junosoon (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note: This message by User:Winged Blades of Godric on my talk page comes within hours of my appeal statement edit here .Junosoon (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:, Just a small correction in your statement, this appeal is for ban and not the block was imposed, kindly correct, least it will cast wrong discussion. Junosoon (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: You seem, to be panic state, as you failing to understand before considering what the content or text implies, it reflects to your behaviour , and actions , which you are continuously justifying your own actions.The point to note, is that you have come up with an Afd nomination of an article , which was stated as a reason of explation in appeal statement soon after it was stated in explanation in appeal and explaining why the article Specified Bank Notes was created, following which the ban was imposed.It is sincere request don't attempt to cast an impression by such actions, that statements written in appeal are unjustified or were unimportant. Junosoon (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:, Kindly understand, that Wikipedia articles, are not owned by any one , they belong to Wikipedia community, so please calm your self, and don't use sarcastic language deletion of such gems, (if that was you actually meant by gems).Junosoon (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:, Another humble request to you is, if you wish to comment in your statements here , please avoid using disrespect language reinforce your blatant lack of knowledge about the policies. If you have your concerns feel free to comment, if possible with cititaion of diffs, instead of embarrassing me here.Junosoon (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: It was quite obvious for you to comment, as you have been observering in admin capacity, and making right decision, I wonder what you call misunderstanding, was an Rfc opened for a purpose an uninvolved comment, which was closed by User:Winged Blades of Godric, , without even letting it run for adequate period, in your, capacity of knowledge and competence, you could have bothered about , User:Winged Blades of Godric ignorance as you have been guiding in good faith , if you have a concern for Wikipedia policies. I would also like to point out what consensus, means to User:Winged Blades of Godric, who has been an active participant in discussions and closures with the set criteria, a ratio of 5:1As a side note I generally take a ratio of 5:1 vote ratio for deciding the closure of the consensus, a link to that page is hereis that the definition of Wikipedia consensus, I hope you were busy, and could guide what consensus, meant to User:Winged Blades of Godric,who was involved in such multiple closures, and and not to mention that you were not aware of it. So as you are an admin, and must be aware of all the Wikipedia guidelines, and also involved in such discussions, did you bother to correct, what wrong was going on Wikipedia, especially when you were there?.

Wikipedia is a serious place and kindly mark your accusation of words gaming the system, which don't sound good.! Are you are making an attack on me, of me gaming Wikipedia?.Junosoon (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Regarding raising issues raised by me on noticeboard, which you say are frivolous, were quite similar if not same as this particular concern of closure of discussions and consensus problems at ANI , citing link , where the closure and consensus during discussions needed to be addressed.Junosoon (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:, This is nothing less than a personal attack on my conduct,plot to remove certain portions of data of Wikipedia in a more cunning and clever way esp. , if you have a diffs , what plot you are talking about,? cite it , but please donot make any embarrassing language on a discussion level.Junosoon (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• I should note that there's another appeal at AN also where a couple of other admins have participated.Should anyone want more clarity than what I've already written there, I'll answer those questions. —SpacemanSpiff 12:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Junsoon also opened a thread at AN/I. Given the existence of this appeal and the one at AN, I NAC'd that thread. I then NAC'd the thread at AN when Junosoon indicated that they wished this appeal to take precedence, and I've copied the comments by admins from that thread to here. Any admin who sees these actions as an unwarranted intrusion into the process is welcome to undo them with no complaint from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Junosoon: There are two venues for appealling AE actions, at AE itself or at AN. You did both. At AE, anyone may comment on the appeal, but only uninvolved admins can !vote on whether to grant the appeal. On AN, any editor may comment on the appeal, and the consensus is then determined by an uninvolved admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, he had been already given enough warnings before the block topic ban was imposed.Clearly, his disregard for the request by non-admins and admins alike to avoid creating needless spinoff articles and abstain from other disruptive activities have not appealed to him even faintly.Resorting to WP:ANI repetitively for frivolous reasons, deeming every comment made to him which goes against his edit/behaviour as sorts of harassment and a very slow learning curve- all points to the very correctness of the ban.And inspite of the few good articles he had created, the banes outweigh the benefits.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 19:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 09:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Junosoon:--Just to reinforce your blatant lack of knowledge about the policies followed here, it is for your kind information that generally when an article is discussed at AFD, the nominator has a responsibility to inform the article creator about the process. Specifically in your case it is esp. necessary so that you can not later start a thread against the nominator at WP:ANI bellowing your heart out over how I did not inform you about the discussion of deletion of such gems.Seriously, there are genuine WP:CIR issues.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

And I won't mind an infinite extension of the ban either.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Junosoon: I really had a tough time understanding what you really meant by your last major statement.I would be happy if you could kindly write in a more simple and legible tone and manner. Also, I would not mind adding my name once more to the long list of editors who in the course of various (seemingly futile) discussions or exchanges with you have repetitively told or reminded you that your's understanding of the policies followed here is too low (And I would add that you would be better off without teaching other users about the policies followed here.)Also please take a kind look through dropping the stick .Thanks! Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 09:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 15:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Junosoon: :What Vanamonde meant by misunderstanding was that you lacked knowledge on how an appropriate name of any article is put forward which was probably based on all the brilliant arguments and options you put forward in the RFC. Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well there is a policy called WP:BOOMERANG. But somehow I feel your's using it here is a mere ploy to deflect attention from your utter incompetency. Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I too support the concern of gaming the system. Moving off partial contents to another article and then tagging out for self deletion could well be taken as a plot to remove certain portions of data of Wikipedia in a more cunning and clever way esp. when you are involved on disruptive activities on so many fronts. Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• And what will probably be my last statement in this discussion, I have one advice for Junosoon--

  A mess created in good faith is still a mess.

  Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: I'm involved here, having been party to disputes with Junosoon: so I am not speaking in an administrator capacity. I would strongly recommend that this appeal be denied. Junosoon's editing in this topic has been highly disruptive, and has indicated a severe lack of competence, despite multiple warnings and explanations. The issues include, but are not limited to, misunderstanding our guidelines about article titles, and continuing a long-winded argument based on this misunderstanding; creating too many spinoff articles from 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation (or otherwise removing content to other articles) without consensus , , and more that I cannot be bothered to link; subsequently nominating one of these for deletion under CSD#G7, which is either gaming the system to get unwanted content deleted, or just competence issues, again; and the opening of numerous frivolous threads at various noticeboards. This appeal does not demonstrate any awareness that any of these actions were a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Note: Copied from AN

• Looks justified to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

End copied material

• Assuming the user intends this as an appeal of their WP:ARBIPA topic ban from the Indian economy, I would decline it. The issues with this editor's work have been previously discussed at ANI. That ANI discussion provides links to the issues. The user seems unaware of the problems they have been causing and is unable to present their own thinking in a clear manner. A six-month AE ban from the Indian economy was a suitable admin response by User:SpacemanSpiff. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
• Decline the appeal, especially per Vanamonde93's persuasive post above. I would also support extending the six-month ban to indefinite, as suggested by Winged Blades of Godric. Bishonen | talk 15:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC).
• Decline the user clearly doesn't get what is wrong with their editing, and per Vanamonde93. It also doesn't help that they are unable to explain themselves clearly in English, which doesn't bode well re: CIR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see any reason to believe that this sanction was inappropriate or excessive. Decline. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing. Several admins commented and none of them favors granting this appeal, so it is declined. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2017 (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

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

‎Marlo Jonesa (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/Palestine-Israel articles 3 :

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

1. User contributions.
2. They last post shows what the intention of the user.
3. edit regarding conflict using extended confirming right

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

The user try to WP:GAME the arbitration restriction So they probably aware of it.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user has registered in 2013 and was dormant till recently in the last 7 days made about 556 edits all of they edits are either minor or to the sandbox.It seems he made his edits to WP:GAME the extended confirmed requirement to edit the I/P conflict articles.Also its pretty clear that this is user is not new. @Drmies.It seems that his edit in the article space its not too controversial though his statement in talk has some smack of POV on it.But what really puzzles how did they miss suggestion to discuss his edits when he tried to edit the article?What more puzzles me that he did indeed used talk page but only after he made 500 edits to the sandbox .08:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Even if we WP:AGF on initial restriction right now it should be clear for the user right now that he shouldn't edit the articles about the conflict and abuse the extended confirmed right but he still do Shrike (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sandstein Wiki is not WP:BURO but I provided you the diff.- Shrike (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I fine with what most of the admins suggest i.e TBAN until he will reach 500 edits outside of the conflict area.-- Shrike (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2017 (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.

• I'm a new user, I don't understand much about the rules of Wikipedi, so I hope there will not be a strong punishment to me. I just want to participate in the future about the Palestinian people, this is my goal. I'm a new user I hope you understand this.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• I didn't play in the system, I have modified my sandbox 500 times in order to get the 'extendedconfirmed' for modification of Palestinians article. That's all.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Shrike: Alright I'm sorry I didn't know that, but if I bother you block me.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Jonney2000: Not need to do this, this is the first time. I've just read this Wikipedia:Copyright violations I'll never do it again. You had to take notice of me--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Having looked at the editor's contribution history, and not at the content of any of the edits, it's clear she/he is gaming the system. At minimum, I think a topic ban is necessary; an indefinite block would be appropriate in my view. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

an indefinite block, why all that? I have not committed a crime!.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think that's a good suggestion, Drmies. I hadn't thought about the fact that the rule isn't as clear to new editors as it appears to be to experienced editors. Thank you, Masem and Sir Joseph, for pointing that out. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

In my capacity as a completely non involved fly-by editor, I would strongly recommend an indefinite ban on revoking of the extended confirmed rights of the editor. Going by his own confession--making 500 edits in one's own sandbox so as to be an extended confirmed editor and then gorge on the additional editing privileges is precisely generally what gaming the system means/constitutes. Giving him/her a reprieve will mean showing leniency to everybody who games the system in such a pathetic way and in the process makes the protection level along with all those numerous editors who constructively achieve it look like a lame duck.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 18:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

As to the editor being new in Wikipedia in terms of activity, we will always have this particular problem with new users only!Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 18:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think you also do not have experience in the beginning, I thought I must do this in order that I edit in Wikipedia.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Going by the recent developments and giving the benefit of doubt to the user, I think the best way out of the situation is to revoke the extended conformed rights of the user temporaly.Once he has made 500 proper mainspace words, let him re-apply for it so that an administrator can look and re-grant him the right. This looks good than a T-ban to me. Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 05:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If I may offer my observation, I don't think a block is in order. While the editor claims he wasn't gaming the system, his statement that he was just trying to get to 500 edits might seem to be at odds, but they're not. The rule was 500 edits, he wanted to edit and as a new user what else is he to do? It's not clear at all. What I suggest is a TBAN on ARBPIA until he reaches an additional 500 non-sandbox edits. We should also clarify on the ARBPIA template what a new user is supposed to do. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to expand the Palestinian Hikaye section but I couldn't, then I found this: This page is currently protected so that only extended confirmed users and administrators can edit it. What can I do?... I didn't know exactly what was meant.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

