Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139

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

Zimmarod (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

1. 15 July 2013 Continued edit war by previous users [1], [2], by adding odd and unreferenced "Qaxaç qalası" as a putative alternative name of a medieval fort in Nagorno-Karabakh known as Kachaghakaberd. No explanations or sources provided despite several prompts.
2. 12 June 2012 Continued edit war by previous users by adding odd and unreferenced "Qaxaç qalası" as a putative alternative name of a medieval fort in Nagorno-Karabakh known as Kachaghakaberd. No explanations or sources provided despite several prompts.
3. 18 August 2013 Continued edit war by re-adding the unreferenced and controversial phrase "Ghareh Keliseh" as a putative Azerbaijani Muslim name for an ancient Armenian Christian monastery. No explanations or sources provided. Talk pages ignored.
4. 3 August 2013. Same (see above)
5. 19 July 2013. Same (see above)
6. 18 July 2013. Same (see above)
7. 18 July 2013. Same (see above)

-----------------------------------------

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

1. Warned on: 18 July 2013 by User:MarshallBagramyan
2. Sanction to six months: 24 July 2009 by Sandstein.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As of late User:Parishan restarted edit wars on several pages, esp. on Kachaghakaberd and St. Thaddeus Monastery, where he adds odd names to Armenian monuments and characterizes these names as "Azerbaijani," without citing any references or bothering to explain his actions on talk pages despite invitations from other users to do so [3], [4]. Parishan's edits came under sanctions several times in previous years, and he was warned lately by a long-time WP editor MarshallBagramyan.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

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

I did provide a source (archived version) when the Azeri spelling for St. Thaddeus Monastery was first added. The anonymous user that was removing it was on an POV spree and got banned repeatedly for disruptive editing: [6], [7], and reverting that account was not against the rules. Parishan (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan's statement [8] is deliberately misleading. The source for the "Azerbaijani" name of the Armenian St. Thaddeus Monastery is a long-defunct and questionable website, which never mentioned that the phrase "Ghareh Kilisa" was an Azerbaijani phrase. Please note that it is Parishan's own POV and WP:OR opinion. And anonymous websites like are not authoritative sources anyway, even if it/they ever mentioned that the phrase "Ghareh Kilisa" were in fact Azerbaijani. As long as I know, the phrase is actually Persian, not Azerbaijani or Turkic. It was Parishan who asserted such a POV in the first place, and IPs, no matter how misbehaving they might have been on other pages, were trying to correct Parishan's disruptive entries, and they were explaining what they were doing in contrast to Parishan's actions, who kept mechanically reverting IPs while providing no explanations in summary or on talk pages. Please note that the lame reference to the website that Parishan supposedly provided was inserted as many as 5(!) years ago, and throughout all these five years Parishan never bothered to re-insert that reference or find a new, more credible one. This shows how disruptive Parishan's actions are, and how determined he remains to disregard WP:NPOV and defy AA2. Zimmarod (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Providing at least some kind of source is better than provide none. You do not seem to be bothered that there is no source provided for the Armenian or Persian spelling and you also claim that the Turkic word ghareh is a Persian word without a single source to back it up, yet you accuse me of disregarding WP:NPOV? In fact, this whole request screams POV. Parishan (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a frivolous report. Reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR and editing restrictions. Some diffs are from more than a year ago and are stale. And in the rest of diffs Parishan reverted vandalism by the banned user. I personally reported the IPs that edit warred across multiple articles both at WP:AIV: [9] and at talk of the enforcing admin: [10], after which the disruptive IP range was blocked. Block logs of the edit warring IPs speak for themselves: [11] [12] [13] Someone used multiple IPs to edit war across a number of pages.

In addition, after the previous frivolous report on me Zimmarod was warned by consensus of admins at this board "not to misuse Wikipedia as a battleground, and more particularly, not to accuse others of severe misconduct (such as vandalism or harrassment) unless such accusations are made (a) in the appropriate dispute resolution or enforcement forum, and (b) with adequate evidence to support these accusations". [14] This warning was placed at his talk as well: [15] As we can see from the above, Zimmarod disregarded this warning by filing a baseless report about another editor at WP:AE. Grandmaster 22:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The report is not frivolous. The IPs on the St. Thaddeus Monastery page were edit-warring but their conduct cannot be characterized as vandalism, as mis-characterized by Grandmaster. The IP were removing Parishan's edits and he was re-asserting them in a clear violation of WP:NPOV. And the history of edits on that page shows that the edit-warring IPs were not the first users who were trying to clear Parishan's POV edits. In other words, Parishan has long been aware of the POV nature of the subject of his edit-warring entries. And being an unregistered user is not a violation in itself. Parishan demonstrates a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND disposition. And User:Grandmaster too took part in the POV edit war against the IPs, pushing the same POV about the controversial Azerbaijani Muslim names that putatively exist for Armenian Christian monument in Iran [16]. This means that Grandmaster is also complicit in what Parishan was doing. The article Kachaghakaberd is the same thing. As mentioned above, Parishan's edits follow a pattern - he aggressively pushes POV edits despite the awareness that his entries are not supported by any sources. Zimmarod (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, thank you for your note. I noticed that you never arbitrated on Armenian-Azerbaijan issues, and thus may not be fully aware of the implied strictness of arbitration environment in that area. I encourage you to take a look at how other users were sanctioned for alleged misdeeds that were far less severe than Parishan's bold disregard of WP:NPOV. Zimmarod (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't see any evidence of an clear violation. #1 is not continuing an edit war. The edit by Parishan is over a year later. #2 is way too old to worry about. #3-7 are all part of two edit wars with an IP (one is from mid-July), and Parishan wasn't the only participant. I don't know anything about the subject, but, generally, in the case of 1RR sanctions, reverting an IP is exempt, although there is no exemption for 3RR. Finally, the talk page request, to the extent it relates to Parishan, is from a year ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to agree with Bbb23, except that I do not believe IPs are normally exempted from 1RR in this area. Still, the IP's conduct was rather egregious (implying reversion of Parishan solely because of what the IP believed Parishan's national origin to be), so I'm inclined to caution Parishan to be more careful rather than imposing sanctions. The edits from 2012 or which are related back to 2012 are too old to be actionable even if there was wrongdoing in them; that being the case, I'm not inclined to spend much time examining whether there was or was not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

Moved from Arbitration request to enforcement

This request for arbitration enforcement centers around the six threaded posts on the page where I have been subject to many accusations and emotive commentary from the very start by Olive, where Olive has also been engaged in POV pushing.

I made this edit reverting a bold change to the article [17]. I posted this on the talk page explaining my reasoning: [18]. This was responded with:[19]

"Wolfie: That you think you have the right or expertise to determine what qualifies as a physicists work and what doesn't, that you unilaterally edit based on this determination, that you would deep revert another editor's painstaking work, unilaterally, based on some notion you have about what a scientists work is, and that you would then threaten editors on this page should they disagree with you is ownership and beyond the pale. You are skating on the thinnest of ice. Littleolive oil" - 3 Sept 2013

Later: [20]

"No editor has the right to determine a scientist's work does not qualify as his work. While you can determine that the sources are critical of the work dismissing the research out of hand as not part of a life's work in not your or our business as editors. Further most scientists I know would never take that step, critical of the work sure, but not the next step which you take here by excluding the research from the research section in this article based o n your personal opinion of what is research and what isn't. Such a move clearly illustrates a POV. Further you reverted an editor who has been uninvolved in these discussion after he spent a fair amount of time working on the article. Ownership." - 3 Sept 2013

An example of POV pushing is the defence of an award viewed negatively by the independent reliable sources by proposing that we use the awards own website to offset any negative commentary about the award and framing it as though we are POV for not including positive primary sourced material [21]. All contrary arguments were ignored (WP:IDHT): [22][23], (both 2 Sept 2013) response by MastCell: [24] (3 Sept 2013) which accords with standard policy, but was ignored in subsequent discussion: [25][26] (both 3 Sept 2013)

Note that Littleolive oil has also been demanding that I get consensus before making any edits: [27][28] (both 17 Aug 2013), despite there being no onus for me to do so in policy for standard cleanup or other edits trying to fix an article. i.e We have WP:BRD on wikipedia. I highlighted as such [29] (16 Aug 2013) at the time and also indicated that the text removed was sourced to primary sources and not a particularly large [30] (16 Aug 2013).

Some other individual comments showing large amounts of rhetoric which make collaboration very difficult, including

"Wolfie. The TM arbitration has specific guides which you chose to ignore. There is no chilling effect when citing a guide for editing. If you chose to ignore that guide that is your choice. You are not understanding me. You deleted with out discussion and with no policy support pertinent content to this article which weakens the article. Further you misunderstand and misuse fringe. Nor have you outlined content that describes Hagelin's research. Your ownership, tone and arguments for deleting content on this article are not acceptable per Wikipedia. Please reconsider my points."[31] (17 Aug 2013)

"You are dealing this way with a BLP and another human being's life and do so to satisfy some notion you have of what fringe means. I have been willing from the beginning of the GA process to collaborate with those willing to make this article better. This is not a game Wolfie, this is a man's life. If you had concerns discuss them, collaborate, but leaching out content based on false premises is unconscionable" [32] (18 Aug 2013)

IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is more evidence but I am aware that AE prefer shorter filings. On request I can elaborate on all of the specifics, but reading over the latest 6 or so sections here provides the context: [33]. I also have on-wiki evidence of a conflict of interest that does not involve outing that is in the form of a diff to a rev deleted page, but I am taking extra care in withholding it at present. I would prefer not to show the diff without some sort of approval from an arbitrator, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Olive has already been blocked under the discretionary sanctions and thus is aware of them: [34]. Olive has been asked to stop directing the assumptions of bad faith at me by myself and another: [35][36].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Context: In John Hagelin, the article was edited and achieved GA through the editing of, amongst others, Little olive. This article at the time of its promotion was skewed, see [37] and thus was delisted as having been inadequately reviewed (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1 for more details). Since that time I have been trying to bring the article up to the WP:FRINGE standards as well as WP:RS, WP:OR etc, as I have with other articles such as the Maharishi Effect and Maharishi_Vedic_Approach_to_Health. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade, I have no desire to reveal anyone's identity, nor do I have any intention to do so in any circumstance (also I don't know anyone's identity or any means of ascertaining it that I can think of, but that's not the point). I think I have generally taken due caution to ensure that. Initially I intended to file at Arbitration but they redirected me here [48] (version as of today). At the time, several months ago, I asked Olive a direct question about whether she had a COI in relation to John Hagelin because I didn't know the answer. I have no intention of repeating that in this topic area. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade please note [49] where Olive, at the Arbitration request thread, has misrepresented what you have said: " I am also being sanctioned apparently because I said something about content. ", IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade or other admins. Perhaps it is time to enact the proposals since what needs to be said has been said? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [50]

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.

Moved from RfArbitration:

• Reminder to all: Removal of sourced content is an aspect of an arbitration discretionary sanction. Like it or not we cannot trump a DS on sourcing with comments here. The sanction specifically notes peremptory deletion, that is deletion with out discussion, and why is that one wonders? I'd guess because deletion of content with out discussion is disruptive to the collaborative process. Wolfie's deep revert of stylistic edits by an uninvolved editor, which to my knowledge he never addressed, while not a removal of RS is also disruptive, shows alack of respect for the editor who made the edits, and implies ownership. An insistence that WP:Bold is a reason to remove content this way, and or to remove RS does not jive with the Arbitration discretionary sanction. If we want to change the sanction, back to the arbs we go and ask for a clarification. Until then, requests that an editor not delete content especially with out reason or discussion, and eventual consensus, and who is potentially, in violation of the discretionary sanction should be respected and those editors should not be accused of POV pushing. That seems wrong to me and at least is an unfair view of the situation.(olive (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for specifying your concerns (in bold). I’d like to address them:

• behavior in this very thread regarding hyperfocus on sourcing to the exclusion of other content policies)

My comment on this page was a reminder that issues here deal with AE and the arbitration principle that can invite a discretionary sanction. Some comments appeared to be more suited to a content policy notice board. AE does not deal with content, so I assumed I should not discuss content policies here. My comment here in no way excludes my position on content policies discussed in multiple places in an appropriate forum as a reading of the threads on the John Hagelin article demonstrates:

• GA status on the John Hagelin article: I’m not sure why this issue was brought up in reference to me nor why its is being used in some way to support a sanction. I did not mention the GA status of this article.

History:

The John Hagelin article was written with Input from multiple editors.

I applied for GA status.

I and another editor spent weeks working in the article especially on sources to comply with the reviewer concerns.[51]

The reviewer gave the Article GA status

IRWolfie saw what he considered ”fringe” concerns.He goes to a NB. My comment there:

'I'm happy to have more input on the article, and /or a GAR and suggest this discussion be moved to the article talk page. I will add a notice to the article talk page notifying editors of this posting on the Fringe Theories NB. Thanks (olive (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC))

The article is brought to GAReview: My comment:

...I welcome a uninvolved editor review of the article and I am happy to help implement changes to improve the article.(olive (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC))

The article is delisted

Where in this sequence of events is there AE sanctionable behavior.