If there's no additional evidence to overcome AGF, Sir Joseph (above) has the right idea when he suggested " TBAN on ARBPIA until he reaches an additional 500 non-sandbox edits" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Evidence of bad faith appears to exist after all. I wanted to AGF and DONTBITE the alleged newbie, and I wrote a note at their talk. However, I later realized many of the contribs in the user's sandbox are not "real" edits.... notice the SIZE of these edits, many of which show less than five bits of data. I selected a diff by random, and was astonished to find myself in the midst of a many-contrib series of 1-3 characters at a time, just to refine a single ref. (See Dec 31 5:27-5:28, random example. Congrats to others who wanted to extend the benefit of the doubt, but please LOOK at the character-by-character sandbox history yourself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Since the "awareness rule" was not satisfied this forum (supposedly) can not impose sanctions under the ARB ruling, I think. I left an explanatory note at the filing party's talk page. If true, you might consider closing, while issuing the DS template to the editor so that the server log has a notation of their awareness, and also issue a warning to not violate the spirit of the arb ruling by relying on trivial sandbox edits NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I just removed a major Copyright violation from this editor on Palestinians. Someone should check his edits for copyright issues.Jonney2000 (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• You know, it can be hard to figure out when a person is gaming the system or not: not here. A topic ban for three months seems appropriate to me, with a possible exception for maybe the biology of the Negev desert--considering the 489 edits they made to their sandbox, they seem to have a vested interest in that. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, Marlo Jonesa, "I have modified my sandbox 500 times in order to get the 'extendedconfirmed' for modification of Palestinians article"--that's gaming the system. Masem, the requirement is clear, and it should be obvious (per BEANS, for instance--common sense) that making 500 sandbox edits is circumventing the requirement. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Masem, I'm curious to hear what EdJohnston has to say in response to your comment. I'm all about good faith, but find myself on the other side of it this time, and I don't really agree that the text is that unclear--unless you mean by it that an editor may think practicing how to add a comma 500 times in a sandbox is OK. What do you propose? Resetting the clock? Drmies (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Sure, that's something to consider. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • regentspark, blocking and then letting them get a new account seems a bit drastic and unnecessary. I'm all for good faith, by the way (and sure, "gaming in good faith" is possible) but I also saw what NewsAndEventsGuy noticed and I don't like that. Shrike, I looked at some of the actual content edits, and I would like to know if they are in any way problematic, which might give us an idea about intent. I mean, if a new user goes around changing "Jewish" to "Zionist" or "Arab" to "Nazi" or something like that it's pretty clear, but here--and I didn't look at many diffs--I don't see if there is a POV purpose. For now, I like Sir Joseph's suggestion--a TBAN until 500 real mainspace edits--but we'll have to keep track, of course. I do agree something has to be done lest 500/30 become meaningless. Masem, EdJohnston, MShabazz, and everyone else, what do you think of that? Maybe we can wrap this up soon. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• I recommend an indefinite ban from WP:ARBPIA on all pages of Wikipedia. If we tolerate this kind of behavior we might as well give up on the restriction. Or should we say, if you want to edit I/P topics please edit your sandbox 500 times first? In the past we have sometimes done indef blocks in this kind of case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Marlo Jonesa believes that editing their sandbox 500 times is to get within the 500/30. Based on a similar case (specifically during Gamergate), this is absolutely considered gaming the system. We expect the 500 edits to be more substantial content in mainspace (outside the area that 500/30 applies). Whether this is not communicated well enough or not, though, I'm not sure, and I would take this into account. If anything, they should be alerted that at this point, they haven't started the "500 edit" counter based on their contributions (even the small mainspace ones they did to add commas) so they should not yet be participating as outlined by the sanctions. --MASEM (t) 18:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Drmies, it may be clear that the edits are meant to be substantial to experienced editors but the exact text "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." is not. It's a thing "we" all know what it means, except the people that it applies most often to. And without evidence the user has had prior experience on WP to know better, we should be taking a bit of presumption of doubt here that they were doing what they thought would get them there. There's not an easy DUCK case here to know if this account is purposely here to be problematic. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The simple fix would be to say "500 non-minor, mainspace edits" rather than "500 edits". --MASEM (t) 19:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
      • EdJohnston, that would be reasonable if there's nothing to demonstrate that the user knew they were gaming the system - that has the same effect as resetting the 500 edit count that I mention above in a more formal manner, allowing them to show they have learned the ropes before re-entering the topic area. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Tricky one. The editor could have been "gaming the system" in "good faith" (I know, oxymoronic!). We could change the text but that still leaves us with the problem of what to do with this particular editor. An ban on Palestine Israel articles is one option as long as we recognize that the editor will return to ask for the ban to be lifted. Alternatively, the editor could get a time bound ban, but then they may just stay away and return after the ban expires. A final option is to indef the account with no constraint against opening a new account and acquiring the minimum edits the normal way. Other things being equal, my inclination is to go with the third option.--regentspark (comment) 21:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  Drmies, that sounds good. II was focusing on the administrative easiness of monitoring a new account but, I guess, the indef block would not look good. Support TBAN until the user manages 500 real mainspace edits. --regentspark (comment) 01:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• User:Drmies, thanks for the ping. I'll probably support whatever you come up with, for example a TBAN until 500 real main-space edits. I'd prefer to see edits showing some level of judgment and ability to negotiate, but 500 non-trivial edits would be the minimum I'd support. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd support a TBAN until they have 500 proper mainspace edits under their belt. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• This request is not actionable and should be dismissed. Discretionary sanctions (which any TBAN or block imposed here would be) are not possible at this point because the formal notification requirements per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts are not met (or so it seems). This means that we need not determine whether this "gaming of the system" was done in good faith or not, and whether the restriction at WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 was even intended to prevent it. The real problem seems to be that the restriction does not make clear whether pro forma edits count or not. But any clarification would require an amendment of the restriction by the Arbitration Committee, which any interested party may request at WP:ARCA. De lege lata, it is not clear to me that Marlo Jonesa has done anything that is forbidden.  Sandstein  15:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Addendum: even if a direct enforcement of the restriction rather than discretionary sanctions is requested, this request is not actionable, because the request comprises no diff of an edit that would violate the restriction.  Sandstein  16:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Shrike, thanks for adding the diff that might infringe on the restriction. This page is in fact more of a bureaucracy than others and you are expected to provide all relevant information. On consideration, I still don't see this as actionable. The restriction reads "accounts with fewer than 500 edits", and it does not specify that these edits must be of any particular nature. There is also nothing in the principles and findings that indicates that the intent of the restriction was to prohibit pro forma edits. The restriction seems to be mainly aimed at sockpuppets, and even making 500 pointless edits might have been considered a sufficient barrier against those. Furthermore, the restriction states that it is to be enforced mainly automatically, and automatic systems can't determine the quality or intent of edits – which is another indication that ArbCom did not intend the restriction to encompass situations such as this one, or did not take the issue into account. I would therefore decline enforcement action. Asking for clarification might still be useful. Revoking the extendedconfirmed right of Marlo Jonesa as a normal admin action should depend on the result of any such clarification.  Sandstein  21:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• If we think this was in good faith, I'd suggest revoking the extendedconfirmed group as a normal administrative action. The user can reapply via WP:PERM/EC once they have accumulated 500 real edits. If we don't think it was done in good faith, then an indef would be appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Technical question: would it be regranted automatically by mediawiki on the next edit, if manually removed? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No. The automatic grant happens only once. T. Canens (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• This is a good idea. Then the user has to request it and any admin can look to see if they have made 500 normal edits. --Laser brain (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support manual removal of ECP user-right, to be re-granted via WP:PERM/EC. The user admit "gaming the system" (in good faith) to gain ECP, thus now that he knows better it seems natural to remove it and allow it to be earned in the way normally intended. I also think this outcome would be in line with the ideas of the other commenters above me who are suggesting "a TBAN until 500 mainspace edits", which is basically the same effect that ECP removal would have. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

I am appealing a topic ban on abortion.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

On the Political Positions of Donald Trump WP page, I have been trying to remove the phrase "Roe protects a woman's right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, which anti-abortion activists contend is at the 20-week mark", which includes pro-choice language. I have been trying to remove this phrase without adding any pro-life language to replace it. I have also added a dispute tag in order to involve other users. Lastly, I have notes that the terms "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights" are also lopsided in favour of abortion and seek to replace them with the more balanced and commonly used terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" respectively. As you can see, I have been doing the exact opposite of pushing POV. I have in fact been removing it.

For information, my topic ban notice, with a brief explanation of the reasons for the ban, is here. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC).

This appeal should be dismissed. The user in question has engaged in extensive "I can't hear you" style behavior over a series of months (as far back as March 2016) and is unable to constructively engage at the talk page. Bishonen's explanation to the user explains the situation quite well. Neutrality^talk 21:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This was a very appropriate and much appreciated topic ban. The user has been making disruptive and POV edits to the article page, and tendentious posts on the talk page, since November. They have repeatedly removed from the article (claiming "bias" and "alarmingly pro-abortion language") such phrases as "reproductive rights" (insisting there is no such thing), "anti-abortion group" (replacing it with "pro-life" or "fetal rights movement"), and "abortion rights group" (replacing it with "pro-abortion"). They have repeated these edits despite a strong consensus against them. They should consider themselves fortunate they were merely topic-banned - rather than being blocked for tendentious editing. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been doing the exact opposite of pushing POV

Replacing the neutral terms used by reliable sources -- and Ontario Teacher WAS pointed to explanations by said reliable sources why they use those terms -- with the preferred shibboleths of one side (as well as attempting to expunge the specific terms they don't like) pretty much *IS* pushing a point of view, and an attempt to manipulate language to frame an issue in a preferred way. Since OT persists in flogging this view, which is the exact opposite of true, I'm thinking that OT's topic ban should be reset from one year to indefinite, contingent upon acquisition of clue. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

At the Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump talk page, Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (hereafter OTBB) – an editor with over a year's experience – delivered the following diktat: "The abortion section must not be tinged with flagrantly biased language. Therefore, the prefix anti will not be used, as it carries with it severe negative connotations. Instead, in order to establish balance, the terms pro-life, and pro-choice will be used respectively. We will not be using the terms "anti-abortion, anti-life, anti-fetal rights, anti-choice", etc. as these are deliberately incendiary and biased terms."

That in itself should be enough to get all the editor's backs up, but after it has been politely and clearly explained to him by three other editors that his preferred choices of terms ("pro-life/choice") have been rejected by earlier consensus in favour of the terms used most in reliable sources, he then edit-wars to (1) remove the currently accepted terms and impose his preferred terms ; (2) rename a section from "Social issues and civil liberties" to "Social issues" (edit summary: as "civil liberties" subheading implied a bias in favour of abortion) ; (3) force a POV tag onto a section that he disagrees with .

This was done on an article subject to discretionary sanctions and following the ignored warning on OTBB's talk page, the inevitable topic ban was applied at 10:22 (UTC) today. Amazingly, OTBB's very next edit was to Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump.

Frankly, I don't see any value in simply warning OTBB. Someone who is incapable of hearing what others are telling him, and who cannot understand what a topic ban is, has insufficient competence to be editing here. We should be showing OTBB the door, rather than further indulging this sort of behaviour and wasting editors' time with baseless appeals like this. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Did Bishonen act properly" is the question in this appeal, and OTBB merely makes a bald-faced assertion they were removing POV. OTBB provided no DIFFs to show the TBAN was unmerited. Boiled down the appeal says little more than "Please don't". I agree with the other users that the TBAN was well done. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• Thanks to RexxS for the diffs to a bunch of disruptive edits against consensus, particularly as the appealing editor didn't provide any diffs about this matter whatsoever. There appears to be a serious case of IDHT going on here. Bishonen's TBAN looks solid to me. I recommend the appeal is rejected. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Recommend declining. Ontario Teacher seems unable to edit neutrally on the topic of abortion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Decline. The sanction was a clearly reasonable application of admin discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Decline. An obviously merited TBAN imposed on a user with a very stubborn refusal to listen to anybody's opinion but their own. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Decline. OPs remarks here only strengthen the need for the TBAN. --regentspark (comment) 13:50, 7 January 2017 (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

Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

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

User:TheTimesAreAChanging has a history of attacking user:SPECIFICO with WP:AGF and WP:Pointy at https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia

I approached him and asked him to stop dealing with user conduct on an article talk page. He acknowledged my comment and stated that he would take issues with SPECIFICO to WP:AE. However, he continues to attack users on the talk page.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. User admonished and strongly warned

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

Pervious admonishment and warning at WP:AE.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

He also maintains a list about SPECIFICO in his sandbox, here which, in my opinion, is a little unhinged.

• Laser_brain, Sections like this seem, at least to me, to be going after users. This. to me, seems like WP:Battleground. It is also something other users have approached him about. That said, if I am misinterpreting this, my apologies to both the admins and to TheTimesAreAChanging. Casprings (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• First my general apologies for the lack of quality of this report. If I ever come back here again, I will certainly take more time to put together a better report. I lack the time to add much now, but if this remains open I will add more. Second, to TParis, I do not believe it is accurate to state the editor is "outnumbered". A look on the talk page of multiple articles in the subject area of American Politics will domonstrat a large number of conservative editors.Casprings (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2017 (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.