• Tendentious editing:

In each discussion on the Hagelin page, I discussed my points often citing policy as I see making between 3-5 points, then withdraw when progress was not being made or there was an impasse, noting concerns. For example:

I will withdraw from this discussion now, given this discussion is not progressing. I note the misuse and or misunderstanding of policy in the thread above and in a BLP.

I hope you'll stay. I am sorry an uninvolved editor who spent the time you did on this article was reverted unilaterally. I have little more to say on this article at this time since no progress is being made. This was a GA article which I spent a lot of time working on in compliance with the reviewer. I doubt that it is at that standard now. I would be happy to have an uninvolved editor try to make something of this article. (olive (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)) How is this tendentious behavior?

• Undue weight to fringe viewpoints:

I have no idea what this means and no idea what this refers to this article. This article is a BLP. It in part chronicles a scientist who takes a turn from more main stream science to a more edge of science position. The article must describe both aspects of his career. I did in fact suggest that Wolfie’s mass deletion here weighted the article away from Hagelin’s controversial work towards his more mainstream work.

Thanks(olive (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comments from an uninvolved(editor)

These comments by an uninvolved editor sum up well my feeling about how this article should be edited. They also describe from a neutral view what is going on, on this talk page.

I've gotta say, on the merits, I think the attempt to link consciousness with physical cosmology seems more than a little nutty. But that's mostly an argument that ought to be settled in the other articles in the TM suite. This here's a BLP. It ought to lay out Hagelin's life and views, without giving undue weight to his critics. They belong here, but not in the same way that they belong on pages like The Maharishi Effect, Transcendental Meditation technique and the like. I fear our project's not-entirely-unreasonable fear of FRINGiness, and of what User:JzGuy has correctly identified in the past as the problem of "polite POV-pushers", is playing out badly in the context of this BLP. The place for full-throated criticism of Hagelin's theories is on pages devoted to those theories. It's not like there aren't enough TM-themed articles on wikipedia for that. Call the theories wacky there. Tread carefully when you're getting close to calling the living theorist wacky here. [52]

In my view, the proper balance between WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP is misapprehended here. Frighteningly so. [53]

(olive (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

• • Final statement

A sanction against me here would be wrong and unfair. There is no evidence that shows I have violated an arbitration principle, a policy, or a guideline. Nor is there any evidence of tendentious editing.

I want to apologize for not adding diffs about Wolfie's behaviour. I had a very serious real life issue to deal with, and don't feel I can do more here. Anyway,attacking Wolfie would only turn this page into a toxic mess or more so than it is now and frankly there are enough toxic situations on Wikipedia. The John Hagelin talk page contains the evidence in this case, and a careful reading from a neutral position and especially noting the analysis added by an experienced editor in the final thread, an editor with no agenda, tells the story. I don't see that anything I can say about Wolfie can be helpful here. If there are concerns about him as I have had, across Wikipedia, they will show up in time, and if there are, and if he's smart he will fix them before that happens. Best Wishes.(olive (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Seraphim. I added content from an editor on the JH talk page which everyone should have read. I say correctly he is an editor in the second line. Its late. I just spent an hour talking to a mother whose child committed suicide. It was a simple mistake, a part of the circumstances I'm in, in RL. What are you suggesting? That I would lie about something that could be checked in a second? I noted in a comment here at the top of the page,"Some comments appeared to be more suited to a content policy notice board. AE does not deal with content, so I assumed I should not discuss content policies here. My comment here in no way excludes my position on content policies discussed in multiple places in an appropriate forum as a reading of the threads on the John Hagelin article demonstrates: that this was not a content discussion and even if an editor did start talking about content... you don't sanction them for six months. What are you talking about here?(olive (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Wolfie: ..."it is not the place of AE to adjudicate the content dispute. None of us here are deciding who's right, and none of my comments are intended to indicate that either editor's view of the proper content is correct, nor are they an endorsement thereof. We address only conduct. (Comment from below by Seraphimblade)(olive (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Seraphim Blade: I hope that you will clearly state what I have done that is sanctionable. You have never responded to my points and you are using a simple copy edit error, a massive assumption of bad faith, to support your position. Further you have ignored the cmts of an uninvolved admin and a regular on this NB, and three other ediotrs who do not support sanctions. (olive (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Doc James:

Most of your diffs are from over three years ago. On the other hand, as recently as March you used edit warring to remove research reviews that appeared in top journals.   Those reviews include the following which I have been aware of for some time and which have been collected un an other editor's talk page sandbox. I will notify him that I would be using this information:

• Carter, Calvin; Tranel, Daniel (November 2011). "Mind-Body Interactions". In Biaggioni, Italo; Burnstock, Geoffrey; Low, Phillip et al.. Primer on the Autonomic Nervous System (3rd ed.). Waltham, Massachusetts: Academic Press. pp. 297–298.

(This is a standard textbook.)

• Chen, Kevin W.; Christine C. Berger, Eric Manheimer, Darlene Forde, Jessica Magidson, Laya Dachman, C. W. Lejuez (June 2012). "Meditative Therapies for Reducing Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials". Depression and Anxiety 29 (7): 1, 11–12.

("With an impact factor of 4.19, this journal ranks 24th of 129 psychiatry journals and 10th of 74 psychology journals." [54])

• Sinatra, Stephen; Houston, Mark (2011). "Chapter 11: The Integrative Approach to Hypertension". In Devries, Stephen; Dalen, James. Integrative Cardiology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 236, 237.

(Published by Oxford University Press)

• Sedlmeier, Peter; Eberth, Juliane; Schwarz, Marcus; Zimmermann, Doreen; Haarig, Frederik; Jaeger, Sonia; Kunze, Sonja (May 2012). "The Psychological Effects of Meditation: A Meta-Analysis". Psychological Bulletin: 19.

("ISI Impact Factor: 14.457; Psychology - Multidisciplinary: 2 of 125[55])

• Walsh, Roger (2011). "Lifestyle and Mental Health". American Psychologist 66 (7): 579–592.

("ISI Impact Factor: 6.869; Psychology - Multidisciplinary: 4 of 125"[56]

The psychology journals removed are on the core list of Core Psychology Journals maintained by the Association of College & Research Libraries.[57]

Further some of the diffs you present include diffs that refer to other editors not olive, and you neglect to mention that you are so non neutral in your view that you, a highly involved editor threatened to block me yourself and only amended your statement when you were forced to as desysop proceedings would be enacted if you did not.[58]

(olive (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC))  [reply]

(Disclaimer: Over the past 14 months there have been 500 edits to the John Hagelin article and I made 10 of those edits -only 3 edits in 2013)

Summary IRWolfie's editing on the TM topic has been disruptive and he has been harassing User:Littleolive oil for several months. This filing and the one yesterday at ArbCom are the most recent examples of this.

• Wolfie has repeatedly deleted large amounts of sourced content, without discussion or consensus, on numerous occasions, despite multiple warnings. Wolfie has repeatedly violated the TM ArbCom principle which says:
• Peremptory reversion or removal of sourced material--Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational.

In the remedies section the TM Arb Com it is made clear that all principles are sanction-able:

• All parties instructed: All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles outlined above, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them. [59]
• Warnings per descretionary sanctions: (Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning advising of the problems with his or her editing and containing a link to this decision;)[60]
  • Warned by Keithbob on March 26, 2013 @ Wolfie's user talk [61]
  • Warned by Littleolive oil on August 13, 2013 @ John Hagelin [62]
  • Warned by EMP on August 15-16, 2013 @ Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health [63] [64]
• Wolfie's removal of sourced content within the TM topic since being warned:
  • 3/29/13 John Hagelin [65][66][67][68]
  • 3/29/13 TM and Cult Mania [69]
  • 4/8/13 TM-Sidhi program [70]
  • 4/8/13 John Hagelin [71]
  • 4/8/13 Maharishi Effect [72][73][74][75][76][77][78]
  • 4/15/13 Maharishi Effect [79]
  • 8/10/13 Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health [80][81][82]
  • 8/13/13 Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health [83][84]
  • 8/16/13 John Hagelin [85]

• Decorum and assumptions of good faith--Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. [bold added by me][86]

Wolfie has been harassing Littleolive oil (Olive) for several months. Since Olive attained GA status for the John Hagelin article, Wolfie has:

• Removed large amounts of content fron the Hagelin article (see above)
• 4/5/13 Nominated the Hagelin article for GA delisting [87]
• 4/5/13 At an unrelated AE thread [88] and on Olive's talk page, he makes allegations about her real life place of employment [89]
• 4/15/13 Opened an ArbCom request for clarification with Olive and the John Hagelin article as it's focus [90]
• 4/8/13 Wolfie is warned by Ched to stop harassing Olive [91]
• 9/3/13 Wolfie files ArbCom request with Olive as the central figure [92]

@Sandstein - I have, on multiple occasions, invited and welcomed editors to the TM articles and other editors have done the same, after all WP is about collaboration. However, IRWolfie has deleted thousands of words and scores of sources, often in a single day, without communicating with anyone on the talk page, before or after the fact. I'm not suggesting that every one of his deletions was inappropriate only that his/her methods are unilateral, non-collaborative and disruptive. ArbCom has indicated that the repeated peremptory deletion of sourced content, on this contentious series of articles, is confrontational editing. The unilateral removal of sources such as a journal published by the AMA or a journal on the Brandon/Hill list (which is recommended by WP:MEDRS) is wrong and Wolfie has refused to cease and desist despite numerous warnings and talk page objections corresponding to his individual edits. [93] To me that's not acceptable and violates the spirit and the letter of the discretionary sanctions I've cited and quoted above.

I came to this page only to try to clean it up stylistically, and to try to apply common WP:BLP principles to it. I ran into a realtime edit conflict with olive and stopped editing. I woke up the next morning to a pleasant surprise, given the hubbub on the talk page. A greeting on my talk page from olive urging me to continue editing, welcoming me, and making clear that the edit conflict was a genuine case of two people stumbling into one another and nothing more.

I hope the admins reviewing this matter will make some judgements about the tenor of the conversation on the talk page amongst olive, Mast and Wolfie. In my opinion there's way too much rancor there. And the parties' contributions to the escalation of the incivility do not seem evenly split. Not by a long shot.

My interactions with olive have been uniformly civil. I've not interacted with Mast at all on any of this, but have found Mast to be extraordinarily skilled at disagreeing without being disagreeable in the past.

I've read posts by Wolfie before, but never interacted with Wolfie until now. I think these diffs tell the remainder of the story:

A) Posted by me after the first time Wolfie reverted me: [94] and [95]
B) olive's reply: [96]
C) Posted by me after my second attempt at clean up, per MOS and BLP: [97] and [98]
D) Wolfie's first reply to me (see the edits below line 201): [99]
E) Wolfie expands on reply: [100]
F: My reaction: [101]
David in DC (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Sandstein: I see no behavior by olive warranting administrative action. In my view, the only action Wolfie's complaint merits is summary dismissal. However, if an admin were inclined to take action against olive, based on Wolfie's request, that admin would be required to take Wolfie's own editorial behavior into account. My statement is intended as prophylaxis, should an admin head down the path you've just foresworn. David in DC (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with stick-dropping suggestion. David in DC (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never touched any of the articles at issue here, but I have had numerous interactions with both Olive and Wolfie in other contexts. I have only had positive interactions with Olive and find her to be a thoughtful and conscientious editor. Wolfie, on the other hand, has given me nothing but grief. He is disruptive and contentious in his editing pattern nearly everywhere he goes and I dread seeing him appear on any article that I care about editing, for he is certain to trash it with unreasonable demands and his own very odd interpretation of WP guidelines. Therefore, I concur completely with the following statement by Davd in DC: "I see no behavior by olive warranting administrative action. In my view, the only action Wolfie's complaint merits is summary dismissal. However, if an admin were inclined to take action against olive, based on Wolfie's request, that admin would be required to take Wolfie's own editorial behavior into account." I will not provide diffs at this time, but if any admin thinks Olive has done anything wrong beyond responding to some of Wolfie's usual WP:BAIT behavior, I will be glad to produce them later. Montanabw^(talk) 01:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the AE admins that simply being sourced, does not necessarily mean that content belongs in an article. Individual policies such as verifiability should not be considered in isolation. Other policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:BLP, etc. must also be considered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keithbob's assertions, even with carefully dated diffs, that IRWolfie's edits constitute harassment of Littleolive oil do not seem credible. From her editing history, Littleolive oil has in the past advocated aspects of transcendental meditation that fall outside mainstream science (yogic flying in January 2010). That kind of advocacy might prevent her from making edits to John Hagelin that are neutral. As far as conduct is concerned, the criticisms of IRWolfie by Littleolive oil (and Keithbob) seem to be unsubstantiated personal attacks. Leaving aside the continual insistence on using sources which might not conform to usual wikipedia standards, the casting of aspersions about perceived opponents creates a chilling editing environment which more often that not might drive editors away from an article. Mathsci (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe it was just a simple mistake about the person being an admin? PumpkinSky talk 15:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• You're assuming it was intentional. Even Sandstein isn't taking action here. Drop the stick. PumpkinSky talk 20:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's see what we have here, the same ol' parties from both sides of the never ending TM issue that we've all seen for years now. Why can people just get along onwiki? No need to name names except that WBB would assuredly be here if he wasn't currently banned. Plus a couple newcomers. The best Doc J can come up with is stuff from two years ago. One of the newcomers, whom I don't recall ever hearing of before, David in DC, says "I see no behavior by olive warranting administrative action. In my view, the only action Wolfie's complaint merits is summary dismissal that admin would be required to take Wolfie's own editorial behavior into account". Sandstein, probably the strictest admin we have, says nothing is warranted here. Seraphimblade is indicating instituting some sort of decision here. Now let's note a few things about him: supports Doc J's RFA in 2010, on 22 Mar 2012 re WBB's ban he says: "Just learned of this, and I'm very sorry to hear. Along with δ, this is the second horrible decision by ArbCom in a very short period. A good admin points out a fringe advocate (paid or unpaid), and the admin winds up banned for it? Since when is that what we do here? I hope you'll live up to your username in six months, but sure can't blame you if you don't. In any case, thanks for everything so far, and the best of luck to you." and he and WBB have 397 pages edited in common. WBB's arb case was nowhere near that simple. What all this means each of us can decide for themselves. PumpkinSky talk 00:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have significant concerns with Olive's editing and civility. She has worked hard to present TM in a positive lights beyond that of reliable sources. Before I took a look at the medical aspects of this topic area (as a request for further eyes was posted at WT:MED) both Olive and TimidGuy were attempting to remove the best available research on the subject (a systematic review and meta analysis by the AHRQ). And due to the lack of involvement by independent editors they had some success.

Feb 13, 2009 Olive removed AHRQ [102] Feb 13, 2009 Olive removed AHRQ again [103] Aug 7, 2010 Olive attempted to water down conclusions of independent reviews (Cochrane) [104] Aug 9 Revert [105] Nov 23 Attempting to question conclusions [106] Jan 14 2011 Revert away from consensus version [107]

With respect to civility issues I request that she no longer post on my talk page here, here, and here. I beleive that we should be reflecting the positions of independent secondary sources which a number of those who are very close to the suggest area disagree with. She continued posting despite my expressed wishes [108],[109]. I do not really care if this group of editors wishes to continue to attack me but simply do not appreciate them doing so on my talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request does not include evidence in the form of dated diffs. Please provide those and explain how they violate any Wikipedia conduct rule. That is not apparent, at least not to me, from this request. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see anything actionable being reported above by IRWolfie-, Keithbob or David in DC. This doesn't mean that there isn't a problem, just that I can't discern it based on these submissions, or that it doesn't need discretionary sanctions to solve.

The comments by Littleolive oil quoted by IRWolfie- are, in part, unduly confrontative and personalized, but not yet to a degree that sanctions would be needed.

The "removal of sourced content" by IRWolfie- may well have occurred for good editorial reasons (determining otherwise would require us to make a content decision, which is beyond the scope of arbitration and its enforcement process), and the evidence does not establish that and how it was done "peremptorily" or "to excess" as envisioned in the principle quoted by Keithbob. The other actions by IRWolfie- may well have occurred in the context of good faith dispute resolution efforts and it is not clear how they might amount to harassment.

The statement by David in DC also does not make clear how any of the reported events might violate any conduct rule.

Finally, nobody but Keithbob has submitted dated diffs as requested above, so I can't easily tell whether most of this happened yesterday or a year ago.

I'll take no action but leave this open for other admins to evaluate. Maybe they see something actionable.  Sandstein  20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't taken a look through all the diffs here, but a few things concern me.
  • First is that Olive provides several counter accusations against IRWolfie, but no evidence to back them up. This is never appropriate, and I advise Olive to either provide evidence for these accusations or withdraw them.
  • I am quite concerned by IRWolfie's speculation as to Olive's place of employment. That's brushing awfully close to outing, and is not at all appropriate.
  • While we can't make content determinations here, some of the behavior I'm seeing is reminiscent of other instances I've seen of civil POV pushing, which is sanctionable behavior. A major red flag for that is the constant reference to "sourced content", with as far as I can see little or no attempt to address the concerns of undue weight, fringe topic requirements, and synthesis that have been brought up. Being sourced is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion, and any other concerns about even sourced content must be addressed, not ignored.
• This is just from a preliminary look, and I do intend to take a more thorough look tonight or tomorrow, but there are indicators of problems here. I don't believe at this point that they'll yet rise to a sanctionable level on either side, but I'd like to get a better feel for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly concur with Seraphimblade above. Protesting about "removal of sourced content" as if sourcing is the sole requirement for inclusion is the cornerstone of civil POV pushing. Looking through the diffs presented by Keithbob above, I think that particular evidence is likely to draw judgements somewhat contrary to what was intended. CIreland (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After taking a more thorough look here (and after seeing Littleolive oil exhibit I didn't hear that behavior in this very thread regarding hyperfocus on sourcing to the exclusion of other content policies), I've changed my mind from earlier. There is a lot of casting of aspersions here. One excellent example is the listing as an example of "harassment" that IRWolfie listed an article for GA delisting, without mentioning that the article was in fact found not to meet GA standards and delisted. That doesn't indicate harassment, it indicates apparently good judgment.

Littleolive oil has been sanctioned in the past for tendentious editing, and I'm seeing more of the same. Olive is answering concerns about undue weight to fringe viewpoints with nonanswers about the sourcing of that material. Given the previous sanctions and behavior here, I propose that Littleolive oil be topic banned from the area of transcendental meditation, broadly construed, for six months.

Regardless of any other considerations, our policy on outing is there for a reason. I would therefore also propose to ban IRWolfie from speculating on any aspect of the real-life identity of any editor in the TM area, except that concerns regarding such may be communicated privately to the Arbitration Committee.

Finally, some of the edits noted as "removals" by IRWolfie were rearrangement or changes. This is simple editing. I see IRWolfie generally willing to discuss such edits upon request, so I cannot find any evidence of disruptive editing there. Similarly, while IRWolfie and Olive clash often, I do not see conduct which rises to the level of harassment on a large scale for either one of them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the link NW/IRWolfie, that certainly does help to establish context. Still, if the material had been long-deleted by the time the comment was made, that indicates that Littleolive oil no longer wished that information to be available on-wiki, and we generally respect such wishes from editors in regards to their real-life identities. I understand the concerns about COI, but generally such concerns can be addressed without going into specifics about an editor's exact identity or place of work. If it is necessary to go into such detail in order to fully explain a concern, that's best handled by privately contacting ArbCom. I hope that makes sense? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Littleolive oil, I'd like to address a couple of things. Firstly, it is not the place of AE to adjudicate the content dispute. None of us here are deciding who's right, and none of my comments are intended to indicate that either editor's view of the proper content is correct, nor are they an endorsement thereof. We address only conduct. Secondly, I'm concerned about the section you recently posted, entitled "Comments from an uninvolved admin". The editor whose comments you cite is not an administrator. While this is not, mind you, to say that only the opinions of admins are or should be valued, it's still a misrepresentation. I'm afraid that convinces me further of the necessity of sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • • There's a reason I said "misrepresentation", and not lie. I don't and can't know what was in someone's mind. The only information we have is what they put in their edits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• IRWolfie, I've received your ping. I had some unexpected issues come up, but should have time to wrap this up later today. Unless any uninvolved admin objects, will resolve as above. Seraphimbladepublic (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SonofSetanta (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case

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

1. 11:09:2013 Revert
2. 11:09:2013 Revert
3. 11:09:2013 Revert
4. 11:09:2013 Revert
5. 11:09:2013 Revert
6. 11:09:2013 Revert
7. 11:09:2013 Revert
8. 11:09:2013 Revert

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

1. Warned on 11:09:2013 by Mo ainm (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Serious editwarring at Gerry Adams

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User_talk:Benobikenobi#11th_September_2013

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.

@Floquenbeam. May I suggest you let this one play out until we see what can be done to save the editor - or if he can't be saved? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston, will he be added to the Troubles sanction list (or whatever its called)? Murry1975 (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC) @Floq, thats why I was asking, for clarity. Murry1975 (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This user was reported at ANI, and unaware that there was an AE request up, I just blocked him indef for edit warring immediately after a previous EW block expired, and for promising to continue no matter what. Not sure how these things are closed, so I'll be lazy and leave it to someone with more AE clue than me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If he's indef blocked then there's not much point in applying additional sanctions. I suggest that this be closed with no AE action, at least for now. He has already received the warning of the Troubles sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made an entry in the WP:TROUBLES log for warning left by User:Mo ainm. As Floquenbeam says, this editor is not under an AE block but it probably makes little difference for the moment. Any admin can unblock if they are convinced the problem won't resume. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Murry, as the blocking admin (who as I said above was unaware of this AE request when I blocked), I don't consider my block an AE block. It was just a block of someone who specifically said they were hell-bent on edit warring forever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sepsis II (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. Sept 7th PS deleted a source written by Jonathan Cook used to source a statement by Jonathan Cook as "failing WP:RS".
2. Sept 7th PS deleted a source written by Amnesty International that was being used to source what AI had reported under the guise of "Fails WP:RS"
3. Sept 7th PS deleted a source by The Electronic Intifada that was being used to source to a statement by EI as "Fails WP:RS"
4. Sept 7th PS deletes a source written by Reporters without Borders that was being used to source a statement by RWB, as "removing non-RS".
5. Sept 7th PS deletes a source that was an interview of a man being used as a source for that man's view.
6. August 12th PS deletes a massive 18,000 bits of information critical of the US in their relations to Iran, again under the guise of "Removal of unreliable sources", sources included the Washington Post, New York Times, Dennis Kucinich, Scott Ritter,Seymour Hersh, United Nations, ABC, BBC, FOX, the Guardian, and more.

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

1. Warned on April 2010 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
2. Blocked on June 2010 by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are countless more edits like these, where he is deleting well sourced information, coming from PS. It is also interesting to note that the majority of his deletions is of information that could readily be classified as anti-Israeli or pro-Arab. The only time I found where PS simply left the information, added a fact tag, and deleted the source, was with this edit -[110], probably because the sourced material was a criticism of Palestinians. PS seems to have a different standard depending on whether the information is infavour or against Israel/Palestine. He will fight to keep what another editor called a "Self published press release from an advocacy group" - [111], when the group is pro-Israeli, yet he will fight for deletion when a pro-Israeli organization is being criticized - [112]. I think it is clear this editor is causing great harm to wikipedia and has a clearly pro-Israel bend to his edits.

Just so everyone knows, I only posted six edits for brevity's sake, there are more, including Sept 7th-removes an IMF transcript used to source information from the IMF, Sept 6th -deletes this source, an article written by Brant Rosen for information about Brant Rosen. Then he goes and puts up for deletion an article (just a coincidence the article's subject supports Palestine) -Sept 6th - though so far only keep votes have been cast. He also makes this edit -Sept 6th where he removes a source for a quote. Even if the source was non reliable, why didn't PS just add another source? Type the quote into google and up comes the BBC and a dozen more reliable sources. No, only someone interested in building Wikipedia would do that. Sepsis II (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I was just reading the Jewish Virtual Library article, noticed all the "critical" reception was positive so naturally I looked at the history to retrieve the likely deleted criticism. Who did I find? Plot Spoiler - An IP editor removes two paragraphs containing quotes as unsourced; they both had dead links and I can't find the supposed quotes anywhere, points out rightfully that JVL is the only source stating that they won the awards, so the editor adds attribution, and the editor tries to add balance by adding an actual critic of the JVL, though the notability of the critic is light. PS reverts this under the guise of "POV IP warrior removing well-sourced information." Right, adding balance makes one a POV warrior, and removing unsourced information is "removing well-sourced information". This editor has probably been making hundreds of these POV pushing edits under false edit summaries for years now, how much longer should he be allowed to undermine wikipedia's goal of neutrality? Sepsis II (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[113]

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

First, the personal attacks and failure to assume good faith from Sepsis are inappropriate. Secondly, I have just been deleting material that clearly fails WP:RS, such as http://electronicintifada.net and http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/.

Sepsis is misrepresenting his case that I deleted Jonathan Cook, Amnesty International, or Reporters Without Borders. In all those cases, it was sourced to the Electronic Intifada, which clearly fails WP:RS.

Ultimately, these issues should be dealt with on the relevant talk page or WP:RSN. WP:AE should not be flippantly abused to intimidate editors and canvass others of similar outlook, which happens far too often.