Casprings also maintains a list about TheTimesAreAChanging in his sandbox, here which, in my opinion, is a little unhinged.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Editors are complaining that the above comment is too snarky and that the two sandboxes are not really comparable. I thought my point was obvious, but I guess I need to spell it out: Like Casprings, I am using my sandbox to compile evidence of misconduct against another user. I could have used Word instead, but I considered that presenting the diffs publicly would enable other editors to comment on and add to the list, if any deigned to do so. Unlike Casprings, I am not going to file any complaint without first compiling substantial documentation. (Not sure how that reflects badly on me.) If it must go, so be it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

With regard to Casprings "evidence," I will only point out that diff number eight is just me responding to SPECIFICO hatting one of my comments with the patronizing message "Talk page is for article improvement" by unhatting it and explaining why it is relevant. I opened my reply to SPECIFICO with "SPECIFICO, we already know 'talk page is for article improvement.'" That's an egregious personal attack? (Nor am I the only one to find SPECIFICO's "constant attempts to police the discourse ... tiresome.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I've never violated 1RR on any article related to American Politics; this has already been explained to SPECIFICO numerous times, but that user has a pattern of "misguided...at best" distortions of my edits (and has been topic banned twice for routinely misrepresenting sources). Since SPECIFICO does not even pretend to offer any "evidence" to support the smear, I remind users that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: If I were really incapable of editing neutrally, there would be evidence presented to that affect. All you are saying is that editors should not openly disclose any biases they may have, or it will be used against them when they are confronted with an otherwise frivolous AE report. Although I have been called a Right-wing, anti-Communist, pro-Israeli, possibly CIA-sponsored propagandist, it is not hard to find edits I have made that undermine my own alleged POV: , , , , , , , , , , ect. I have been here for many years, and will put my history of neutral and encyclopedic editing up against anyone else's—particularly that of, say, Volunteer Marek, whose anti-Russian POV-pushing is surely a matter of record to everyone here, whether they pretend not to notice it or otherwise. Nor did anyone find my behavior particularly "disruptive" until a couple of months ago: DS are simply being gamed to further Wikipedia's WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and censor those that dare to point it out; this recent thread is a case in point. The sole evidence of my "disruption" is that I support treating the U.S. government like every other government, rather than as infallible and omnipotent.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert: MPants at work just told me to "Shut your stupid pie hole." Seems like a much more direct personal attack than any I am alleged to have made. If calling out editors for misrepresenting sources is a personal attack, Volunteer Marek would be long-indeffed for stuff like this. But it seems pretty clear rules don't apply to him.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Volunteer Marek recently dedicated an entire subsection—titled "It's EtienneDolet June 2016 vs EtienneDolet December 2016"—at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16) to criticizing User:EtienneDolet. In that section, Volunteer Marek wrote:

So, can you provide a coherent explanation for why in April you fanatically tried to remove SOHR from one article, and now you insist on it being in this one? ... I said this was funny. It's actually not. It's sad and disruptive and pretty clear evidence of simple WP:POVPUSH and WP:ADVOCACY. ... I'm asking you to provide an explanation for how you edit content, which doesn't lead to conclusion that your editing is just a WP:ADVOCACY and WP:POVPUSH. Because, as I've laid it out very clearly above, right now it's sort of hard to escape that conclusion. ... Criticisms is not a personal attack.

In my experience, Volunteer Marek routinely engages in that sort of personal attack and makes widespread use of curse words, but reports against him are invariably deemed frivolous and WP:BOOMERANG. Having friends in high places appears to make a very big difference, indeed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Out of curiosity, which specific edits to AP2 articles following the last AE report (as opposed to old userpage edits) changed your mind?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: just misrepresented another diff. My very best wishes advised me to stop editing American Politics articles for a month, but there was nothing in Dennis Brown's "warning" to suggest that I was expected to self-censor from certain topics for a month. Therefore, I rejected MVBW's advice, explaining: "I'll never voluntarily (emphasis added) censor myself from editing on any topic." In SPECIFICO's account, this transforms into "TTAC vows that he will not heed any warning," which bears no resemblance to my original comment. Admins should keep this in mind when evaluating the veracity of SPECIFICO's undocumented smears, as well as my so-called "personal attacks" (i.e., pointing out that this user frequently cites sources and diffs that do not support their claims, whether on purpose or otherwise).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw this, and wasn't going to comment, until I read the above statement by the subject of this request. The statement therein is categorically false, Casprings does not "maintain a list about" the subject. The truth is that, over the course of less than one hour, Casprings composed their complaint there before posting it here. This was trivially easy to discover, except that in my experience, the subject does indeed maintain a battleground mentality, specifically over politics.

For evidence, simply look at the long right-wing political diatribe that comprises their userpage, or their guest posting to another user's page (also full of right-wing diatribes). Pay close attention to the sourcing used for that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've seen some complaints below that the diffs don't evince bad behavior in and of themselves. So here's one in which he claims everyone who disagrees with him on this issue has horrible writing skills. It's a juvenile insult to be sure, but it's an insult nonetheless. "It is an interesting coincidence that the editors in the "Russia definitely did it, and Wikipedia should say so without attribution" camp are not merely worse writers than their opponents, but also appear to be practically allergic to even semi-decent prose..."

I have to say that I find some of the admin comments below a little disturbing... Those diffs evince an unusual, unwarranted and -frankly- disturbing level of focus on a couple of users (with one dominating that focus) for someone who purportedly has an interest in improving the article. No-one has pointed it out yet, so let me be the first to draw attention to the fact that the diffs above comprise the vast majority of TTAAC's editing on the article talk pages in recent weeks (if not the totality... I haven't checked their every edit to that page). Furthermore, this is from an editor who displays a shockingly blatant political POV. I'm a little disheartened to see the admins below basically shrugging their shoulders because this editor hasn't stooped to calling Volunteer Marek or SPECIFICO a "butthead" yet. Personally, I consider editors who focus on other editors to this extent without stooping to obvious personal attacks more damaging, due to their ability to skate through the relatively quick venues for correction like ANI or simple castigation from their peers. I would have expected admins here to pay a little more attention to the overall picture, and not focus so much on the details. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• I just want to note a few things: TTAAC's defense of themself has been that other editors have done bad things, too; that WP is biased against him and his; that there's a cabal at work here and that he's right about -well- everything, content-wise.

TTAAC's defense from others has been that this request is poorly formatted, that it's unsubstantiated (with 0-1 carefully chosen diffs provided to 'prove' that every diff presented as evidence is bullshit), that it's sad that a conservative editor is facing sanctions (not sure how that's a defense, but ok), or that other editors have done bad things, too.

Compared to that, the 'prosecution' in this case consists of a userpage chock full of BLP violations, several diffs of harassment, a handful of personal attacks and a broad history of battleground behavior. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If anyone disagree with specific edits (and believes this is misinterpreting a source), he should discuss these edits, not the contributor. This is WP:NPA, 101. Telling on article talk page that "User X has repeatedly fabricated sources to push their POV in this article", that the same user "has been topic banned twice for misrepresenting sources and POV-pushing" and that another user Y "has intentionally reinserted errors into the article" was clearly not about content, but about contributors.

Why? Was it done on purpose? Was it done by mistake? Was it something normal to continue in the future? This is something to be clarified in reply by TTAAC. Or perhaps this is problem with other contributors, exactly as TTAAC tells here? If so, I think TTAAC should provide some diffs to prove it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on responses by TTAAC so far, he will continue doing the same. He did not admit that blaming other contributors on article talk pages was wrong, but instead brought irrelevant accusations on this noticeboard. And this is even after receiving very last warning by Dennis on AE.

P.S. Clearly, many diffs showing misbehavior by TTAAC were provided by several contributors. Telling otherwise is beyond belief. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: There's much more evidence than Casprings initially presented. Some of it was posted on the previous AE thread that @MelanieN: brought here last month. May I ask Admins to review the links cited in that thread, or would you prefer that I copy some of the diffs to the current thread?

After Dennis Brown gave TTAAC the ultimate warning in that thread, TTAAC continued his gratuitous and false personal attacks on various editors He continued to disparage mainstream RS references for the articles under DS while continuing his advocacy of his personal political opinions. I can gather some diffs if that will be helpful, but that may take a day or two. One of the problems with TTAAC's participation is that he misrepresents the substance of links and cherrypicks quotes of other editors snipping a few words that he embellishes with false and misleading accusations and aspersions. There was one example yesterday after TTAAC left the tu quoque counterpunch at Casprings here. See this pointless disparagement of @Volunteer Marek: whom TTAAC has repeatedly attacked and harassed. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I understand, thanks. I hope that others will join me in presenting any evidence they feel is relevant beginning after the bright line warning from Dennis Brown on December 12. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are a few of the diffs after Dennis Brown's warning:
TTAAC repeatedly posted hostile and ad hominem edit comments:
The following two have no diffs because the comments were apparently rev-del’d
• 22:43, 6 January 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,247)‎ . . Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia ‎ (Since SPECIFICO evidently doesn't take their own editing seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to.)
• 22:20, 7 January 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+2,296)‎ . . Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia ‎ (→‎SPECIFICO fabricates YET ANOTHER citation: new section)

Here he derogates the restrictions of DS/ARBAP2:
Battleground vs. @Volunteer Marek::
Battleground vs. @Bob K31416::
Battleground vs. SPECIFICO:
Soapbox derogation of mainstream sources:
Frivolous AE complaint vs. SPECIFICO:

There were also at least one 1RR violation and several violations of the DS requirement to seek talk page consensus before reinserting challenged content. To be continued. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This just in... Further disparagement of Volunteer Marek. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC) My turn now! Reply when @My very best wishes: points out that the TTAAC's disparagements of me on his "SPECIFICO fan page" are false. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: reminds TTAAC that he is violating Dennis Brown's warning at TTAAC's last AE appearance. "Did not you see the warning Dennis gave you during closing of the AE request about you just a few days ago? After that you suppose not to edit any hot subjects related to US elections during at least a month and stay away of any users you was in a conflict." In response, TTAC vows that he will not heed any warning: . SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Admins so far may be applying wrong policy. When the arbs set aside the original remedy statement, they replaced it with standard DS, which in turn requires compliance with several policies and among these is the policy for WP:Dispute resolution. The diffs in the complaint violate that policy because they address editor behavior and they appear at article talk. There is nothing in the DR policy that makes exceptions for behavioral commentary if it is phrased to not grab us by the short hairs. Under the DR policy, faiulure to WP:FOC is failure to WP:FOC. In my view we should be working harder against low level in civility and battle attitude, and that would go a mighty long way toward ed retention and diversity. Instead the de facto policy tends to create an evolutionary pressure in which only the tough skinned survive, at least on controversial articles. That's toxic in the long term, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I would just like to remind admins of the stern "this is your last chance" warning given in the closure of the last such AE report: "TheTimesAreAChanging is admonished and strongly warned that there is a reason why articles on American Politics are under Arb restriction. You are at the edge of getting topic banned or blocked. I would remind you that Arb restricted areas have little rope and you just used yours up. Discuss before reverting when you know it is going to be contentious. Being "right" is meaningless here, everyone thinks they are right. Unquestionably, if the problematic behavior continues, you will be topic banned, so I hope you use this one last chance wisely. If you want to argue about what NPOV or other policies demand, fine, do so using the talk page and not the revert button. There isn't a consensus and the interest has cooled down, so I'm taking this action to end this, using the least amount of force. Don't get used to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)" "Last chance" ought to mean something. The behavior documented this time is not 1RR violations or typical AE issues; rather it is long-term stalking, hounding, and harassment of certain users, a persistent battleground mentality. If nobody else is bothered by this, I am. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment in response to SPECIFICO's diffs: the two that were not visible were part of a long series of several dozen edits that were not just revdel'ed - they were oversighted, so even admins can't see them. TTAAT's edits were somewhere in the middle of the series so the oversighting almost certainly had nothing to do with TTAAT's edits. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful responses from several of you. If I am hearing you right, this board is not designed for long-term problems or for issues unrelated to ArbCom sanctions. Is that right? So for a long-term problem like a pattern of stalking and harrassment, something like AN would be the only appropriate venue? --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused about what I'm supposed to do here. TParis is asking me to "back up my claims", that is, to provide evidence of a longterm pattern of stalking, hounding, and harassment of two editors - Volunteer Marek and SPECIFICO. TP is basically asking me to present a full AN case which would go back years (till 2012 by TTAAC's account ). On the other hand Sandstein is saying, don't present any diffs that predate Dennis' warning (December 12). I'm pretty sure most admins here do not want a full AN-type report. Short of that, I think the evidence presented by Casprings, while not presented in the usual format for AE, does show many examples of battleground behavior, especially the sandbox listing TTAAC's complaints against SPECIFICO Harassing behavior toward these two editors? Notice the edit summaries when he is reverting SPECIFICO or Volunteer Marek . Examples of hounding? In a discussion on his own talk page with another editor about an unrelated matter, TTAAC pinged Volunteer Marek by referring to him as "Wikipedia's whitewasher-in-chief". In December TTAAC filed an AE complaint against SPECIFICO which was closed as "no violation has occurred". These are just a few samples but they might provide some sense of what I am talking about. --MelanieN (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Uninvolved admins: Thank you for taking my concerns regarding the broader issues seriously. I appreciate being heard and I'll tone down my rhetoric.