If in some way I have erred, please correct me, but http://electronicintifada.net is simply not an RS and has no place being used as a source for factual assertions on Wikipedia. Let's not turn this AE into the normal battleground sideshow. Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sepsis has now added a nearly month old edit as #6. He's really out fishing. That edit was designed to correct the severe NPOV issues at Iran–United States relations and eliminate unreliable and self-published sources, such as www.zmag.org/, www.rawstory.com/, kucinich.house.gov, www.tomdispatch.com, mathaba.net, www.iranian.com/, www.globalresearch.ca, and fringe theories from Seymour Hersh. Again, this is an abuse of the AE system for a content dispute that should be handled on the respective talk page, dispute resolution board, or RSN. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein - in the majority of cases, these advocacy organizations were not being used as WP:SELFSOURCE but as sources for factual assertions. This is quite problematic. I apologize for any failures of mine to understand the policy correctly. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein - and in the case of this edit [114], I recognized that seanhoyland was right and I did not seek to add it back or edit war. Through Sepsis's own edits, you can clearly see a tendentious inclination of using pro-Palestinian advocacy organizations, while rejecting one's s/he deems pro-Israel [115]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR - I have a day job and can't be spending all day on Wikipedia collecting this information. I will have it w/in 24 hours. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein @EdJohnston - #6 Iran–United States relations doesn't fall under ARBPIA (and is a month old. Other editors have been sanctioned for bringing up such stale diffs) and @RolandR bringing in Thomas Kaplan also has nothing to do with ARBPIA. RolandR clearly has an ideological axe to grind and is trying to dig up whatever dirt he can find to besmirch me. Can we drop this silliness? I don't see how this doesn't constitute WP:Wikihounding with RolandR stalking my contributions. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein @EdJohnston Under ARBPIA, the only edits at issue are #1 and #2, and I realize I was mistaken since I did not know about the policy WP:SELFSOURCE. It seems that the other editors here aren't abiding by that standard either. See Sepsis II [116] and dlv99 [117] violating exactly that policy through tendentious selection. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sepsis, you are making a fool out of yourself by pulling up non-actionable edits from nearly two years ago that don't reveal anything. Do you think the Tikkun Olam blog is a WP:RS? -- Because it's clearly not. And for you to make any claims of neutrality is laughable -- your edit history makes that quite clear. You only edit in the IP area with a clear ideological slant and nowhere else. In comparison, if you look at my edits and the 22 DYKs I've done, they run the gamut [118]. Furthermore, how do you explain your neutrality based on this sequence of events, in which you are clearly are applying different criteria to sources from different sides of the conflict:

• [119] - removes an opinion , attributed to a pro-Israel group with an edit summary "camera says camera says, needs third party source" then,
• [120] - restores an opinion, attributed to a pro-Arab group with an edit summary "EI is a RS for what EI reported"

@Sandstein @EdJohnston - I hope you can move to close this soon, as it has clearly become an unproductive battleground. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Iran-United States relations (which I have never looked at before) is a mess and a lot of pruning is in order. However, you should answer the charge that you only removed material which most people would consider to be anti-US. After your massive deletion, the article is now almost entirely written from a US viewpoint. Zero^talk 04:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point raised by Zero could be generalised across the editor's involvement in IP related topics. For instance at Israel and legitimacy the editor removed material cited to an Op-Ed in the La Times with the summary: "non-RS, not notable categorization". The problem is the article contains about 6-7 opinion pieces and Plot-spoiler chose to remove one of the only ones not in support of the Israeli position, further skewing a non-neutral article away from NPOV. In the midst of his mass deletion of sources and material presenting the Palestinian perspective in topics related to the IP conflict on the basis of "non-RS" the editor chose to restore content cited only to a self published press release of a pro-Israel advocacy group.

I would be interested to see an explanation from the editor of how this edit pattern is consistent with the policies and purposes of the encyclopaedia. Dlv999 (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is not just one article, but Plot Spoiler's claim, repeated above, that Electronic Intifada "is simply not an RS and has no place being used as a source for factual assertions on Wikipedia". This is certainly not what has been decided in several discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard; rather, it has been found repeatedly that justification for each specific use depends on the context in which it is cited. Plot Spoiler, however, seems to be on a one-person mission to remove all references to EI (and to Mondoweiss), whether used accurately or inaccurately, to verify factual assertions or to give an example of an opinion, or even as evidence that a particular article was indeed written. This is unacceptably tendentious editing, particularly when combined with the addition by PS of material sourced to CAMERA. I'm not sure what an appropriate sanction might be; but, at the very least, Plot Spoiler should not be permitted to remove sources, citations and references without explaining his/her reason clearly in the associated talk page. A blanket, unsupported, assertion in an edit summary that these sources "fail RS" is simply not sufficient. RolandR (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler now argues that "in the majority of cases, these advocacy organizations were not being used as WP:SELFSOURCE but as sources for factual assertions." In submitting this case, Sepsis listed six instances of PS removing sources, sometimes with text as well. In which of these cases was an "advocacy organisation" being used as a source for factual assertions, rather than as evidence that a named individual or group had expressed opinions? RolandR (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And see also PS's edits at Thomas Kaplan, where s/he has been repeatedly removing soourced information, while adding an unambiguous copyvio of the source s/he cites.[121][122] RolandR (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re Sandstein's comment below, I'm not sure what diffs he is asking for. Most of my remarks related to the diffs supplied by Sepsis above; I have now added diffs of the repeated unambiguous copyvio on Thomas Kaplan; the second time with the edit summary " where exactly is the copyvio?". RolandR (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein and EdJohnston: Maybe Diff from 7 September 2013 might be relevant to this enforcement request? Specifically concerns of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed Johnston: , if "Applying different criteria to sources from different sides of the conflict could certainly qualify as tendentious editing." - how should we treat the following sequence of edits from the editor filing this complaint:

• [123] - removes an opinion , attributed to a pro-Israel group with an edit summary "camera says camera says, needs third party source"

then,

• [124] - restores an opinion, attributed to a pro-Arab group with an edit summary "EI is a RS for what EI reported"

I think you are being gamed here, by someone who does not come to the board with clean hands. Sisoo vesimhu (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

On that basis, Plot Spoiler's invocation of WP:RS as grounds for the removal of the self-sourced material at issue appears to be based on an erroneous interpretation of WP:RS. That, in and of itself, would be a matter of content and not grounds for sanctions. But as pointed out by Dlv999 and others, Plot Spoiler has on at least one occasion added material self-sourced to a pro-Israeli advocacy organization to an article ([125]), whereas all the self-sourced material Plot Spoiler removed in the instances reported here pertained to pro-Palestinian advocacy organizations. This gives the appearance of tendentious editing, which violates WP:NPOV in its aspect as a conduct policy. I invite other administrators to comment on whether this suffices as a basis for sanctions such as a topic ban.  Sandstein  14:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applying different criteria to sources from different sides of the conflict could certainly qualify as tendentious editing. I agree that the first two diffs tend to support the case against Plot Spoiler. It's hard to see why a signed article by the journalist Jonathan Cook, even when published in Electronic Intifada, should not be accepted as evidence for the views of Jonathan Cook. The second diff is about a claim of poisoning farm fields. It was rejected on sourcing grounds by Plot Spoiler due to its publication in Electronic Intifada even though it's merely a reprint of a press release from Amnesty International. The identical text can easily be found on Amnesty's own site. In neither case would the use of EI as a reference be implying any reliance on EI's judgment on matters of fact. Diffs #3 - 5 do rely on the quality of reporting at EI so I can see how one could argue against accepting those cites on the ground that EI is not a RS. Diff #6 involves removal of sources such as the Washington Post so the removal of these citations by Plot Spoiler makes no sense at all. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - RolandR, please substantiate your allegations with diffs, or they are worse than useless - allegations of misconduct without proof are disruptive.  Sandstein  20:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC) – Thanks for providing the diffs.[reply]

OK, time to close this. The evidence establishes that Plot Spoiler has engaged in tendentious editing by using allegedly unreliable sources when they support a particular point of view, but not when they support another. It also shows that he violated copyright at [126] on 9 September 2013 by copying sentences nearly verbatim from [127] without labeling them as quotations. To prevent future problematic editing of that sort, Plot Spoiler is topic-banned from everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, initially for three months. The ban may be extended if it is not observed or if similar problems with Plot Spoiler's editing appear in other topic areas.

The diffs provided of Sepsis II's editing, [128] and [129], do not lead me to believe that similar sanctions are needed with respect to Sepsis II at this time, because it does not show a different application of sourcing policy based on whose side the sources are on. But it does show an inclination to accept one side's advocacy groups' reports and not the other's. Sepsis II is warned to avoid the appearance of tendentious editing in the future. In general, it seems to me that editors would do well not to use advocacy groups from either side as sources at all, or extremely sparingly.  Sandstein  07:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mathsci (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBR&I#SightWatcher topic-banned

SightWatcher was given an extended topic ban following his editing on behalf of Captain Occam.

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

1. [130] Prolonged battleground comment about WP:ARBR&I and me. SightWatcher's name had been mentioned only in passing as one in a list of 10 names. SightWatcher used this as a pretext to make a series of heated statements indistinguishable from comments Captain Occam has been making recently on wikipediocracy.
2. [131] Edit on WP:ARCA concerning WP:ARBR&I, being discussed privately with arbitrators

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

After his extended topic ban was imposed in May 2012, SightWatcher has received multiple warnings from arbitrators.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Recent background In 2013, before September, SightWatcher made only 2 edits to wikipedia. On 29 August an ANI thread was opened about Wer900. I added comments about Wer900's conduct in May 2013.[132][133][134] (Wer900 had agreed to act as a proxy-editor for Captain Occam starting an RfAr on his behalf about my "ownership of Poland-related articles".) Captain Occam drew attention to the thread on wikipediocracy and kept up a running commentary, including claims that arbitrators had given permission for the RfAr. After emails with arbitrators, it appears no such decision was made by arbcom. Wer900 has in the meantime reiterated his intention to name me as a party in a future arbcom case but without giving any policy-based reason.[135] My understanding is that arbitrators have no interest in seeing any evidence provided by Captain Occam.

SightWatcher's edit SightWatcher's name appeared on ANI in a list of editors associated with Captain Occam, without reference to his editing or conduct. The thread started on 29 August. Captain Occam started his running commmentary on wikipediocracy on August 29. On 2 September SightWatcher made a small number of content edits to wikipedia. Before that he had made 5 content edits in 2012 and 2 in 2013.[136] All other edits relate to WP:ARBR&I. In the edit on WP:ANI on 6 September 2013, SightWatcher wrote:

"Why are you bringing me up again? I've avoided you since the beginning of this year, but you're still talking about me. I do not like my name being brought up in discussions that no longer concern me. I think everyone else is tired of hearing your theories about this, and they don't seem to be getting any traction with arbitrators anymore. For example I see that when you tagged Mors Martell as a sock puppet, [137] an arbitrator removed the tag. [138]"

SightWatcher has been inactive on the project in 2012-2013. He reappeared on wikipedia only after Captain Occam started commenting on wikipediocracy on 29 August. Given the acknowledged pattern of proxy-editing surrounding Captain Occam, it is hard to explain SightWatcher's reappearance out-of-the-blue as a coincidence. (So far Wer900 has been the only person to have given a clear account of how Captain Occam solicits users to edit on his behalf.) Prior to his edit on ANI, SightWatcher's editing or conduct had not been discussed in any way at all: his username merely appeared in a list of editors that have been associated with Captain Occam. His own association was made explicit by arbitrators in the 2012 R&I review based on evidence provided by Ferahgo the Assassin. SightWatcher's heated comments above are indistinguishable from off-wiki commentary on the same issues by Captain Occam. SightWatcher's edit violates his extended topic ban. It also appears to be yet another edit made in collaboration with Captain Occam/Ferahgo the Assassin.

PROXY-EDITING. Newyorkbrad has made a long and very insightful statement in the request for clarification. This request concerning SightWatcher concerns his extended topic ban which involves (a) not discussing topics, issues or users related to WP:ARBR&I unless his own conduct has been mentioned and (b) discontinuing from acting as a proxy-editor for banned users. (It is quite distinct from the one-way interaction bans covered by the "instructions" of Timotheus Cannes/Future Perfect at Sunrise. As TC explained below, he formulated those instructions specifically for Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate after trolling by the community banned user Echigo mole/AK.Nole.) Roger Davies referred to this type of proxy-editor as a "DeviantArt recruitee" in the R&I review.[144] Trevelyanl85A2 and SightWatcher were both sanctioned as DeviantArt recruitees. SightWatcher was reported here because in my view his edit violated points (a) and (b).