• @MelanieN: What "last chance" certainly does not mean is that any spurious claim of misconduct will result in a block. Those asking for sanctions messed the 'last chance' up, not the reviewing uninvolved admins.--v/r - TP 20:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• @MastCell and CIreland: Do you want to know what I find disappointing? There is weak almost non-existant evidence on this report. MelanieN has followed that up with some claims of harassment and poisoned the well. This board is exactly not for unsubstantiated claims. We have WP:ASPERSIONS for a reason and this is it. It's because when people repeat claims of bad behavior enough times, without evidence, eventually others start believing in them. Unless MelanieN backs up her claims, they should be removed. And unless they are backed up, this AE should be swiftly closed before the allegations are allowed to spread like an out of control rumor. You two have already demonstrated how easily they take hold.--v/r - TP 02:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• @CIreland: I tried, but I just can't go without addressing your comment. You said "it is only a matter of time before someone loses patience and makes a sufficiently ill-considered retort...." But your concern only appears to be editors on one side of this dispute losing their patience. Have you considered that TTAAC is so outnumbered and targeted in this topic area that they are the one being pushed, losing their patience, and making ill-considered retorts? You certainly didn't. Why?--v/r - TP 02:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• @CIreland: There is no evidence here against TTAAC. Why are you asking for evidence against others but you're taking the claims of one side at face value? Have you read the evidence at all? I reviewed some of SPECIFICO's diffs, you can read my analysis on my talk page. I'll remind you that MelanieN has posted no evidence of harassment or stalking - merely allegations. Have you asked her for evidence or are you relying on your recollection of past allegations of harassment and stalking to support todays?--v/r - TP 02:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Casprings: There are a large number of conservative editors that are unwilling to get protracted in disputes or to really defend their points of view because of the attitude on this project towards Conservative editors. I know because I'm one of them.--v/r - TP 03:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: None of your diffs pertain to the editor's behavior in the topic of American Politics. No recent evidence of poor behavior has been presented. This has all been smoke and mirrors and the four of you should be sanctioned for trying to game AE to perpetuate a dispute. If you have a problem with TTAAC's user page, which you rightly do, then bring it up in the appropriate forums. But, ARBAP is not the venue for your complaint. Please present evidence relevant to American political articles.--v/r - TP 05:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: You can look at my analysis of SPECIFICO's diffs on my user page. I'll refer you to the uninvolved admins analysis of Caspring's diffs. And I'll point out that MelanieN has not provided any diffs - only accusations. The evidence is weak. A lot of mud slinging. As I already said, you lot screwed up Dennis' 'last chance' warning by bringing this AE complaint without a solid complaint. Now you're scrambling to put something together. That should be transparent to the uninvolved admins in the result section.--v/r - TP 06:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: His user page is not within the topic area.--04:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• @ Unvinvolved Admins: It's really sad to see that when the case produced nothing, editors simply threw every piece of mud outside the topic area at it that they could until the tide turned. Really really sad.--v/r - TP 04:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: Going through your diffs.
  1. So SPECIFICO and TTAAC have had problems for years. I don't see you holding SPECIFICO accountable for any of it. Whats your point with this diff?
  2. Using a userpage to collect evidence for dispute resolution is allowed per the user pages policy. No policy violations have occured here. That page is a few months old. At this point I'd tell TTAAC to either shit or get off the pot.
  3. Specifico has been accused of misrepresenting sources before, according to TTAAC. I've see some samples already. Yeah, the edit summary is a bit dickish and that's about the extent of your evidence. One diskish edit summary.
  4. It is common for editors to "Revert POV pushing undue OR in lead". There is no personal attack here.
  5. Two dickish comments, now. That's your evidence.
  6. What's your point? You've filed a case against TTAAC that resulted in no action. Are you now saying you're hounding and stalking TTAAC? Evidence is so weak compared to the accusations. WP:ASPERSIONS applies big time here.--v/r - TP 05:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• @ Uninvolved Admins: For the record, TTAAC has cleansed their userpage of the material.--v/r - TP 05:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Volunteer Marek: Like I said, I'm not going to fall on my sword for him, here. I'll call out what I think is thin evidence, and I'll tell him to knock off some of his BS. But, I'm not going to beg the community to give him another chance. And yes, I am keeping my distance from him intentionally. I know what shaky ground he' on already.--v/r - TP 00:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot that could be diff'ed here. Plenty to choose from. Every other comment TTAAC makes is some kind of battleground - others have already provided the diffs. Which is not surprising given the long rants on their user page which pretty clearly illustrate that the user is WP:NOTHERE. But let me just focus on one thing - BLP.

• Here is TTAAC's user page from 01/04/17. Note the following BLP violations:

• • " Anita Sarkeesian does not really care about video games "objectifying" women—dumpy girls just happen to feel much more threatened by hotties than dumpy guys feel threatened by hunks, hence the need to lower all standards of female attractiveness to the lowest common denominator"' - using the user page to disparage a living person (both in terms of her beliefs and her looks (wtf?)). Now to TTAAC's... half-credit, he did remove Sarkeesian's name after I brought this up on their talk page, although he couldn't resist making a personal attack in the edit summary.

• • "Ana Kasparian, who previously called for re-admitting AIDs blood into the blood supply as the Left's next ideological purity test" - this is a striaght up smear of a living person (she did no such thing) and I can't believe that this was allowed to stay on his user page for so long. After even more prodding he did eventually remove it.

Now, there's still a bunch left.

• • "I feel like ... I'm fucking better than you. Much better than you. You are garbage. You can call me a Social Justice Warrior. I don't give a shit. ... You're deplorable. You are a piece of shit. I have no respect for women who voted for Trump. I think you're fucking dumb."—Ana Kasparian, - this is a misquotation of the subjects. It pulls out part of three different quotes, out of context and "stitches" them together to make it seem like Kasparian was saying something ("I'm better than women who voted for Trump who are dumb pieces of shit"), which she was not. For example, the "You are garbage" quote is actually Kasparian talking about "people who take joy in attacking others who are defenseless" and those who "have no emotion when they see people shot and killed", not "women who voted for Trump". This is straight up lying about a living person and using a Wikipedia page to do so. He still hasn't removed this. (nota bene - this misquotation was made into a meme which is being passed around far-right social media)

• • "Ana Kasparian, who previously (...) Leftists really are horrible, hate-filled people.". Now, he did remove the bullshit about Kasparian wanting to "readmit AIDS into the blood supply" but left the part in about "Leftist". It's the sentence which immediately follows the one about Kasparian. The obvious implication is that Kasparian is one of these "horrible, hate-filled people". So more disparaging of living persons.

• • "Female supremacist Jessica Valenti..." (yes, describing a living person derogatorily as "female supremacist" is a BLP vio)

There's probably a few other BLP vios in those rants though I'm not familiar with the other subjects and don't really feel like going to the trouble of verifying whether TAACC is quoting them properly or smearing them like he does with others.

This crap needs to be removed. And it illustrates crystal clear that this editor is here for WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BATTLEGROUND but WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Hence previous AE warning, hence all this trouble.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

TP, Trump? Young Turks? Of course this has everything to do with American Politics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

And how is this not recent? It's from a discussion from last two days. And the diffs presented by others, like MelanieN, SPECIFICO, the original filer - they're all from the past few days. What are you talking about? Or do you just think that blatantly denying the obvious will work as an obstructionist tactic? Speaking of "gaming"... Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

TP, I see SIX diffs in Melanie's statement, four of them of recent vintage. Again, not clear on what you're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@TParis - "Uninvolved Admins: For the record, TTAAC has cleansed their userpage of the material" - ummm, sort of. I mean, it's a good thing it's gone but it's pretty clear TTAAC can't help himself since he put up that big bold text in the page which says :

Certain editors were so triggered by the previous version of this user page that they threatened to block me if it wasn't deleted.

So... it's still the same ol' battleground Times. Just removing some stuff to squeak out of a ban, not because he thinks he did anything wrong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This advice was recently given by an administrator to a conservative editor:

I've also looked over your editing history, and note that you have a distinct focus on Trump-related articles and topics, and often find yourself at odds with other editors, including making comments on political views, bias, etc. I strongly advise you step back from political articles and work in other areas of the encyclopedia after the block has expired; should you continue on your current path, further issues may continue to crop up.

How many non-conservative editors commenting in this request alone fit that description and continue to edit without obstruction or dissuasion? The problem isn't their behavior - we can count on an influx of misbehaving editors - it's the inability or unwillingness of the community system to address them, even at times protecting them. A line exists beyond which, should the pattern be sufficiently clear and pervasive, a case could be made for political advocacy.

We'd do well to stay far from that line.

I note VM is once again at AE. What's the old saying - "if you run into a problem editor in the morning..." D.Creish (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a frivolous request about legitimate talk page discussion on content disputes, no action is warranted. Please note that the previous AE request by MelanieN against TheTimesAreAChanging was also ruled a content dispute. In one of the diffs levied against the accused editor, they were in fact removing BLPVIO material in conformity with prior consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 20#Rape lawsuit. The disputed content had been added in violation of longstanding consensus: the complaint came in November as this fake rape lawsuit against Donald Trump had been deemed irrelevant after examining sources back in July. Therefore, any influence of the prior "stern warning" against TTACC should be attenuated, even if there were anything substantial to complain about today on this board.

I have no strong opinion on the behaviour issues levied either by TTAAC or against them, other than saying that many editors behave abrasively and this is the wrong forum to address any complaints in this regard. — JFG ^talk 03:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to side with TParis here and say that the complaint is not only badly formatted but extremely thin. When diffs like this are being presented as personal attacks, I think you need to stop and think about what's going on.