Having read what Newyorkbrad, Johnuniq, Sandstein have written subsequently and what Future Perfect at Sunrise, Timotheus Canens, Roger Davies, Risker and other arbitrators have written in the past, I recognize that the best and probably only way of dealing with this type of editing is in private directly with the arbitration committee. "DeviantArt recruitees" present special problems. Accounts of that kind have included Zeromus1, Akuri and Mors Martell. I therefore request administrators here (or arbitrators) to make a new ruling, which could be logged at WP:ARBR&I, of the following kind (or some variant, possibly mentioning penalties for non-compliance):

I hope this is a helpful reponse to comments here and at WP:ARCA. There are other types of proxy editing, also related to Captain Occam, for example [145] &[146] and [147] & [148], but that is a much greyer area.

SightWatcher's other edits Given his latest edits here and on WP:ARCA, SightWatcher does seem to be continuing to edit on behalf of Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, as I stated when opening this request. All these edits appear to have been calculated; but the DeviantArt group has made errors. Here, repeating the disruption in his amendment request on 5 December 2012, SightWatcher is again making a request on behalf of othere, including TrevelyanL85A2, an indefinitely blocked account. SW was already warned by arbitrators then that he was not permitted to make requests on behalf of others. Similarly SightWatcher made no comments during the R&I review, despite being invited to comment by arbcom clerks. The DeviantArt group now characterize the review as a personal attack by me and that my references to my efforts in providing on-wiki evidence about proxy-editing was "gloating". My suspicions when I first made this enforcement request have been borne out by these subsequent edits, which both cross a line. Both read like DeviantArt group attempts to "write Mathsci out of the equation". SightWatcher's edits in project space—in particular the Alice-in-Wonderland request about an IBAN with TrevelyanL85A2 for a second time and the gross mischaracterisation of the R&I review—have now become more disruptive than those of TrevelyanL85A2. I am discussing this in private with arbitrators. I don't actually see how it can be discussed here. I assume that administrators here will take into account these further postings of SightWatcher. AE is not the place for back door attempts by Occam & Ferahgo or their DeviantArt recruitees to get failed arbcom motions passed; nor is WP:ARCA a place to reopen or moan about the R&I review.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [149]

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 best solution seems like it would be making all of the interaction bans mutual, as Only in death suggested below. There are four editors under one-way interaction bans with Mathsci: me, TrevelyanL85A2, The Devil's Advocate, and Cla68. These bans have caused an immense amount of drama in the past year, and many arbitration requests and AE threads, but making all the bans mutual might finally stop that. -SightWatcher (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SightWatcher's response to Mathsci reads to me largely as "get off my back, will ya?" with a bit of commentary about how SightWatcher feels the community regards Mathsci's complaints. It does not read to me as an effort to pursue harassment of Mathsci, to engage in debate about race and intelligence, or to fight any kind of battle.

The text of SightWatcher's R&I topic ban is: "SightWatcher is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned." Mathsci was the one who mentioned Sightwatcher in the first place, and in my opinion SightWatcher's response was measured and "within reason" as the topic ban allows. I recommend that the requested enforcement action be declined. alanyst 07:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, you might should check this. Cla68 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, interaction bans do not prohibit editors from discussing each other in arbitration forums. By the way, could you please either lift the one-way interaction ban I have with Mathsci or else make it two-way in order to make it fair? Mathsci has sought to interact with me numerous times over the past six months or so even though I have avoided him outside of dispute resolution forums. Your action to level this playing field would be much appreciated. Also, please try to convince him the Captain Occam is not hiding under every pillow in Wikipedia and is not hiding somewhere in this thread. Futile gesture, but necessary. Cla68 (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a frivolous request. MathSci opened the door by discussing Sightwatcher's conduct. The terms of Sightwatcher's sanction allow them to respond. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I agree, this should be closed without further action. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, with the current AN/I circus regarding my perceived incivility against Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), Mathsci has tried to once again take center stage by bringing up the mere shadow of a nonexistent case against him and making all on the thread believe that somehow his words have substance. Furthermore, when I discussed an email from AGK which gave me the right to carry on the "proxy-editing" he so reviles (a right that I most certainly do not intend to exercise, for his clarification), he was whipped up in an even greater tempest. Mathsci, I quote the relevant portion of the email (although it only represents AGK's opinion on the matter, and is general advice rather than a writ of certiorari [for lack of a better term here]):

Again, Mathsci needs to stop bringing me up in regards to this case, stop creating drama, and accept that my actions were not explicitly prohibited, to the best of my knowledge. For the last time, I will not take the R&I case on behalf of Captain Occam; I hope that I have stated this unambiguously for Mathsci to accept and digest. Wer900 • talk 23:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before you get sanction happy on Cla68, the two diffs in Mathsci's first collapsed section (89 and 90 respectively) were the last thing Mathsci posted before Cla68's comment. As they directly refer to Cla68 (in fact they only concern him and no one else named here) he is entitled to some response. Just because he has not been named directly, does not allow Mathsci to bait him in this manner, especially given the terms of the ridiculous one-way interaction ban imposed on them. It is textbook gaming. How many times does this need to be pointed out? One-way interaction bans are a terrible idea. They almost never work given the combativeness of the editors they are usually involved with. Either lift it, or make it two-way for a level playing field. Otherwise you are complicit and enabling what is, at this point in time, Mathsci's hounding of other editors through wikipedia processes. Stick a two-way interaction ban on Mathsci and everyone previously under one-way bans, advise him any further process-requests have to be put through a third party administrator (Its not like he is short on friends to do so) and everyone can go back to editing productively. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also ANI NE Ent 13:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The post by Mathsci to which SightWatcher replied, in which Mathsci seems to allege without evidence some sort of offwiki conspiracy by editors including SightWatcher, does not strike me as helpful in the least. Considering WP:ARBR&I#Mathsci: admonished, we may want to consider a warning or discretionary sanction with regard to Mathsci. As an aside, the general tone of parts of the ANI discussion is appalling and confirms my impression that the whole noticeboard is now much more a source of disruption than a place in which to resolve it.  Sandstein  07:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 links to a sanction requiring Mathsci to "refrain from posting further enforcement requests regarding the interaction bans listed here on-wiki without prior private consultation and agreement from an uninvolved adminstrator familiar with the case". Mathsci, who is the administrator, if any, you consulted with in this case?  Sandstein  12:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, you are subject to an interaction ban with Mathsci as noted here. Are there any grounds why you should not be sanctioned for violating that interaction ban with your edit above?  Sandstein  12:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so far, the only actionable conduct apparent to me from this thread is Mathsci making this enforcement request in violation of their restriction from making such requests without the consent of an administrator, and Cla68 pointing out that restriction in violation of their own interaction ban with Mathsci. I can't make heads or tails of Mathsci's convoluted allegations (which far exceed 500 words and aren't read in any detail for that reason alone) regarding other editors including Captain Occam and Wer900, but at any rate these allegations are not supported by any diffs and explanations linking them to any active remedies under an arbitration case. In view of that, making such allegations is disruptive.

Taking into consideration the respective findings and sanctions as logged on the case page, as well as the lengthy block log of both users, I intend to block both users for two weeks in enforcement of their respective restrictions, if no other uninvolved administrator disagrees. I will also warn SightWatcher that under the terms of their sanction they may respond to mentions on noticeboards only to the extent necessary to address such mentions, and not to address other topics.  Sandstein  23:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, when I wrote my original comment in this thread, the bans I had in mind were the ones I imposed. I didn't have SightWatcher's ban in mind. T. Canens (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. The wording of the sanction, "the interaction bans listed here", isn't very clear about which interaction bans are meant. I'm pinging the other admins who participated in that thread, @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, @John Carter:, @Heimstern: and @ErrantX: to ask them how they understood the restriction and whether they think that Mathsci's making this enforcement request is sanctionable.  Sandstein  06:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging that theoretically the removal of the word "permission" could potentially be wikilawyered to argue that no sort of "permission" was necessarily required, it does seem to me that this request seems to have not been made in accord with that decision, and thus at least potentially sanctionable, although I am not sure how strong those sanctions should be. It might be a good idea to contact User:Seraphimblade, who took part in that discussion, as well. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John: Thanks for the heads up. I was involved in that thread more at the beginning than the end, regarding some actions that had already taken place. As such, I'll defer interpretation of the end result of that thread to those more deeply involved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. At WP:ARCA#Motion: Mathsci interaction bans (Race and intelligence), an arbitrator has proposed banning Mathsci from interacting with, among others, SightWatcher. To the extent I understand this very convoluted drama, this would probably resolve the situation concerning Mathsci's conduct. As concerns Cla68, they are in my view incorrect to assume that "interaction bans do not prohibit editors from discussing each other in arbitration forums". Per WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans, what is exempt is only "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". This does not apply to Cla68's statement in this case because the statement does not relate to Cla68's ban. On the other hand, on the clarification page, arbitrator Newyorkbrad expressed the preference that nobody be blocked in this case. Any other opinions?  Sandstein  16:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this a few times & I see where NYB, Salvio and AGK are coming from. There is a huge mess here (and a huge time sink) some of it caused by the infantile behaviour of individuals harassing Mathsci off-wiki but some caused by the structure of one way interactions bans (which always seem to give one side an illusory sense of righteousness and vindication, which ErrantX mentions above). The mooted two-way IBANs actually obviate the need for action here.

Mathsci is being tormented both by offsite elements and by his own focus on the issue. He needs to make a clean break on-wiki from all of this (I relaize that this is not easy however it is necessary). The other issues are beyond the competence of any body on wikipedia to deal with at this point (there is no hard evidence of spill over from off- to on- site).

I agree that Cla68 is out of line BUT I think it would be imbalanced to sanction them alone. Either we block them all or none of them. My preference would be to close this pointing to the clarification thread and its results whatever they may be--Cailil ^talk 09:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification request has concluded with this decision making the existing interaction bans mutual. I understand this decision to prohibit further enforcement requests such as this one. Because everybody seems to be content to leave it at that, I propose closing this request with no further action.  Sandstein  09:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To general apathy, so done.  Sandstein  19:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SonofSetanta (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case

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

1. 10:09:2013 Revert
2. 10:09:2013 Revert
3. 10:09:2013 Revert
4. Date Explanation

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

1. Warned on Date by Name of user who made warning 1 (talk · contribs)
2. Warned on Date by Name of user who made warning 2. If there is no warning 2, delete this entire line (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Edit war at Gerry Adams

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User_talk:Jamesx12345#11_09_2013

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 appreciate I may be in violation of the revert rule, and am happy to accept the consequences, whatever they may be. However, I would be clear that I was removing edits that went completely against established consensus. I don't feel that I what I did was any different to reverting ordinary vandalism, but am open to correction. It is unfortunate that I was involved in a very similar situation a few weeks ago, which may suggest I am frequently involved in disruptive behaviour, but I hope you will see that is not the case from my archives. James^x12345 17:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who originally revert the newbie (see below for his case), James12345 came across this users further actions and revert using Huggle, using the edit summary "Factual Errors". As far as I am aware, BLP edits that are "of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material" maybe removed, I understand that it is not a get out of jail free card, and can still lead to sanctions on both parties but I believe James was acting in good faith against a newbie pushing his point of view in highly contentious area. A brief look at James' editing shows a constructive editor, on here a little over a year with nearly 14,000 edits and a clear block log. He unfortunately, while acting in good faith reverted too many times, but I believe the exeption should be used due to the single purpose of the newbie account, and James trying to maintain the basic principles of the encyclopedia. Murry1975 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment made by SoS on MO ainm's tlkpage "but still smarting from a topic ban as I am I'm not going to let a blatant edit war like this go ahead", about this request being made against James. Murry1975 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed Johnston. Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban makes it clear that there are exceptions to the ban including reverting obvious vandalism which this obviously was. I chose not to make a revert but to bring the case to AE. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, am I reading this correctly? SonofSetanta filed a RfE in an area they're topic-banned from?! Anyway, if I counted correctly, they've already been sanctioned 6 times in this topic-space. Apparently, they haven't learned that they need to drop the stick. I'd suggest a block of maybe a month or so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This complaint was filed by SonofSetanta. That editor has been indefinitely topic banned from everything related to the Troubles. His ban applies across all of Wikipedia space. He may not file complaints against others regarding their edits to Troubles articles as long as his own ban is still active. I suggest this be closed with a warning or other sanction of SonofSetanta. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SonofSetanta: Your filing here is not covered by the vandalism exception of WP:BAN: "Reverting obvious vandalism (such as replacing a page with obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons." Jamesx12345 was not replacing a page with obscenities. In fact, he was restoring the long-term language about Gerry Adams' nationality, though he made the mistake of breaking 1RR while doing so. Questions about someone's nationality are open to reasonable disagreement. Though certain edits may be judged to be tendentious editing, they are not the same as vandalism. There is no exemption from your own topic ban to revert tendentious edits or to report such edits at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest tightening the topic ban on SonofSetanta, revoking that standard vandalism/blp exceptions to topic bans. Emphasis that the only permitted edits at all related to The Troubles are appeals of the topic ban, with no other exceptions. Caution Jamesx12345 to exercise more care when using huggle to repeatedly revert edits that are not unambiguous vandalism. Monty₈₄₅ 21:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SonofSetanta Could you explain why you created this userpage? Monty₈₄₅ 21:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee has just declined SonofSetanta's appeal of his Troubles ban so I think it's time for us to close this. My own preference is to issue a logged warning to SoS to observe his Troubles topic ban and issue a block of two weeks or more, since his filing a report here at AE about someone else's behavior on a Troubles article violates the ban. In August he got into arguments at User talk:Sandstein about uploading a Troubles-related image, so he seems to be failing to understand the plain language. I agree with the advice to Jamesx12345 to observe the Troubles 1RR and ask him to reread the definition of vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and also with Monty845's suggestion above. As to the actual request concerning Jamesx12345, it does not appear actionable because it does not contain diffs of any prior warning.  Sandstein  19:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing. No action against User:Jamesx12345 but he is reminded of the WP:1RR restriction on Troubles articles. User:SonofSetanta is informed that his filing here violates his Troubles topic ban. Two week block of SonofSetanta due to his repeated problems with observing the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RolandR (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sisoo vesimhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 17:59, 12 September 2013 This edit is a breach of the 1RR restriction, as the editor had previously made the same edit at 22:44, 11 September 2013[150]

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

1. Warned on 24 January 2013 by Nableezy (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There is an ongoing sockpuppetry investigation into this account. Checkuser has already confirmed matching accounts.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

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

there is one edit, and one revert. 2 reverts are required for a breach of 1RR. Sisoo vesimhu (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Ed's comment at SPI. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The diff of the warning is of a warning about discretionary sanctions generally. We'd need a diff of a warning specifically about the 1RR restriction in order for this to be actionable, in my view.  Sandstein  07:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein: In this case, it is Sisoo vesimhu who added {{ARBPIA}} to this article's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AThe_Other_Side%3A_The_Secret_Relationship_Between_Nazism_and_Zionism&diff=534396247&oldid=525755121. This template states in part "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." This being the case, I think that we can safely say that Sisoo vesimhu was aware of both the 1RR restriction in general and its applicability to this article in particular. Given this, do you still think an additional warning is required first? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, although your diff is of someone else's edit. Contrary to Sisoo vesimhu's statement, both edits were reverts, so this is sanctionable. However, per the SPI discussion, they are likely to be indef-blocked soon, which would make this request moot.  Sandstein  17:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diff fixed, thanks. I apparently need more coffee. I agree if they're likely getting indeffed anyway, nothing much to do here. I was more wondering about your opinion on the general principle. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree in principle. Closing as moot since Sisoo vesimhu has now been indef-blocked.  Sandstein  19:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of Palestine-Israel articles, imposed at WP:AE#Plot Spoiler, logged at WP:ARBPIA#Log of blocks and bans

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[151]

I am appealing this arbitration enforcement because I believe the penalty (a three month topic ban) was excessive to the charge. Previous to this block, I had never been topic banned or blocked for more than 36 hours (the last time I was blocked was over a year and a half ago) [152]). Of the six charges brought by the submitting party, only the first two were deemed to apply, and the closing admin also added a case of WP:close paraphrasing, which was not subject to ARBPIA because it was not in the IP topic area (and was quickly fixed). I also recognized my failures and misunderstanding of certain policies (like WP:SELFSOURCE) -- and I was not edit warring with other parties over this (which if I was would have been sufficient cause for an AE case). It's unclear how the closing admin determined that a three month ban was appropriate (I believe a warning or a short block would have sufficed). I would appreciate if there were greater feedback from other admins, since there was no discussion about what a proper penalty would be before it was levied. Overall, I think this could have been dealt with sufficiently on talk pages or boards other than AE, which unfortunately has become a primary tool of choice for battleground editors to get each other sanctioned. Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with just a warning :)! In the course of the AE, I have recognized my failures and misunderstanding of certain policies (like WP:SELFSOURCE for sources that wouldn't normally qualify as WP:RS). If I'm totally blocked from the topic area, I don't think I can do much to "demonstrate [my] understanding of the policies at issue", which makes a block seem more punitive than preventative. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter, I didn't know that was an option. If @Sandstein finds that more appropriate, I'm happy to have this closed and take it directly to Sandstein's talk page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein I'm just confused how I'm getting a three month topic ban for a single mistake, when I've never been topic banned before. Aren't warnings (or something like a week topic ban) normal course before such a significant penalty? Isn't it problematic that the submitting editor, Sepsis II, never discussed the issue on my talk page, or the talk page of those given articles, or on an appropriate notice board before taking to AE? It seems dangerous for AE to be the first stop for an editor, and will only encourage more battleground warfare on this page to get editors sanctioned. I understand my failure and I don't see how a three month ban will be instructive, instead of punitive. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter, I've seen a number of cases here end in warnings, so I'm a bit confused unless I'm misinterpreting your remarks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlv99, you're obviously not one to be commenting given that nearly all your edits are exclusively within the topic area, from a very clear ideological slant i.e. tendentious editor. Exhibit #1 - you delete a press release from a pro-Israeli advocacy group despite the fact that it fulfills WP:SELFSOURCE. You are clearly are applying different criteria to sources from different sides of the conflict. I have recognized my own errors and will go about editing differently. Doesn't seem like you have. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston, to be fair, the last time I was blocked was over a year and half ago. To go from a 31 hour block to a 3 month topic ban seems a bit uneven in my view, but your call. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the imposition of a sanction is not contested, only its type and length. Because sanctions should be preventative rather than punitive, I prefer imposing topic bans over blocks because the former are limited to the topic are where problems have manifested. As to the appropriate length, that is of course a matter about which opinions may differ. I believe three months are an adequate time in which the appellant may demonstrate their understanding of the policies at issue. If another administrator is of the view that another duration would be substantially more appropiate, I've no objection to them changing the duration. As concerns the time of closure, the request had been open for eight days, which is more than enough for any opinions to be offered (and such opinions are not even necessary as a matter of procedure); and the appellant themselves requested that the request be closed.  Sandstein  21:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It matters little to me whether the sanction is appealed here or on my talk page, though as far as I'm concerned we might just as well conclude it here. I don't think that I have much more to say about the issue than what I wrote above.  Sandstein  21:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence here or in the discussion above of plot spoiler acknowledging the problematic elements of his editing that led Sandestein to conclude that he had engaged in tendentious editing. It is odd, because he can clearly see that the pattern of editing he has engaged in is problematic when he sees it in other editors (quoting from his statements above: "Through Sepsis's own edits, you can clearly see a tendentious inclination of using pro-Palestinian advocacy organizations, while rejecting one's s/he deems pro-Israel", "Furthermore, how do you explain your neutrality based on this sequence of events, in which you are clearly are applying different criteria to sources from different sides of the conflict").

What I would really like to see is an acknowledgement that he understands why this pattern in his own edits has been viewed as tendentious and a commitment to try and be more balanced/neutral/objective about source selection and application of policy in future, especially when he is editing in topics that he may have strong feelings about. Dlv999 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plot Spoiler. This is the second time you have accused me of tendentious editing without evidence. To substantiate your allegation that I am "clearly are applying different criteria to sources from different sides of the conflict" you would need two diffs, where I have applied different standards to sources, not a single example. Also your response to me indicates that you still do not understand WP:SELFSOURCE and you haven't shown that you understand why your edit pattern has been seen as tendentious. Unfortunately it seems at this stage you are not ready to adapt your edit pattern that led to your topic ban. Dlv999 (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I commented in the original AE complaint about Plot Spoiler (above) though I did not express opinion on a sanction. With regard to whether the sanction could be shortened here, that is always possible, but I don't think it's necessary. Arbcom itself is the ultimate judge of whether the kinds of sanctions issued at AE are reasonable. Sandstein made a reasonable use of his discretion and I don't see any need to overturn his decision. If there is going to be a topic ban at all, three months is the shortest that is likely to be worthwhile, given how slow the machinery is for imposing and reviewing the sanctions. If Plot Spoiler is concerned he is being sanctioned for a single mistake, a look at his block log should make us aware that he has had previous trouble on ARBPIA articles. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that this request be declined. Three months is not that long and this is not the first time Plot Spoiler has been sanctioned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't see anything in Plot Spoiler's comment addressing anything other than the length of the sanction, and that is more or less at the discretion of the sanctioning admin anyway. The comment linked to by Sandstein does clearly talk about hoping "this" is closed soon, but seems to be referring to a separate discussion, not this one, so I'm not sure it necessarily applies to this particular request. However, at this point, I can't see any good reason for anyone to think that the ban should be reduced by such an action as this. It is of course always possible for someone to request the sanctioning admin directly to shorten such a sanction, and I think that would probably be the better and more productive approach to this concern. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Plot Spoiler: I honestly know of very few cases of AE enforcement which don't involve at least a month long sanction. I think I once mentioned a one week sanction in one case because it struck me as being the smallest slap on the wrist I could imagine in such a venue as this. The rest of what you said, though, I'm really not in a position to address one way or another. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Plot Spoiler: Yeah, a number of cases here have ended in warnings, that's true. But this doesn't seem to have been a case that started here, and, fortunately or unfortunately, I don't think policies and guidelines require that admins need to come here before imposition of sanctions already established by arbitration. In this instance, it looks like Sandstein acted on his own, and, so far as I can tell, within the rules of such sanctions. I honestly don't myself know that there have been frequent successful requests to have sanctions already imposed overturned here, and that seems to be what you're requesting here. I think I have seen, at least a few times, requests at ANI or AN about maybe reducing the terms of sanctions, but that really isn't in the area of "enforcement" of arbitration, and on that basis this page probably isn't the best place to request such. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend declining this appeal. There are no objective grounds for reducing or overturning sanctions either presented here or in evidence in the closed thread above. A 3 month topic ban is in the lower range of topic bans and is well within sysop discretion--Cailil ^talk 00:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Cailil. No clear evidence that the discretionary sanction was not in accord with the enforcement provisions has been given. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

198.189.184.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ~~~

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from fringe science

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=574388991&oldid=574378913

I feel that there is a violation of the WP:RGW policy at play here, since the fact of reconsideration of ascorbate for cancer treatment (evidence aside from those reviews suggests that it might have use as a complementary cancer treatment) is being pushed in mainstream journals: http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78, http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.long

The reasons for this reconsideration are pharmacokinetic studies, animal studies, case series, and pharmacological observations.

Some discussion ensued on the talk page about subsequent phase I trials. There were discrepancies with these trials - some of them did show an effect, others did not (implying that the effect was situational), and the blanket condemnation of them is not valid. Other studies showed improved quality of life as an adjunct to traditional therapy, regardless of specific anticancer effect. I cover all of this here, at a comment at the bottom of the talk page, which has since been deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=574384007#Vit_C

The initial pretext was that I deserved sanctions because I was "edit warring", when I only made one edit. Immediately I was reported to a noticeboard, which, to me signified an illegitimate attempt against me. After this, I made only one revert (did not at all violate 3RR), because I felt that these pretexts were invalid. After that, my edit was reverted because Phase I trials are not encouraged under WP:MEDRS, which I am perfectly fine with. People can view the history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthomolecular_medicine&action=history

In light of everything that has been presented at the talk page (including my deleted comments), I feel that a perfectly reasonable replacement for the contentious section is the following:

"Some research groups have recently suggested that the use of ascorbate in cancer treatment be reevaluated.( http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78 )( http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.long ). A retrospective, multicenter, epidemiological cohort study showed that complementary treatment of cancer patients receiving traditional chemotherapy and radiotherapy with intravenous vitamin c improved quality of life.( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22021693 )"198.189.184.243 (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, I would be fine with being given the ability to make only one revert or to not make reverts at all - as a limited, but not banned, user - or at least be given the ability to write on talk pages, with the articles made semi-protected. From the contributions on the talk page (particularly the deleted one), I feel that I bring up important points. Monty845 says on his user page that he finds any form of censorship offensive. I feel that I bring important relevant information to the discussion that warrants consideration, that deleting it (even on talk pages - particularly considering the last edit (see bottom): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=574384007#Vit_C) is going a step too far.198.189.184.243 (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I imposed this restriction after a discussion at the edit warring noticeboard that can be seen here. The immediate reason for the ban was the user's persistence in adding his POV at Orthomolecular medicine regardless of the opposition of other editors on the talk page. (He wants the article to give credence to the value of Vitamin C in cancer treatment). He became active on the article on 21 August and has made about nine reverts since that time. The editor's style of reasoning may be seen at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine#Vit C. Since he started work on Orthomolecular medicine the user has been blocked twice, the last time for 72 hours. The blocks do not seem to have had any beneficial effect. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 198.189.184.243, you were already blocked twice for edit warring on that page. Coming back from the last block, you immediately added content that was similar to what you were previously edit warring over. When that content was reverted, you reverted it right back. That is classic edit warring behavior. WP:3rr is not an entitlement, even less so when talking about the resumption of a previous edit war. Even in your appeal here, you continue to be focused on trying to get the content of the article changed. While I personally would have been more lenient, the topic ban here looks well justified. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've reviewed the history and agree with Monty that the topic ban was justified. Escalating blocks were clearly not successful in preventing further disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I would decline the appeal as presented here. As it affects the editing of the article Orthomolecular medicine, the topic ban is a reaction to edit-warring that is within the scope of administrator discretion as described in WP:AC/DS. Contrary to what the appellant seems to believe, this process does not adjudicate the content aspects of any disagreements; their arguments with respect to the content at issue are therefore not relevant here. As it applies to fringe science topics other than Orthomolecular medicine, the ban may well prove to be too broad in scope, because I see no evidence of misconduct in other fringe science topic areas. However, the appeal does not put forth the argument that the topic ban unduly restricts editing in any other topic areas, and therefore any questions related to the scope of the ban do not need to be decided at this time.  Sandstein  09:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fram (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) restricted from referencing external sites to which he has contributed

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

1. 31 August 2013 Richard Arthur Norton links to [153], where the file history makes it clear that he contributed that page there. The edit is nearly a month old, but I don't check these that regularly either...