I won't say TTAAC is blameles, but I do think describing it as 'several standard deviations' outside the norm is overdramatic. I'd consider it not statistically significant. If it weren't for the previous warning, I'd be saying drop this and move on. My take on his behaviour is that this is someone who just gets slightly overheated in debate. If, in view of the warning, admins feel that his attitude still needs slight recalibration, would a short topic ban (say 14 days) do the trick? GoldenRing (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• I agree with MjolnirPants that TTAAC's so far only comment on this request makes a bad impression. TheTimesAreAChanging, due diligence would have been to look at the history of Caspring's sandbox for one minute first. Were you too pleased by an opportunity for a quick cheap "quoting" gibe to do that, on the principle of "never check a good story", or what? Anyway, it's surprising to see it on a board where you know the idea is for admins to evaluate your demeanour and interactions on Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 16:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC).
• (EC) I'm not impressed by the silly comment on this filing by TheTimesAreAChanging, but I'm having a difficult time seeing anything in the diffs provided (three of the four of which point to the same comment) that's not the everyday red-faced bickering we see in this topic area. As TParis mentioned last time we were here, editors need to be able express dissenting opinions without being dragged to noticeboards. I don't see any egregious personal attacks unless I'm really missing something. Casprings, I think you are somewhat off-base in our interpretation of discussing "user conduct" and what you're requesting of the subject. If TheTimesAreAChangingfeels that someone is misrepresenting a source, they absolutely should discuss it on the article talk page to get other opinions. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: I empathize, and I'm fully aware of Dennis Brown's previous warning. What I think most of us are saying is that the report is weak. I don't see anything in the diffs presented that remotely resemble "long-term stalking, hounding, and harassment". WP:AE is not an investigative service—reports should concisely outline why the subject should be sanctioned, and this report fails to do that. A lot of reports here lately amount to "I'm telling on you" and it's reduced the efficiency and efficacy of the board. --Laser brain (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• On further investigation and review of information provided, I'm in favor of an indefinite topic ban that may be appealed after six months. --Laser brain (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Laser brain that this seems like a weak case. Most of the diffs listed under Specifico attacks are not really attacks and the four diffs listed after "continues to attack" are actually one diff and is not beyond the bounds of heated discourse. At best, I'd suggest that the editor tone down the questioning of the competence of other editors and focus more on discussing content. The stuff in the sandbox is, however, troublesome and, perhaps, needs explanation or needs to go. --regentspark (comment) 17:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  I must say that the comments about Volunteer Marek , made as they are when this AE report is open, are not an encouraging sign. And the continual insistence that other editors are incompetent is not promising either. Throw the sandbox page, which I note is still up, into the mix and I guess a TBAN is, after all, a good idea. Support TBAN. --regentspark (comment) 22:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I broadly agree with the above admins that, while TheTimesAreAChanging's comments here reflect poorly on them, the complaint does not make sufficiently clear (and it is also not clear at a glance) how the diffs at issue are "attacks" in the sense of actionable misconduct. I would therefore take no action.  Sandstein  18:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO: I'm not interested in reviewing diffs already reviewed in a previous request. They have presumably been addressed (or not, as was appropriate) as needed then.  Sandstein  21:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• MelanieN: I am taking your concerns seriously, but AE is by its nature not very good at evaluating longterm conduct patterns (unless they are very well documented in a request, which is rare and certainly not the case here). We can and do take into account repeat misconduct, but we do need an instance of misconduct in this specific case to trigger sanctions. I'm not saying that it is necessarily not present here, only that if it is, the request does a very poor job of establishing it. Just a long string of diffs is pretty much worthless to me, personally, at least. I expect something in the vein of "at on , says "" which is because ". The request template actually sets that up.  Sandstein  21:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Hitchens stuff in the sandbox does reflect extremely badly upon TTTAAC - it's simply not acceptable in any shape or form - and needs to go (I will remove it when this request is closed). In the meantime, TTTAAC needs to seriously tone down the rhetoric or I strongly suspect a third appearance here will indeed result in sanctions. Black Kite (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Also to add, given the below, that I would not disagree with a sanction being applied now, either. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I do not agree with the admins commenting above. It is wholly unreasonable to ask the targets of such antagonistic and provocative comments to simply smile sweetly and carry on a productive discourse with this user. In an already contentious area, the tenor of the remarks in the diffs supplied surely make consensus building impossible. Moreover, it is only a matter of time before someone loses patience and makes a sufficiently ill-considered retort that lands them here, forcing admins' hands. Perhaps that is the intent behind the provocation. Regardless, TTAAC's approach to debate is intolerable and I am advocating a 6 month topic ban. CIreland (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: Because nobody has presented any diffs of such. If you have evidence of similar persistent patterns of behaviour by others, you should present them or file a separate report. Given, however, that my perspective on the matter seems to be in the minority, if you do present such evidence I don't see how I could offer much more than a sympathetic ear. CIreland (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: I am not taking anybody's claims at face-value. I looked at Casprings' diffs and formed my own judgement. Then I looked at other people's diffs and had that judgement reinforced. I've been around long enough to know to treat the commentary presented alongside the diffs with maximum caution if not outright scepticism. It's the nature of AE that, even if it's unfair to do so, one has to assume everything above the results heading may be highly partisan and only draw conclusions based on the diffs themselves. "Face-value" would be a ridiculous approach. CIreland (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• This report is weak, as others have already mentioned, and the multiple diffs to the same edit is poor form at best. However, this report (and TTAAC's comments here) does contribute to the mounting evidence that TTAAC does not play well with others in this area, and engages in unhelpful baiting and provocation of other editors which does not contribute to the encyclopaedia. I strongly recommend TTAAC restricts their comments to content, not editors. I get the sense here that a better formulated report could well have resulted in sanctions. I appreciate Dennis Brown's warning appeared to be a final one, but like Black Kite, I think the next time TTAAC is brought here (assuming a properly drawn up report with some meat on it) there is a good chance that a TBAN will follow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Given the additional diffs provided above by several editors, and considering the observations made by other uninvolved admins, I have shifted my initial position. I consider that the weight of evidence on TTAAC's general editing behaviour on AP2 articles is now sufficient to tip the scales in terms of being sufficiently disruptive/combative/battleground-like to warrant sanctions. I am now fairly comfortable that a TBAN is justified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed in many of the admin responses here. There seems to be a clear recognition that TTTAAC's behavior is disruptive and problematic, but also a reluctance to take action on this particular report because of complaints about its formal presentation. Look, the whole point of discretionary sanctions is to make it easier to deal with disruptive editing when it is identified. Instead, we're creating bureaucratic and procedural roadblocks that make it harder. It's pretty clear to any sensible admin (and everyone commenting in this thread is a sensible admin) that TTTACC is a combative, unhelpful, and counterproductive presence in this topic area. So how about we stop with the "final, absolutely last, no-more-chances, we-really-mean-it-this-time" warnings and actually address the problem that we all recognize, in keeping with the principle behind discretionary sanctions? I endorse what User:CIreland said; s/he has the right idea here. MastCell ^Talk 01:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• MastCell, I do not want to be snarky, but if you (unlike me) are convinced that it is clear that sanctions are appropriate here, then you can just go ahead and apply them rather than complain about bureaucracy. These sanctions are discretionary in that they do not need consensus or discussion, just one admin willing to pull the metaphorical trigger - or at least that's how it was when I was last active here. Well, your sanctions could be appealed, but from the comments here I don't think that there would be a consensus of admins to sustain an appeal.  Sandstein  21:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, and if it helps, after reading VolunteerMarek's statement, I'm now pretty comfortable myself with topic-banning this editor for whatever time. Wikipedia is very emphatically not a soapbox for angry political screeds, and a user who thinks that their user page is the place to fill with such (of any persuasion) is clearly somebody who should not go anywhere near divisive political topics on Wikipedia. Let them edit articles about birds or something.  Sandstein  21:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• While good presentation helps, we are not required to reject a poorly presented request. I see enough evidence of problematic conduct to justify a topic ban (per my usual practice, I'd favor an indefinite one with appeals allowed after six months). The diffs presented as well as TTAAC's initial response in this AE paints a clear picture of combative behavior that does not belong in this already volatile topic area. It's true that "editors need to be able express dissenting opinions without being dragged to noticeboards", but it is equally important that editors need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. The behavior here crossed that line. T. Canens (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • As an aside, TTAAC repeatedly claims that SPECIFICO "has been topic banned twice for routinely misrepresenting sources", yet I don't even see the word "misrepresent" in the applicable FoF. T. Canens (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• @TParis: I read your and TTAAC's positions and back to the talk page diffs extensively. I am going to acknowledge your concern about community tendency to go against conservative viewpoints in various ways at various levels. And from what I know of say computer security and some of the primary source and secondary sources TTAAC is relying on, they are certainly making good points in the discussion there, though I disagree on the resulting conclusion. However, even in a contentious discussion on a politics page, TTAAC is a couple of standard deviations more likely to making personal attacks (which are well documented here, contrary your disagreement on that). And he's been given a final warning, after prior issues, and it's still going on. If we had a TTAAC content contributor who was no more likely than the others on the page to make personal attacks this would be a different story. But he's really standing out in the level of doing so. I don't see baiting drawing his attacks. He's making unforced errors there. It's enough that it's a problem. IMHO this is sanctionable. Someone else can and should make the content discussion input he's been doing, but he needs to stand back. It's time for a topic ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @TheTimesAreAChanging:Noted. That was blockable. Warned, and something needs to be done about it or a block will commence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• I just want to endorse what User:MastCell said above. There is clear evidence of problematic behaviour here and I'm disappointed that a failure to fill out the forms correctly is getting in the way of us seeing that. Support a topic ban here per the comments from those above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC).
• All right. Despite initial reluctance to act because of a poorly composed request, administrators commenting here are generally of the view that the totality of the conduct of TheTimesAreAChanging in the U.S. politics topic area – taking into account particularly the final warning in the last AE proceedings – is enough of a concern to warrant a topic ban. Specifically, TheTimesAreAChanging's conduct is considered problematic because of a generally confrontative rather than collegial approach to editing, in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND, and misusing Wikipedia as a forum for voicing personal political opinions, in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. TheTimesAreAChanging is therefore indefinitely banned from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. They may appeal this restriction after six months have passed and are invited, at that time, to indicate how their approach to editing has changed with respect to the concerns voiced here, and how they have usefully contributed to articles in other topic areas.  Sandstein  10:02, 12 January 2017 (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

Holanthony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (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

 : An indefinite topic ban on all topics related to WP:BLP.

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has made frequent disruptive edits to the Wikipedia community

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

1. 3 May 2016 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz made an edit that is a false and gross misrepresentation of the cited content.
2. 9 January 2017 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has wrongfully stated that the material is "unsourced" in spite of the fact that it is stated abundantly clearly in the cited source.
3. 4 January 2017 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is demanding that the Administrator retracts reinserting a valid article in spite of the fact that it got deleted by nomination of a sockpuppet. Single-purpose accounts showing up to support Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's prosposed deletions (or vice versa) is not an uncommon feature, such as seen here: 20 December 2014
4. 7 January 2017 Explanation Hullaballoo Wolfowitz makes a point that information found on film data bases are unreliable due to the fact that the material is released years after they are filmed and used this as a reason to delete content. At the same time, he seems to find it reliable enough to use when it suits his purposes, such as claiming Randy Spears had acted in Ryan's Hope for a week 15 October 2016. This in spite of the fact that the subject in the original interview claimed it was for a year 19 December 2016. Clearly a case of WP:OR as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz assumes fact not in evidence (remember, he said that material could be filmed and released separately from one another, what is to say that Spears had not acted on the show for a year? IF we are indeed to follow Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument, that is).
5. 21 December 2016 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has removed contet under the assumption that it comes from a certain interview in a source, even though it's origin is clearly attributed to a different RS. Clearly a case of WP:SYNTH. This is also something user:Morbidthoughts picked up on
6. 4 January 2017‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been engaged in several edit wars as of late, such as this one against User:Jakobludwigfelixmendelsshon
7. 30 December 2016 Another edit war Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been engaged in lately, this time against User:Captainbryce1

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has a previous track record of having been blocked several times on account of disruptive editing and violating WP:3RR, which raises serious concerns of questioning good faith.

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.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 28 September 2016 by Bjelleklang (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Several other users and admins can attest to the information listed above @Gstree: @BD2412: @Guy1890: @Darthbunk Pakt Dunft: @Scalhotrod: @Jakobludwigfelixmendelsshon: @Captainbryce1:

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

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.

Holanthony is retaliating, rather incoherently, for the topic ban imposed on him early today. See All three of Holanthony's claims as to why I'm subject to DS in this area are quite blatantly false, but since I made the request which led to Holanthony's topic ban, it's quite fair to assume I'm aware of the discretionary sanctions. To respond briefly to Holanthony's list of my supposed transgressions:

1. . I (uncontroversially) removed unsourced statements from a BLP, which is BLP enforcement, and plainly does not violate BLP policy.
2. . I'm not sure what happened here, but I believe I meant to remove the unsourced content from the next sentence, which I have now done. Mea culpa. In any event, this should not fall under the DS.
3. . Holanthony asked that an AFD-deleted article be restored without going through DRV. I opposed his request. That is not a violation of any policy or guideline, anbd certainly does not fall under DS.
4. . This is utterly incoherent. I believe Holanthony is referring to my removal from the Randy Spears article of the claim that the performer had had a year-long role on a soap opera, where the only potentially reliable source was a citation to IMDB. IMDB, however, actually says that Spears appeared only in five episodes (in an uncredited role), airing between January 9 and January 13, 1989. Holanthony claims that characterizing this as a one-week role is forbidden original research. That's simply ridiculous.
5. . Holanthony added a quote from a tertiary source to a BLP. It struck me as odd, so I reviewed the tertiary source, found the secondary source, which cited the original newspaper interview. I found that online and concluded that the quoted source was not accurately representing the subject's actual statement. So I removed the quotation. Removing demonstrably inaccurate material does not violate BLP.
6. . The issue here is the length of a plot summary in an article on a fictional work. By no stretch of the imagination is this relevant to DS regarding BLP editing.
7. . Here, an editor repeatedly added an unsourced discussion of a male performer's genitalia into his BLP. I removed it, over and over. Content like that is exactly why BLP enforcement is exempt from 3RR, and for Holanthony to argue that it violates DS simply demonstrates, at best, his lack of the necessary competence to edit BLPs.

For further background, see the ANI which led to Holanthony's DS alert and my draft request for imposing sanctions on Holanthony, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/AE evidence draft

In light of the inordinate amount of time I and other editors have had to waste in dealing with his groundless complaints, I request a one-way interaction ban to prohibit Holanthony from any further interaction with me. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• I don't see any DS warnings, prior DS sanctions, or other signs this is an AE noticeboard topic. This board is only for Arbitration case sanctions enforcement, not general behavioral issues you want to complain about. If you can't find actual discretionary sanctions or an arbcom case to list this under, please take it to the WP:ANI noticeboard rather than here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah. You seem to have gotten a DS sanction and are now turning around and trying to fling one on someone else? Normal users can't do that, it's an administrator function. This could be seen as disruptive editing... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Commenting on the procedural aspect only: WP:NEWBLPBAN is a thing, and HW probably qualifies under the "participated in any process" clause w/r/t alerts. T. Canens (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Not actionable. The request does not name any actual ArbCom decision to be enforced, to begin with.  Sandstein  05:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• OK, following Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's explanation it is clear that this is a disruptive request. Moreover, the request itself is a violation of the topic ban (by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz BethNaught) from BLP topics, because the request makes reference to Randy Spears, a living person. I am blocking Holanthony for a week and closing this request.  Sandstein  08:49, 11 January 2017 (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

Karunamon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:38, 11 January 2017 (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

AE request 2015-01-11

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

1. - False accusations of editing behavior and sockpuppetry
2. - Accusation of "POV editing"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

Warning as discretionary sanction:

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This dispute started with the (closed-delete) AfD on The People's Cube. I felt that JzG's behavior (including factually false and some cases incivil edit summaries, per WP:ESDONTS) were nonconstructive, at which point I posted to AN/I , linking extensive diffs of the behavior I considered problematic. JzG then takes this opportunity to make materially false statements about my edit history:

• Accusing me of behavior on the article that were the actions of another user
• Of being a "sleeper sock".