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It's only one violation, but considering that the editor hardly edits anymore, I still consider it significant enough to warrant attention. Whether that should be a stern final warning or a block is up to those reviewing this of course. Fram (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this edit (from June, but still among his 100 most recent edits) may not violate the letter but at least the spirit of his restriction, adding a 76-word quote from a copyrighted source (a 1978 Chicago Tribune article), from a link to his own copyright-violating flickr site, instead of removing the link to his own copyright violation. The work that he should have done at the article has since been done by Nikkimaria[154]. Fram (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[155]

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

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

The complaint has merit. The enforcement provision reads "That user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year; after the third block issued under this provision, subsequent blocks issued under this provision may be of any duration, including indefinite". A relatively steep escalation of enforcement block seems to have been envisioned, and this would be the first enforcement block. In enforcement of the restriction, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is therefore blocked for two weeks.  Sandstein  12:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Sandstein, but I also note Fram's point that this user's edits are sporadic. Maybe a warning within the block text that things will escalate is necessary?--Cailil ^talk 12:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Orlady (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#General editor probation

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

In the last 24 hours or so, Doncram has breached normal standards of behavior and decorum through personal attacks on multiple other editors, as well as edit warring over whether his new article creations are stubs or start-class. This behavior has caused real damage, including bot operator's decision not to continue work on a bot request related to the WikiProject's actions to solve the issue that was "remanded to the community" in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Stub content debate remanded to community:

1. Contention at Talk:Eads School Gymnasium over article rating.
2. Revert war over that rating (Doncram violates 3RR, but he wasn't warned): Coaltownguy, Doncram, Coaltownguy, Doncram, TheCatalyst31, Wizardman, Doncram, Wizardman, Doncram
3. [156] - In this NRHP WikiProject talk page discussion of whether the Eads gymnasium article is a stub or a start, Doncram lashes out with personal attacks against Orlady (moi) and User:Dudemanfellabra, and apparently accuses User:Coal town guy of being my clone (in "don't egg on another clone like you did egg on S. and also egg on P., imho"). Both Coal town guy and User:Wizardman announce their intention to stay away from the Wikiproject.
4. 16 September 2013 - Doncram entered discussion (where he had not been previously involved} at User_talk:TonyTheTiger regarding Tony's accusations of racism against other editors, and gave Tony the potentially fan-flaming advice that "it seems reasonable ... to begin to assume something awful like racial discrimination going on." Also said User:Crisco 1492 should "back the hell off".
5. Withdrawal of User:Hasteur from plan to run an "NRIS-only" bot to flag minimally sourced stubs for the NRHP Wikiproject, apparently responding to the displays at Eads Gymnasium and the Wikiproject talkpage.
6. Doncram warns another user against Orlady in the same style he employed in numerous similar personal attacks prior to the Arbcom case.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (not required in this instance)

1. Several admonishments by various users are included on the pages linked above. Also see [157]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I didn't want to come here. I was looking around to find someone Doncram respects who is currently active here to ask them to give him some "word to the wise" advice when I saw the evidence of the damage his recent behavior has done to the NRHP Wikiproject. After seeing that, I concluded that this behavior warrants a more vigorous response than mere advice. -- Orlady (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed by Doncram's initial statement (which I acknowledge is likely to be revised or supplemented). The warring over whether an article is a stub or a start-class, together with Doncram's unilateral effort to prevent the wikiproject from having assessment criteria or tagging articles with sourcing issues, has been disruptive and is a concern. However, that pettiness is hardly the only issue here. [After writing the foregoing sentences, I started thinking that Doncram's comments that suggest that he considers article ratings to be critically important (for example, his "minor, schminor" edit summary on MatthewVanitas' talk page, as well as his focus on ratings in his statement here) are an indication that he has lost his perspective on what's important and what's petty. --Orlady (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Doncram's persistence in personalizing content discussions -- a pattern I've seen for more than 5 years -- is poisonous. The personal attacks -- the assertions that other users have "weird" or racist motivations, the allegations that other users are "egging on other editors" for the purpose of "construct[ing] contention" or "harass[ing]" Doncram -- are unacceptable and need to stop. His statement here and his recent actions on talk pages suggest to me that he not only doesn't recognize that his "when faced with adversity, assume bad faith" attitude is a problem, but that he thinks it's absolutely the right filter for interpreting other users' behavior. --Orlady (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate: I'm not aware of any restriction against my participating in RM discussions that were highlighted on a noticeboard that I have watchlisted, such as Freemasonry or in visiting (and fixing problems I see) at articles identified in an active Wikiproject discussion like this one. And after some other very recent discussions on article ratings with Coal town guy ([158] [159]), it didn't even occur to me that his query on the NRHP talk page might be related to an article by Doncram. --Orlady (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Orlady and User:The Devil's Advocate have had little or no interaction outside of this Arbcom case. The only other identifiable interaction was at Template:Did you know nominations/The Hole (Scientology) on 21 February 2013. --Orlady (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that Doncram has not come back to edit his statement here. This may mean that he decided that he needed a break from Wikipedia to clear his head. However, if that's what he's doing, it probably would be in his interest to explain himself here. --Orlady (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[160]

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

I have been notified and will respond later. However real life obligations intervene, with deadlines that I must meet through Thursday, and I cannot respond fully for a few days. I don't think there is anything extremely urgent that must be addressed here, and I won't be editing elsewhere.

Extremely briefly, though: it seems inappropriate for editors from one wikiproject, who are in the process of redefining what a Start rating means for their wikiproject, to change other Wikiproject's ratings, and I think especially not to change a named AFC editor's rating. I opened discussion about this at a Talk page and discussed this clearly, and I reverted changes of the AFC editor's AFC rating, but did not revert the NRHP wikiproject rating. Hasteur noted, I think directed at CTG changing the rating: " Please for the love of DIETY do not edit war over the evaluation that a member of the AfC project gave to a page. If you disagree with the rating given on behalf of your project, feel free to change it, but each project has it's own rubric over what constitutes the various classes." For my objecting to an editor changing the AFC editor's rating (which seems like editing the AFC editor's Talk page comments to say something different than what the AFC editor said), an Arbitration Enforcement?

Briefly about User:TonyTheTiger, contrary to Orlady and Crisco 1492's statements, I have previously advised/commented to TTT in the FourAward discussion (i believe at TTT's Talk and at one or more ANIs and at wt:fouraward). And I absolutely do not and did not condone accusations of racism. The assertions regarding that, here are out of context and misleading. I can comment more about that later, if necessary, but it seems unfortunate to drag TTT and Crisco and others into the NRHP topic area, it really seems unrelated.

About other issues raised I will comment later. --doncram 06:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not closing this too quickly. The main threat in discussion below is to ban me from editing in NRHP areas (which I would be extremely sad to see, and believe is not at all justified). I am busy in real life and there is not urgency to close this, as I am not editing in mainspace and will return to comment more.

I do resent editor Orlady's persistent pressure over many years, including this AE proceeding and a recent ANI proceeding. I do personally experience Orlady's following me to mainspace pages and commenting directly after me at wt:NRHP and elsewhere, and these AN noticeboard as bullying / wikihounding / wiki-harassment / harassment -- define it as you wish. TheDevilsAdvocate's comments are on point. I thought Orlady recognized, during the Arbitration, that I really do experience her following me in this way. And she was advised not to by a couple of editors during the Arbitration, and she did not for a while, but she has resumed. I really cannot understand a person persisting with something they know is personally directed and experienced as hurtful. Orlady knows that I would regret being banned from NRHP, where I have been a fundamental builder of supporting structures (lists, help/info pages, disambiguation) and direct contributor of thousands of good references to NRHP documents and other sources in mainspace articles. I think there is broader issue of what Wikipedia stands for, does it stand for protecting productive contributors or does it stand more for allowing an infinite amount of long-running harassment type activities against them. I perceive Orlady as biased, clearly, in having interest to prove that her following and criticism is justified. And I think she is reaching, again, here, with kicking up confusion and manufacturing contention that tends to suggest to others that "something must be done" against her target, justifying her targeting. Is there no limit? What does it take to get someone to stop. Why not, at some point upon request by a person experiencing another as a harasser, cannot some other mechanism -- some other designated party be appointed, or just something. This is a flaw in Wikipedia, that there is no mechanism to stop infinite, deep incivility / vendetta-type behavior, if that behavior is just a bit disguised and couched differently. Upon request, why allow the pattern to continue?

Here, Orlady raises as an issue disagreement at a Talk page (about whether non-AFC editors should change AFC editor ratings), as contention. It is highly appropriate to discuss disagreement at a Talk page. It happens that I restored the AFC editor's AFC rating (and not the WikiProject NRHP rating), a total of 4 times, reverting editor CTG twice and a new-to-the-subject-area-editor twice. But it was discussed at the Talk page and also at wt:NRHP, and the new-to-subject editor had stated at wt:NRHP that they would not edit further there, i.e. would not disagree with the restoration of the AFC rating for the AFC wikiproject. This is not any regular form of edit-warring; my last change was implementing what was in effect a consensus. It is a stretch to call this a case of edit-warring needing ban from a vast subject area; it is not part of any pattern at all.

I can return and provide diffs, if you cannot follow this. Sorry, I can't participate in wiki-litigation to an infinite extent. I see no urgency in proceeding with a ban; I see no real justification except possibly for a lack of complete response by me with diffs and legal-like discussion in this forum (again, to which I resent being dragged). --doncram 17:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have elected to withdraw from the NRHP project for a multitude of reasons, but in specific the Toxic and disruptive environment presented against Doncram (with specific notice to the last 24 hours of content) is the straw to break the camel's back. Early on in the BotReq phase of the request for the NRIS-only tagging, Doncram attempted to insert such complications that would make it nearly impossible for a repeated and mundane process to be able to accomplish the stated goal (Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 56#Bot to tag articles only sourced to National Register Information System). Once the process moved forward into the BRFA thread Doncram tried to load the process down with additional tasks that would again make the bot's task impossible without adding a great amount of complexity and subsequently making it a loosing proposition for any Bot Operator to take up the task. As there were veiled threats of bulk undoing and contestations of consensus, I only considered it right to remove the rapidty from the equation. At this point, any editor could re-construct the list for calculating the matching articles without using a bot account to edit. I have attempted to give Doncram the benefit of the doubt by viewing pages that he has submitted for creation as neutrally as possible. In some cases this means approval and movement into mainspace (such as Kilauea Plantation). In others this means declining the pseudo-AfC and attempting to get more. I've watched various projects and associations of editors clash with Doncram with the percieved result of Doncram continues much in the same way whereas the other side becomes demoarlized and conceeds the point in face of the mass changes that Doncram leads in the consensus of 1. Hasteur (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to clarify my meanings, which is reasonable given my editing after I had start to head to bed.

"Toxic and disruptive environment presented against Doncram" - this phrase is attempting to indicate that Doncram's actions have created a Toxic and disruptive environment.