(Diff 1 above)

Neither of these statements were supported with any evidence.

I did, and still do, disagree with JzG's read of WP:SELFSOURCE, and I fully admit to adding self sourced cites to the article in question as my understanding of policy is that they are allowed in limited circumstances.

If possible, I request Checkuser evidence to confirm that I log in to no other accounts, and have not edited in any substantial way from any IP accounts. (Addresses to be provided in private, as they are shared/institutional).

JzG has been formally warned for this kind of behavior in the past. If unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry aren't uncivil, what is?

This all aside, I'd ask JzG to be admonished to slow down on his edit summaries (and in fact, it looks like someone already sorta did in late 2015). Summaries that misrepresent the content of the edits make life much more difficult, especially mid-dispute. JzG holds the mop and knows better than this.

• Comment: Apparently I entered this incorrectly - where does one request enforcement of a warning as a discretionary sanction?

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.

The filing party already tried this at ANI where it was rejected as not actionable. The content issue is (a) out of scope and (b) moot as the article was deleted at AfD. An article was deleted, people got upset, we get that. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess the article in question would have fallen under WP:ARBAP2. I make no comment on the merits of the case. GoldenRing (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• Not actionable because the request does not name an ArbCom decision that is to be enforced. An AE thread is not an ArbCom decision. I haven't even read the rest of the request.  Sandstein  09:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with Sandstein. Close with no action, no ArbCom decision identified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Usernamen1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 06:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

3 month topic ban regarding Donald Trump. This edit was the cause of the topic ban according to my user talk page notice of the topic ban:

• This edit doesn't qualify for a topic ban because it is very civil, has a reasonable edit summary, and is the consensus version both at the present time and for over a week. The issue is not content but having good prose that is not redundant.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

At one time, I edited the Donald Trump article. I soon realized it was the hotbed of combat and did not want to fight. I then made it clear that I was withdrawing from editing that article with the sole exception of improving prose and ONLY prose for the first sentence or two in the article. I discussed it in the talk page, archive 40. There was no opposition to my point. My suggested version has been stable for a week showing it is the consensus version.

The prose part concerns the beginning sentence..."Donald Trump (1946- ) is an American politician, businessman, and television personality. He is the President-elect....". That is fine. I do not advocate any particular wording. Call him a politician, call him whatever. I only concentrated on non-redundant prose. An example of redundant, bad prose is the version of last month that went along the lines of "Donald Trump (1946- ) is an American businessman, television personality, politician, and President-elect." (bold added) Some say Trump is not a politician. Some say that he is. I don't get into that fight. Say he is a politician. Then the only claim to being a politician is being President-elect. If you have two sentences, fine, prose is ok. President-elect is further detail on politician. One sentence is highly redundant, however. It would be like writing "Trump is an American businessperson and businessman."

Again, in the talk page, NOBODY wrote support that they want bad prose. Quite a few did not realize the prose error but once I explained, there was never any opposition. Sometimes, people changed the first two sentences dramatically and when someone else disagreed, they reverted it to the old, redundant way. However, for the past week, the non-redundant way has stuck. And the talk page has a few people that support good prose (commenting on my 2 sentence structure as a way to avoid redundant prose) and don't want bad, redundant prose.

For this, I am topic banned. Makes no sense. I took the peaceful road and voluntarily limited myself to only advocating good prose (and neutral on content) and only for the first 2 sentences. I made that clear roughly 3 weeks ago that I was not interested in editing the article except for prose issues and then only limited to the first 2-3 sentences of the lede. Other editors edit war and are not topic banned. If the topic ban is lifted, I intend only to occasionally mention on the talk page about good prose for the first 2 sentences if someone forgets or doesn't realize it. Please have a heart. I just want to get back to Wikipedia editing of the Boeing 717 article and other articles without the pain of having a topic ban. I even voluntarily stayed away from Wikipedia for a week (January 5-12) to prove that I have self control and keep my word (of voluntarily not editing Wikipedia for a week, sort of a mock 1 week block).

I don't think I need to provide diffs of Usernamen's edits to Donald Trump or to analyze them, after Melanie's and RexxS's excellent statements. But the pain caused by blocks and bans can be disproportionate to the prevention that is the intention of them. When Usernamen wrote on my page "I am truly hurt by your sanctions and the permanent mark it leaves me", I offered to withdraw the topic ban and even remove it from from the log (probably procedurally dodgy, but meh, compare WP:ROUGE), if they'd instead undertake to voluntarily abstain from editing Trump-related pages for a few months. They didn't care for my offer, see this discussion on my page, which suggests to me they really are determined to relitigate that lede sentence/s indefinitely. I'm very sorry Usernamen is upset, but in consideration of the other editors of the page, I believe the topic ban is needed. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC).

I fail to see any procedural issue with the topic ban, the basis is correct, Usernamen1 edit-warred after warnings and the cited WP:FINALSTRAW diff is actually pretty bad as (a) it ignores an obvious inline comment saying "don't do this" and (b) introduces a typo.

Needless to say, the merits of the specific edit Usernamen1 seeks to excuse here are not matters for AE. As a content issue, it should be discussed on Talk and no edit made until there is consensus. AE does not litigate content disputes, it reviews sanctions, and the procedural basis for this one seems on the face of it to be sound. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I have observed Usernamen1 from the beginning of his involvement at Donald Trump and Talk:Donald Trump. His comment above correctly describes his involvement there. At first he tried to participate in the discussions, but his involvement was borderline disruptive, such as coming up with a dozen new proposals in the middle of an RfC, and none of his suggestions ever developed any support. Eventually he decided he was going to focus on one thing: the wording of the lede sentence. That sentence had been repeatedly edit-warred and heavily debated for a month or more. He decided that the problem was the one-sentence format, and that a two-sentence format would "improve prose" and "eliminate redundancy". He proposed this a couple of times at the discussions, but his proposals were ignored. He interpreted this lack of support to be consensus because "no one objected". So he inserted his version into the lede on December 27. Over the next week his version was reverted five times by five different people. Each time, he restored his version, falsely claiming "consensus" and "stable version".Dec. 29, Dec. 30, Dec. 31, Dec. 31, and Jan. 4 He actually did this twice on December 31, violating 1RR. That was not noticed at the time, so on Jan. 3 Bishonen merely gave him a warning: don't edit war, discuss on the talk page. Without following her advice, he did it again on Jan. 4, and at that point she topic banned him for three months. Since then he has pleaded with Bishonen to lift the sanction, making it very clear that the reason he wants it lifted is so that he can continue to edit-war over the lede sentence.

Discussion at the Donald Trump talk page is finally getting close to reaching consensus on that subject, and hopefully there will be a consensus version soon. The last thing that article needs is Usernamen stubbornly re-inserting his version because, even though it has gained no support, he believes it is "better prose". The very fact that he is here, pleading for access to the article, demonstrates how obsessed he is over this.--MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I see that while I was inserting this, RexxS was inserting a much better and more complete summary of the situation. Sorry for the duplication. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The page Donald Trump is under discretionary sanctions and its talk page has a big notice in BOLD CAPS to that effect. The notice includes that injunction "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."

• At 06:51, 9 December 2016, Usernamen1 revised the opening sentence to remove "politician". This was reverted half-an-hour later.
• At 18:59, 11 December 2016, Usernamen1 revised the opening sentence to remove "politician" again without any consensus. This was reverted by MelanieN who gave Usernamen1 a DS warning notice and took the time to explain it to Usernamen1, who argued the issue.
• At 05:20, 13 December 2016, Usernamen1 again revised the opening sentence, this time to remove "television personality", despite the html comment < !--NOTE: Do not change these descriptions without consensus.-->. The edit summary was removed "television personality" which has not reached consensus. ...
• At 16:21, 13 December 2016, MelanieN posted a further warning to User talk:Usernamen1 #Warning pointing out that six people had supported adding it.
• At 07:07, 27 December 2016, Usernamen1 once again revised the opening sentence, this time into two sentences, on the grounds that there was "no significant objection in the talk page". This was reverted the same day.
• At 04:15, 29 December 2016, Usernamen1 repeated the challenged edit, calling it the "stable version". This was reverted within 2 hours.
• At 04:46, 30 December 2016, Usernamen1 again split the lead sentence, this time including a spelling mistake.
• At 03:45, 31 December 2016‎, Usernamen1 repeated the edit, albeit without the spelling mistake.
• At 07:34, 31 December 2016,‎ Usernamen1 again split the lead sentence, "Trying slightly different wording", with another spelling mistake.
• At 04:00, 4 January 2017‎,‎ Usernamen1 again split the lead sentence, "restored to stable version per archive 40", with yet another spelling mistake.
• At 09:29, 4 January 2017, after another round of warnings at User talk:Usernamen1 #Donald Trump lede sentence, Bishonen applied a 3-month topic ban under WP:AC/DS.

There has been no consensus for any of Usernamen1's revisions. I cannot even begin to understand how anyone can breach DS so regularly and remain unblocked, much less how they can possibly think they have grounds for appealing the topic ban. I predict that in 3 months and a few days, well be back here again, unless admins are prepared to do something about the time-sink that baseless appeals have become. --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The appeal does not understand the reason for the ban (or perhaps what consensus on controversial topics means), so lifting the ban does not make sense. Glrx (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• This appeal was submitted using the request template. I've slightly reformatted it to make it clearer that this is an appeal. Waiting on a statement by the sanctioning admin Bishonen (talk · contribs).  Sandstein  08:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Seems completely reasonable to me (the topic ban). Violating a 1RR restriction repeatedly and then violating it again after a warning that a topic ban will be imposed. Seriously? --regentspark (comment) 14:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban seems reasonable. Explaining how you think you're right and thus immune to the active restrictions on the page is silly. This should be closed promptly. --Laser brain (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• I think waiting 24 hrs for others to comment is worthwhile, but at that point I would close or support another close rejecting the appeal and keeping the topic ban in place. The diffs and editor behavior warrant the ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• TBAN seems entirely reasonable, recommend turning this appeal down. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• The content of the edits aren't actually that concerning. The fact that they violated the 1RR on that page is. Decline. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Considering that all administrators agree that the appeal should be declined, I am closing this request accordingly. For the record, I've removed a number of statements by Usernamen1 that were made out of order, i.e., not within their own section.  Sandstein  09:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

JoyceWood (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

• Per their contribs, the user started out editing on some related things but soon homed in and became a WP:SPA for the subject of Anatole Klyosov, a Russian-born scientist who since 2008 has been creating what he calls "DNA geneaology" and characterizes as a "patriotic science" which is a version of human evolutionary genetics (including linguistics, anthropology etc as much work on the subject does) that claims for example that the human race originated in Northern Russia and that has been described by Russian scientists as "DNA demagoguery" (per BLP, refs:
  • Antonova, Maria (November 29, 2016). "Putin's Great Patriotic Pseudoscience". Foreign Policy. and
  • Balanovskaya, E. V.; et al. (2015-01-13). "ДНК-демагогия Анатолия Клёсова" (in Russian). TrV-Science.)

• Specific diffs in the article
  • First instance of edit warring

1. 02:23, 30 December 2016 First edit, adds inaccurate WL to Genetic genealogy and removing term "pseudoscience"
2. 23:27, 5 January 2017 Removing term "pseudoscience"
3. 00:02, 6 January 2017 Removing term "pseudoscience"

• • Second instance of edit warring for which I warned them, as did Doug Weller here, to which the user replied that they are well aware of 3RR (diff)

1. 03:25, 9 January 2017 Removing reference to humans originating in Russian north, tries to force in WL to Genetic genealogy, and made it less clear that Klyosov himself called his work a "patriotic science"
2. 04:17, 9 January 2017 as above

• • Third instance of edit warring, for which I again warned them:

1. [11:58, 12 January 2017 Removing changes agreed to on Talk page by others, with which they didn't agree, restoring version with which they also don't agree (!)
2. 16:26, 12 January 2017 Again
3. 16:37, 12 January 2017 Again

• Per the Article revision statistics has WP:BLUDGEONed the talk page with 50650 bytes of commentary. Most of this commentary is almost incomprehensible, not based in policy or guideline or independent, reliable secondary sources but rather primary sources, OR, and personal opinion. The killer thing is that even if you work through all the BLUDGEONing, it appears that the version that JoyceWoods would have at the article is very close (even using the same sources) to what everyone else there would want. See their proposal here for example - you can see that even more clearly in this section I set up at the Talk page that shows the versions. As far as I can tell the focus of the BLUDGEONing and contorted argumentation has pretty much all been about removing the "humans originated in Northern Russia" thing and trying to downplay the description as "pseudoscience". Examples:

1. 03:56, 6 January 2017 extremely long, incomprehensible "analysis"
2. 11:53, 6 January 2017 Making the argument that some papers on which he is a middle author (and which are actually all letters commenting on the work of others) have been cited by others, so therefore the work he actually drove (the "patriotic science" stuff) cannot be pseudoscience. Convoluted and a huge distraction.
3. 20:15, 6 January 2017 more of same
4. 20:42, 6 January 2017 more of same
5. 12:22, 7 January 2017 more of same
6. 10:32, 10 January 2017 arguing that Klyosov did not say that humans originated in N Russia, citing papers he wrote about other things... (oy)

• When I let them know that their last round of edit warring made no sense - they either agreed with the version they were restoring or they were being WP:POINTY (diff), and then told them I would be filing at AE (diff), they unilaterally launched an RfC, again with an incomprehensible argument (see their post in the discussion section) (diff) Their proposed version of course leaves out the "Northern Russia" thing. In my view this is further disruption.

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)

• 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

This is a user who blazed into this article with extreme passion and has just been disruptive. We get folks like this, and this is what DS are for. Between their advocacy and their weak grasp of policy I don't believe they can contribute productively on the topic of human evolutionary genetics which includes Klyosov, genetics, linguistics, and anthropology.

• JoyceWood's response to Gerogewilliamherbert was par for the course. Long, incomprehensible, and in all that, didn't even approach answering the question that Georgewilliamherbert asked, which called for a simple yes/no response. There is some language issue, but the problem is more basic than that. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• User:JoyceWood, Georgewilliamherbert asked you two questions and you have ignored them. You should answer the two questions. Georgewilliamherbert is going to decide what happens, not me. If you don't understand the questions, you should ask, but by "the arbitration case decision" they mean this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final_decision, including the discretionary sanctions remedy: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. They are asking if you read it and understand it. The decision was linked-to, in the Discretionary sanctions notice I gave you on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Responding to User:My very best wishes, thanks for weighing in. I agree it is hard to figure out but the two themes i identified - the "Northern Russia" hypothesis of human origins and the downplaying of "pseudoscience" have been consistent issues. With all the walls of text it is hard to tease that out. But I agree on the disruption, and the usefulness of the TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Responding to User:Sandstein, thanks for your comment, but please do spend fifteen minutes and try to make sense of the discussion in say Talk:Anatole_Klyosov#Analysis and please do see the article-editing diffs above. Between the uncooperative, fierce, argumentative walls of text on the Talk page and the POINTY editing in the article, it is very difficult to make progress, and I for one am fed up. This is not just a content dispute, or I would not have posted here. This is a matter where PS DS should be applied. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for your replies, everyone. Sandstein thanks for taking more time to review. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• diff

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.

@Georgewilliamherbert: I do not agree and accept these accusations, and consider them as false in respect of my intentions and actions. I will not comment the behavior by Jytdog, however I must say that he showed lack of good faith toward me from the very beginning (i.e. since when he joined the discussion(s) on 7 January) which culminated with this AE. The case above is a cherry-picked construction in which my intention is twisted, and ignored the simultaneous development of understanding of the several topics which were raised, from content and content change, to sources and sources reliability, within these several days, from 5th to 12th January. This profound discussions, which were prolonged due to contributors mutual misunderstanding due to lack of English language or lack of concise replies or simple ignorance, as well analysis and consensus building on specific topics in several discussions (only 2 discussion sections were opened by me), enabled to make several and still on-going, but secure, editing which is according to the Wikipedian policy and principles like WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Thus the wonderment that mine revision of the paragraph is similar and according to guideline to the one which was rashly pushed and edited in the article, although the discussion was not finished (the two "perfect" paragraph versions were not created), held RfC, and reached a consensus, something Jytdog proposed himself and everbody agreed upon. I have only constructive and neutral intentions, and begin to consider that the previously experienced warnings as well this AE, are a threat and abuse of Wikipedian policy (WP:OWN) to intentionally remove a good faith contributor from editing and discussions, in which he profoundly and constructively discussed, contributed to content change, and especially opposed and warned on the violation of Wikipedian editing principles and facts which can not be ignored due to their defamatory effect in the article. If such activity and points are of not enough validity and worth of consideration, then I have nothing else to say, but hope for reason and understanding to prevail. --JoyceWood (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Jytdog's response to my reply - I can hardly defend my intentions and actions when even the answer itself is ignored for being "long" and labeled "incomprehensible", that it did not "approach answering the question". This is my first discussion in an Arbitration, thus I am sorry if I made a mistake replying with such a "long" comment. I simply did not know. I think it can only be long or incomprehensible when there is lack of will to listen and understand both sides. The case above is nor basic nor simple as it is made up with constructions based on subjective presumtion of mine activity. Such case I can not answer with simple reply of "yes" or "no" because it will not clarify the situation, as well then it would be labeled as "short" and that I lack understanding. The position I am dragged in with such reasoning is a vicious cirlce I can hardly comprehend and defend myself.--JoyceWood (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Admin note: Comments exceeding 500 words removed.  Sandstein  21:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein:, with the removal of my comments in which I debunked the false remarks and false accusations, explained them, you and everyone else, who will not read my removed replies, will base their result on their assumption of comments by Jytdog and My very best wishes, as well admin JzG. This is literally one of the most insane situations I will probably witness in my whole life.--JoyceWood (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The "DNA genealogy" by Klyosov has no scientific following and was described as pseudoscience, as becomes clear after looking at the literature.

JoyceWood looks to me as a strange contributor who is not really a supporter of Klyosov, but creates disruption for the sake of disruption, at least on the page Anatole Klyosov. Here is why:

1. After making very few edits unrelated to science/pseudoscience this account switched to editing Klyosov page , where they made enormous amounts of comments, exactly as Jytdog tells above.
2. Their first edit was revert on the page. Their second edit was pinging me. Well, if the purpose was to engage me to unhelpful discussions, they succeeded.
3. JoyceWood demonstrated no interest in improving non-controversial content about Klyosov, even after receiving such advice .
4. Comments by JoyceWood on the article talk page show no real understanding of the subject.
5. The version they edit war about (even after receiving AE warning) was nearly identical to the current version. I can not imagine that a genuine supporter of Klysov (if there are such supporters - I doubt) would edit war about something like that. In combination with other details, this looks to me as intentionally creating disruption. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that, I think that a topic ban at least from the page Anatole Klyosov might be helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog. Yes, I agree that the downplaying of "pseudoscience" has been consistent issue in the whole discussion. One can also see it from the diffs provided by you in this request. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

However, I think that JoyceWood had a valid point: the "pseudoscience" issue is currently overemphasized on the page, which I think is not consistent with WP:BLP policy. I think so because: (a) 99% of scientific work by the subject was in the area of mainstream science, highly cited and never disputed, (b) I think his latest "DNA genealogy" work was simply of no significance (published in a single Russian Biochemistry paper), and (b) many sources on the page can be questioned, such as using lab web site, an opinion piece by a journalist about science, and non-standard terminology ("pseudoscience", "parascience", etc.) by his critics. My very best wishes (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Scientists who stray outside their specialty field of study to make pronouncements about other scientific fields often end up in WP:FRINGEy areas. Science is more than simply applying the scientific method to whatever one is doing, one also has to possess a wealth of knowledge of the field, and the lack of this can lead good scientists astray when they roam. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• @JoyceWood:, did you read the arbitration case decision found above? Are you aware of its findings and significance? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • JoyceWood, you need to review this section of the Pseudoscience decision: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles
  • Especially these:
    • Obvious pseudoscience
    • 15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
    • Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Modified by motion at 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Generally considered pseudoscience
    • 16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
    • Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Questionable science
    • 17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
    • Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Alternative theoretical formulations
    • 18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
    • Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • From where I am sitting, either 15 or less likely 16 applies, and your attempts to resist this are exactly in violation of the case findings. Those are the Wikipedia standards for handling pseudoscience topics and have been for nearly 11 years. If you are not willing to abide by them, the sanctions have to be applied. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am aware of the Klyosov article due to the infiltration of predatory open access journals, removal of which is one of my hobbies. There has been problem editing by IPs and WP:SPAs including Plehwik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 208.91.195.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 71.233.211.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). JoyceWood is the latest of these. I concur with the analysis above: her edits to this article are disruptive and indicative of an external agenda, failing to properly distinguish the weight that should be given to fringe versus mainstream theories, and her comments on Talk lack coherence and specificity. Her comments above indicate a lack of awareness of the extent to which these beliefs are fringe. I do not really see how this user can contribute meaningfully to this topic without causing further disruption. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hm. At first glance this looks more like a content dispute than a conduct issue to me. Yes, there is some reverting and long-winded talkpage usage, but frankly not very much out of the ordinary. As far as I can tell JoyceWood's (latest) edits do not even remove the assessment of this person's theories as pseudoscience, but simply disagreee with others about how to describe the theories. She may well be misguided in her approach or at odds with others, but that's a content issue, and arbitration (enforcement) does not decide these. I remain open to be convinced that there is a serious conduct issue here, though.  Sandstein  10:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• All right, looking at this some more it does seem that JoyceWood's style of difficult-to-understand and excessively lengthy contributions makes it overly cumbersome to work with them productively. They also do not have a record of good, substantial contributions. I do not object to a ban from the article at issue.  Sandstein  21:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Jytdog that this is the kind of situation discretionary sanctions are for. They don't exist to punish editors but to save articles from disruption and constructive editors from wearing out. It's my impression that JoyceWood is editing in good faith and has a lot of knowledge of the subject, but, going by Jytdog's talkpage diffs, is pretty much impossible to work with — or as Sandstein says, overly cumbersome. I recommend an indefinite topic ban from Anatole Klyosov and related pages, with the option of appealing this restriction after six months. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC).
• I agree with the suggestion by Bishonen. The edit warring and wall of text style of discussion on the talk page are concerning. If in six months we see improvement, we can always consider an appeal at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• The editing style is tendentious and there are possible CIR issues, which can be extremely wearing on other editors and disruptive to the project. I think an article ban is appropriate here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• This request should be closed soon, since it's been open for five days and appears blatant. I'd favor a ban of User:JoyceWood from the topic of Anatole Klyosov on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and noticeboards, with the right of appeal in six months. If no one else does so, I'll close this request within 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Please close as indicated, EdJohnston! Bishonen | talk 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC).

• Closing. User:JoyceWood is indefinitely banned from the topic of Anatole Klyosov on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and noticeboards, with the right of appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2017 (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

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Towns Hill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA :

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

1. 06:51, 15 January 2017 Created new article fundamentally concerned with the Indian-Pakistan border: Pashtun Atrocities against Kashmiris.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 15:12, 15 May 2016 Topic banned from "Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh." by EdJohnston. Can be appealed after 6 months.
2. Date Blocked 72 hours for breaching DS.
3. 16:50, 18 November 2016 Blocked 1 week per this AE complaint.

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

1. 15:12, 15 May 2016 Notified of DS.

• 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

Re: below. 'Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan' seems rather comprehensive, and not particularly constrained by dates; but, in any case, an article that stops (somewhat artificially) the day before the historical date the restriction kicks in seems to be pushing the envelope, to say the least. I'd never want to stop antone writing an article (which after all is exactly what we are here for) but this one, seeing how tendentious it is, seems to be deliberately flaunting the spirit if not the letter of the restriction.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Towns Hill notified of this filing.

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.

• Hello. I intended to make an entry dealing specifically with the topic of violence and atrocities committed against Kashmiris by the Pathan raiders in October 1947 (preceding the actual Indo-Pak conflict). I did not intend to open up an Indo-Pakistan conflict topic. I wished to restrict it to the topic of atrocities since we also have a page on Wikipedia called 1947 Jammu Massacres. In fact, I was thinking of a way to include all historical atrocities committed by Pashtuns (from the 18th century) against Kashmiris-hence the original title used was 'Pashtun atrocities' (in other words it was not supposed to be solely about the events of 1947) My bad. Sorry if this is actually a violation of the topic ban. Towns Hill

• EvergreenFir I have never had any problems with anyone in relation to my contributions on the Afghanistan related pages. Towns Hill

• EdJohnston Clarification: This was not about the Pashtun 'invasion'. This article was solely intended to describe atrocities committed at the hands of Pashtuns, in fact I was thinking of extending this article to include all historical atrocities from the 18th century Afghan rule in Kashmir. Hence, the original title of my page was originally simply called Pashtun atrocities in Kashmir (just like there is an article page called Soviet war crimes). It was not meant to deal with Indo-Pak conflict at all-though I added those parts in by mistake because I thought the atrocities needed context as I couldn't just write about atrocities as if they happened out of the blue. Towns Hill

• Spiff How do those two edits violate the topic ban? Towns Hill

I ask for a self-sanction for all topics related to Kashmiri history and politics related to events post the date 1st January 1946. (I firmly think this date will definitely preclude me from tripping into any controversies on the Indo-Pak conflict area of the topic ban. The two nations came into existence in August 1947 so I will ask for a sanction to be applied on topics post that date. I will also be taking permission from EdJohnston each time I make an edit on Kashmir-related pages since he was the one who originally imposed the topic-ban and will know its limits best. Towns Hill

I think it has been ok so far. As per the guidance given by EdJohnston, the Kashmir conflicts that happened before India/Pakistan got involved are not covered by the topic ban. This topic is on the verge of India/Pakistan involvement, and I have advised Towns Hill to stay out of it. But he mainly tried to cover the events of 22–26 October 1947, before India got involved on 27 October. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC) In reply to FIM, it is clear that the editor was trying to document the Kashmiri grievance against the Pashtuns, which is somewhat independent of India/Pakistan. However, treating the topic fully would involve India/Pakistan, which is why I advised him to stay away. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Dear admins, I think a hasty decision is being made here. I agree that the article created by Towns Hill was narrowly focused, unencyclopedic, and quite inappropriate. I was the first to raise an alert about it. However, I do not believe it violated Towns Hill's topic ban. The Pashtun invasion was launched, allegedly by Pakistan, to free Kashmir from the Maharaja's rule. There was no India involved at that point. As I mentioned above, India entered the conflict on 27 October and, then, the invasion turned into an India-Pakistan war. But the "atrocities" that Towns Hill was trying to write about happened before that point. (The "atrocities" are quite real by the way. They are well-documented and almost universally acknowledged.)

• I believe there was no intent on Towns Hill's part to violate the topic ban. If you look at his edit history, he has been trying to document Kashmiri grievances throughout history, and this is part of that effort. After his last block, he has certainly stayed off all India-Pakistan conflicts. I do watch almost all the pages that he edits and know that to be the case.

• For whatever reason. EdJohnston has issued a finely worded topic ban, dealing only with conflicts between India and Pakistan. I personally favoured that because Towns Hill's POV-editing has caused major problems in the India-Pakistan conflicts. Many editors react violently and all hell breaks loose. That kind of thing has not happened with his edits to Kashmir pages, even though the POV problems still exist. Only a handful of editors operate in this space, and we more or less know how to deal with the problems.

• Even though I recognise that Towns Hill's editing is far from NPOV, I would also say, to his credit, that it is usually well-sourced. That is already far above the average level of editing in India/Pakistan articles. If any of you want to take a fresh look at his editing and decide what cautions/penalties/sanctions it warrants, I wouldn't mind that at all. But to characterise his latest contribution as a violation of his topic ban is unfair in my opinion. Kashmiris have taken a lot of beating throughout their history, from Indians, Pakistanis, Afghans, and most of all from their own ruling classes. We can't look at all of that through an India-Pakistan prism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Vanamonde93 and Sitush have effectively countered my arguments. So I will support your decision. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions would be the remedy... EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: the Bangladesh part was challenged in a previous AE as it doesn't fall under the DS in the decision by arbcom. Only Afghanistan does. But extending the tban to all edits related to Pakistan and India might help the "apparent confusion" Towns Hill has over the scope of the tban. EvergreenFir (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

G'day EvergreenFir. You realise Bangladesh was part of Pakistan until 1971? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Just saying it was challenged is all. I can see the argument for it's inclusion, as you mention it was part of Pakistan. But that might be something for the clarification board. Frankly I'd like to see it included. EvergreenFir (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• This edit while this ARE is going on suggests that in addition to a block, the topic ban should be expanded to what EdJohnston suggests. I'm commenting here and not below as I once reverted Towns Hill's edits on India (where I'm an editor, and the content has gone through FA review too). Unlike Vanamonde93, I fail to see how this is just good faith, it's essentially testing the boundaries to see how far one can go. —SpacemanSpiff 05:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's justification for increasing the scope of the topic ban. In addition, these edits are obvious violations of the topic ban. —SpacemanSpiff 10:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Towns Hill now wants a limited sanction relating to events post-1 January 1946. I'm not convinced that will be enough, even in the context of India-Pakistan rivalries. Regional rivalries long preceded state formation, and there have been far too many instances of problematic editing. Just having a decent grasp of sources is not enough and, indeed, can sometimes enable problematic behaviour in a POV-pushing way. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• I would decline to take action because the request does not link to a specific remedy or sanction that this edit is supposed to have violated.  Sandstein  18:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• A user banned from India-Pakistan should not be creating articles that are squarely in the centre of the India-Pakistan topic area, especially using heavily nationalistic titles. I would say this is an unambiguous violation of that topic ban. I await comments from Towns Hill. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: That might make sense of the article title was not so heavily POV. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: The only thing holding me back form closing this as a one month block is Sandstein's comments, which are measured as always and make a good point re asking the sanctioning admin. So I will put my hand up for a 1 month block on this. The more I look, the more it seems like a particularly unconvincing attempt at gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, is telling. Towns Hill wants to reshape the topic ban post hoc to narrow its scope. Nope. The time to do that was before stepping over the boundary. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• It looks pretty clear to me from the prior AE case that EdJohnston was making anything to do with the Partition explicitly included under the TBAN. Topics under DS are usually defined broadly, and this just looks like an attempt at gaming the TBAN by playing at the very edges. It appears Towns Hill is not getting the message. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Given EdJohnston has confirmed the Partition is included, and Bangladesh was part of Pakistan until India intervened in 1971, I think a short block and a broadly construed indef TBAN from anything India-Pakistan-Bangladesh-related is in order. If Towns Hill can contribute constructively elsewhere for six months, an appeal could be considered. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, this is a TBAN violation. That said, after having glanced over Towns Hill's contributions, it is my gut feeling that there is no bad faith involved here: they misunderstood. A little bit of rope might be appropriate. Towns' Hill, regardless of the result of this discussion, do not skirt the edges of your topic ban. That rarely ends well. Find something entirely unrelated that you are interested in. Edit constructively there. Demonstrate that you can stay within the bounds of policy without frequent reminders. If you want to get back to editing things in your core area of interest, that is the way to go: not by dabbling at the fringes and trying to get away with it. Vanamonde (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I took a deeper look, and that, combined with the diff provided by SpacemanSpiff, is making me change my mind. I think they are quite deliberately pushing the envelope. My earlier advice to Towns Hill still stands, of course. In addition, though, I would support sanctions. I actually don't favor an extended block, because this sort of axe-grinding does not abate with a cooling off period. Instead, lets give them a short block, but extend the band to all of IPA+Bangladesh right now. That will create a greater separation from the topic, and will hopefully help them avoid the issues exhibited here more easily. Vanamonde (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oh dear. As EvergreenFir points out, Bangladesh is a problem. I did know that, I guess I'm off my game in this particular discussion. In that case: give them a week's block, and an indefinite IPA topic ban. Vanamonde (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Bishonen: I have already said above that I'd support a broadening of the TBAN over an extended block. What problems this user has are not, in my view, going to be solved by removing their ability to edit for a while: but if they were required to confine their editing to other areas, I do hope that they can learn our policies well enough to be a constructive contributor, even to the point of lifting the TBAN someday. @Kautilya3: I held more or less the same view when I first looked at this request, but I'm afraid I don't buy that argument any more. Here's why. As you point out yourself, one of the things Towns Hill appears to have an understanding of is the source material: and I cannot believe that somebody can know the source material well, but still consider the Pashtun invasion to be unrelated to the India-Pakistan conflict. Again, if a block is made at all I would prefer that it be short. Vanamonde (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd appreciate a comment by EdJohnston as the banning admin about whether this violates the topic ban.  Sandstein  10:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Looks like a violation of the topic ban to me. The Pashtun invasion was a part of the Indo-Pak war of 1947 (it's all there in the paragraph on that war here). But I will wait for EdJohnston. --regentspark (comment) 17:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Bishonen: My inclination is to issue an all encompassing India, Pakistan, Bangladesh topic ban, broadly construed. Looking at the diffs linked to by spacemanspiff, TownsHill is clearly trying his/her best to push the envelope on the current TBAN and anything other than the broad topic ban is going to see them back here in a few weeks. Better to give the editor the chance to demonstrate fealty to the broader project and then, once they've done that, ask for the ban to be lifted. --regentspark (comment) 13:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Come on, people, why are we even discussing this? This is as blatant a breach of the restriction as it gets. Evidently a thoroughly tendentious editor, who should be removed from the topic area for good. (I've also deleted the article under WP:CSD#G5). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise that this is a topic ban violation. The wording of the ban that I enacted was '"Banned from the topic of conflicts between India and Pakistan and from anything to do with Bangladesh." Later I clarified that anything to do with the Partition of India was included. Regentspark has pointed out that the Pashtun invasion that Towns Hill wanted to write about is already covered in Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts#Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Obviously the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 is included in the ban, including the Pashtun invasion of Kashmir even if it is not described in the deleted article as an official act of the Pakistani government. (The trucks who brought the fighters were presumably official trucks). I would favor a one-month block as suggested above by User:JzG. Towns Hill seems to have trouble adhering to this ban, so if there are further violations the next step should logically be a complete ban from all of ARBIPA. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable to me.  Sandstein  05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Towns Hill has replied to @EvergreenFir, EdJohnston, and SpacemanSpiff: and attempted to ping them. Unfortunately the ping function only works if you write on a new line and sign again, so it hasn't worked. Now they're pinged. Unless somebody objects here in the next 24 hours, I'm planning to block Towns Hill for a month for clear violations of the topic ban, with a warning that the topic ban will be extended to all of ARBIPA and Bangladesh if they violate it again. But I thought they should have a chance to get replies from the pinged admins and possibly discuss some more here first. Bishonen | talk 11:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC).

• In view of Kautilya's renewed plea for leniency, I'll hold off a little longer with closing. It doesn't look to me like the POV-pushing is acceptable, but I'll certainly defer to people who know more about the area than I do. Would anybody like to respond to Kautilya's points? Vanamonde, regentspark, User:SpacemanSpiff? Bishonen | talk 11:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC).

• I support JzG's proposed ban. If this had happened in isolation, then I'd be willing to offer a slap on the wrist. But this is the third time that this user has attempted to push the envelope on the ban, and I think that it is clear they have no intention of stopping. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC).
• (Putting this at the bottom, since it's another proposal to close.) I note that Sitush has also commented now, indirectly responding to Kautilya's point about sources. Lankiveil, JzG didn't propose a ban, but a one-month block; you support that, am I right? Taking the temperature of uninvolved admin commentary so far, it looks to me like Peacemaker, Vanamonde, Regentspark, and probably Fut Perf support an indef ARBIPA + Bangladesh topic ban right now (i. e. a broadening of the user's current topic ban), while Ed and I have recommended this broadening in the future, if the user violates their current topic ban again. (But I'll change my mind, I think broadening the topic ban right now is a good idea.) JzG and Lankiveil haven't addressed the topic ban but recommended a one-month block. Some other admins recommend that block-time too, while Vanamonde wants a shorter block, if any, and several admins haven't mentioned blocking at all. My sense of the discussion is that we can agree on a one-week block plus an immediate broadening of the topic ban to an indef ARBIPA + Bangladesh topic ban. Are people OK with that? EdJohnston, you issued the original T-ban, will this work for you? Bishonen | talk 16:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC).
• I agree with widening the ban to all of WP:ARBIPA, with or without a block of some duration. We have faced this kind of thing before at AE, where someone has potential of being a good content contributor (in the future) but in the present keeps going off the rails. If Towns Hill can contribute outside of ARBIPA maybe they will acquire the skill of editing neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• If as it seems this is indeed a topic ban violation, as determined by the admins who know the topic area, then I think an enforcement block is in order. I'm indifferent as to the length but something between a week and a month is probably appropriate depending on the perceived likelihood of repeated violations (which seems high because Towns Hill doesn't really seem to understand the idea of a topic ban). I would recommend a broadening of the ban only after misconduct (apart from topic ban violations) has been observed outside the currently delineated topic ban area, which I'm not sure is the case here. Anyway, somebody can go ahead and close this, as far as I'm concerned. This is not, as far as I know, a consensus-gathering exercise, but (theoretically) a one-admin show. I'm only not doing it myself because I don't want to do the paperwork for too many of these things in a row.  Sandstein  18:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)