I reserve the right to further clarify. Hasteur (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanderson: I agree that the topic ban ideas may be appropriate, but I note that Doncram has already been warned and reminded without (what I would consider) significant improvement. For this reason I consider that a wiki-holiday length break will only defer the disruption instead of prevent it.Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the Arbcom case closed, I reviewed a lot of Doncram's articles and tried to improve his contributions. It seemed to be going well at first, but over the past few months he's been making all kinds of problematic edits. There was this borderline vandalism edit back in June. There was this insinuation that I "would have to be incredibly bizarre" to question his work after I pointed out that he didn't appear to have read a document he cited. There was this post, which simultaneously attacked writers of long articles and "some weirdly anti-NRHP people", which seems to be directed at Orlady. There's the overrating of his own articles, which started back in August and has been going on since. There's an edit that appears to imply that editors he doesn't like would have to worry about being punched in the face at a meetup. There's the "some dumb Queen Anne style house in a remote rural area" comment, which was another attack on writers of longer articles and upset Coal town guy, who's from a rural area. And now there's his latest attack on Orlady and Coal town guy, which has driven three editors away from WikiProject NRHP and is exactly the kind of behavior he was warned against. This kind of behavior has been causing all kinds of trouble for WikiProject NRHP, and something needs to be done to get it to stop (and based on past experience, admonishment isn't going to work). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Sandstein's question, I'd be satisfied with an escalating series of topic bans along the lines of what Smallbones is proposing, provided it's enforced properly. Doncram's unwillingness to listen or follow consensus and his continual arguing over certain matters tend to be the root of these problems, and if he can't cooperate with other NRHP editors he shouldn't be allowed to work on NRHP-related topics. Enforcement is key, though; if Doncram continues to make occasional disruptive comments for a month until someone decides to do something, this probably won't help much. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger and I, as is plastered throughout much of the WP namespace, have been having a falling-out since June/July. Doncram, to the best of my knowledge, has not been previously involved in any of the discussions regarding this, be it one of three on ANI (links later if required) or at WT:FOUR. As such, I find it concerning that his initial reaction was (to paraphrase) "Yeah, Tony, someone might be out to get you". Regarding Doncram's comment there, I found it to be implying (very obliquely) that I may have racist tendencies, at least where TTT is concerned, as he writes "weird (possibly discriminatory) opposition in stuff going on (which i personally ascribed a lot to editor crisco"), suggesting that "discriminatory" opposition is being caused by me. I fail to see why Doncram has decided to insert him/herself here, and fail to see why Doncram finds it necessary to bring me back to a discussion which I had already left for two days. As for the use of the word "hell", I don't find it that troubling, nor threatening, though I appreciate that some editors may. If Doncram's actions are indeed against probationary sanctions which have previously been enacted, then enforcement should be undertaken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Hence why I said "to the best of my knowledge". I have stricken my interpretation of your comment, but please understand that was my first reading based on the collocation of my name and "possibly discriminatory". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: My post was entirely focused on Doncram. The mention of TTT was simply to provide some context for Doncram's remarks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the history between Orlady and Doncram, I feel I should point out that I independently came to the same conclusion regarding that advisability of sanctions. I think the diffs above largely speak for themselves. This is the culmination of five years or so of tension, wherein Doncram has created an enormous volume of very short articles on NRHP-listed properties and resisted the increasingly forceful efforts of other editors on the topic to make him improve his articles or to clean them up in an organized fashion. Because of this history of acrimony, Doncram now attributes criticism of his methods to the machinations of a few particular editors, which has seriously disrupted collaboration at WP:NRHP. Choess (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far Doncram's reponse seems to have been this edit, removing what seems to be a sound paraphrase to replace it with his cut-and-paste quotes from the NRHP nomination statement. I understand that he's personally uncomfortable with synthesizing multiple sources and paraphrasing, and that he's gotten more grief than other editors would because of that writing style. But preventing others from improving the articles he creates, and his unwillingness to discuss his methods or compromise, are a real problem. At this point, I think a topic ban from NRHP material is the most reasonable solution. Choess (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I interact with Doncram for advice on National Register of Historic Places articles and help him out with photo needs as I am able. Recently Doncram has interacted with me in an attempt to stabilize WP:FOUR when it first got rocky about two months ago. He has helped keep me level-headed in regards to a turbulent situation. In general I find him to be quite productive. I briefly looked at some of the edits above. I side with the stub viewpoint in the stub/start war above. Personally, I find a start/stub ratings disagreement not worth getting hung out to dry over. I would advise him to let ratings slide when he encounters vigorous opposition from multiple parties. In regards to his comments on my most recent blow up with Crisco, I found him to be supportive of my claims in a way that may have been offensive to my detractors. Nonetheless, I appreciate his empathy. I thinks it would be great if this tag team could ease up on Doncram and let him go on doing his fine work here on our national monuments and landmarks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been one of Doncram's few supporters at WP:NRHP, in general I agree with his aims, if not his style. The ongoing problem over several years has been that he just can't get along with other editors. I do see some ganging up on him and he is not always in the wrong, but he fails to go along with consensus, most of the time just arguing ad naseum I've proposed at WT:NRHP that he receive a one-week topic ban for this disruption, followed by a two-week topic ban if it happens again, with a doubling of the length of the topic ban each additional time he causes disruption. This should concentrate his mind on ways to avoid disruption, or give us some peace at WP:NRHP. The choice would be up to Doncram. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Doncram has not responded, I think the admins should go ahead and decide on sanctions. From reading the current suggestions from admins, it looks like they are too strict or permanent for my taste. I suggest that something more creative (such as I suggest immediately above) would be better than the nuclear option. Perhaps just ban him from NRHP talk pages - he can continue to contribute via AfC - and if WP:NRHP finds fault with the articles via AfC, we can communicate with the AfC editors. That wouldn't be stretching the ArbCom decision, in that the project was left to decide what is an acceptable stub (for our purposes). In any case, it is time to decide. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, I would like to reiterate that Orlady should stay away from Doncram. She was already strongly urged to do so by Errant after dragging Doncram to ANI because . . . wait for it . . . she thought his user talk page was too long. This was after she had taken the lead in going after Doncram for the start-stub dispute ([161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168]). Despite Errant's admonishment she has continued stalking his contributions ([169] [170] [171] [172] [173]) in addition to her usual role in fanning the flames of disputes with Doncram at the NRHP wikiproject. I know she claims that she did not know the Eads Gymnasium article was one of Doncram's contributions, but it seems unlikely that she did not at least suspect it since she had previously commented on an Eads church article that she presumably knew was contributed by Doncram as she had looked at the revision history.

Unfortunately, it is very hard to deal with this situation because any sanctions would have to come through some other forum as there is no authorization under the ArbCom case for resolving this persistent problem of Orlady's harassment. I will say, my impression is that stub-class is meant for articles that are one or two sentences long, not articles that are a good-sized paragraph long and certainly not any longer than that. Additionally, I think the proposal for a bot adding clean-up tags is absurd and seems pretty unusual. I don't know of any bots that perform such a pointless task and given the way some editors seek to denigrate Doncram's contributions it does not surprise me that he would take personal offense. Orlady's involvement in fanning the flames is just making it all the more difficult for him to keep cool.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, you can give all the excuses and evasive arguments you like, but the reality is that you regularly put yourself at the forefront of any complaint against Doncram no matter how frivolous, such as that nonsense over his user talk page. Your very participation at the NRHP project is motivated by your vendetta against Doncram. Oh and exactly when did you watchlist the Freemasonry Wikiproject? Did it happen to be around the time you were feuding with Doncram over his contributions in that topic area? Looking over your contributions it seems you never touched that project or the topic area until Doncram became prominently involved in it back in 2010. Sorry, but noticing something concerning the target of your harassment on a page you watchlisted because the target of your harassment was involved there once does not magically make it not harassment. Many stalkers and harassers find ways to work their way into their target's everyday activities so they can provide an innocent cover for their actions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NW, my comment may be too blunt for you, especially since you were reluctant to take substantive action against anyone harassing Doncram, but it is no less truthful and is most certainly relevant. Orlady seems to think that Doncram coming across a page she has on a watchlist means she is not engaged in harassment by opposing him there, even if the page is only on her watchlist because Doncram had previously been there. Anyone who knows anything about harassment knows that harassment often involves following places a person has previously been in case they show up there again. Orlady is bringing this case here and citing comments about her as part of the basis for sanctions so her treatment of him is pertinent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike some on this site I do not use these terms lightly, NW. This is real-life. A real human being is on the other end of that screen name. It doesn't trivialize in-person stalking to suggest that the same behaviors can be exhibited online and have the same emotional consequences.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil, I believe barring Doncram from the NRHP area would be excessive and harmful to the project given that it is his primary contribution here. Were you to look over most of his articles you would see not even a hint of the problems his opponents have regularly cited against him. If your main concern is the dispute over classifications of articles then you can simply bar him from changing and adding such classifications himself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, my suggestion for barring Doncram from changing article classifications is much clearer and would be targeted rather than ham-fisted. As to your excessive suggestion to block me, I did not call Orlady a stalker or accuse her of stalking. I am accusing her of harassment. When I said "stalkers and harassers" I was including her in the latter group, not the former.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The contention is an outgrowth of the effort by the NRHP project to implement Remedy #6 of the arbitration conclusion, in which the community was advised to set standards for stub creation. This has led to a focus on consistent standards for article rating, and scrutiny of newly created articles and their ratings. The emphasis of this effort is broader than simply deciding what constitutes a stub, it is intended as a focused article improvement and expansion effort, supported by bot tasks to gather information on minimally-sourced stubs. While on a small scale it's not important whether a given article is rated a stub or a start, and in my opinion not worth a single revert, much less an edit war, the larger effort is necessary and appropriate as Wikipedia matures. Arguments over a stub/start evaluation are characteristic of the minimalist approach adopted by Doncram. Doncram is capable of producing detailed, quality articles, but prefers a broad-brush approach that emphasizes quantity over quality, and he appears to view the quality improvement initiative and stub scrutiny as criticism of his effort, which to some degree it is, given that it's an result of the previous arbitration proceeding. If the small, and largely meaningless step from stub to start is so contentious, what about real improvement to B and beyond?

Some of the problem is the result of AfC ratings that don't coincide with the goals of the NRHP project, and of course we can all find dozens of articles throughout the wiki that are rated as B when they're no better than starts. I'm fairly cynical about the accuracy of any individual rating, but the larger effort is important and the disruption to that effort is undermining a larger benefit to the encyclopedia.

I've generally supported Doncram more than many participants in NRHP, but I find his attitude toward other editors and toward criticism, either explicit or implied, to be frustrating and divisive. I endorse Smallbones' proposed remedy as a way of allowing the work of the encyclopedia to proceed: no one editor should be able to disrupt basic article improvement initiatives or to affect what should be a dispassionate evaluation of articles and their state of development. Acroterion (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare, instead of spending so much time criticizing DevilsAdvocate's statement, why don't you first work through if what he is saying is true? Is Orlady following Doncram around Wikipedia and trying to find reasons to get him banned or bait him into reacting to her? If so, are you going to do anything about it? Please look at the evidence before picking a side. Cla68 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me simply remind the AE admins that this project has long experienced serious strife, with the singular exception of a period running from late December 2011 until late June 2012. Few or no problems occur in discussions in which Doncram is uninvolved (see the WT:NRHP thread on "Cedar Point Light"; we don't all agree, but it's calm and peaceful), but his actions and his methods of interacting with other users generally produce the problems. Language such as "egging another editor on" (without evidence) and characterisation of other editors' statements as "indictments" that are "pretty hurtful, and pretty immature, and pretty short-sighted" has persisted since before the Arbcom case, as has his pattern of bothering other users to the point that they take down useful resources when he's used those resources in a way that produces strife. This was the kind of stuff that was supposed to be stopped by the case's restrictions. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Waiting on Doncram's statement. Meanwhile, could the editors who ask for administrator action please recommend which action they deem appropriate, and why?  Sandstein  06:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The Devil's Advocate: There's a line and you're crossing it with "Many stalkers and harassers find ways to work their way into their target's everyday activities so they can provide an innocent cover for their actions." NW (Talk) 16:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Let's talk about what stalking is. It is not Wikipedia:Stalking. That term has been deprecated since 2005 for good reason, because it seriously trivializes abuse that actual real life victims must face. NW (Talk) 20:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to say that nobody is coming out of this looking good. Doncram's behaviour is in breach of the RFAR, and it does look like Orlady is following him. Then we have TTT and Crisco carrying on their dispute with each other here by proxy. Certainly the evidence is such that I suggest Doncram should be excluded from the NRHP area broadly construed for an indefinite period (and if the same argument re: classification of start or stub class articles begins elsewhere i would strongly advise him not to repeat this behaviour). Furthermore a two-way IBAN for Orlady and Doncram seems necessary. Certainly a one way IBAN can be issued to Doncram but we would need to go to WP:ARCA to see if the Committee would allow it to go two ways?
  However, I'd echo NW re: TDA's allegation of vendetta and stalking. There is a profound difference between cyberstalking and wikihounding. Using the term "stalking" for effect is not helpful in describing wikihounding and implies an element of criminal behaviour that is neither there nor appropriate to allege. There are legitimate concerns about Doncram's behavoiur (even expressed by those who agree with his points of argument) but I do think an IBAN would resolve many issues here--Cailil ^talk 13:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support a suitably-tailored restriction that would keep Doncram from undoing a Wikiproject consensus. User:Cailil's view that Doncram should be excluded from the entire NRHP area is one way of doing that. I suggest hearing from more people before the exact form of any restriction is decided. Arbcom already made Findings of Fact in the case about Doncram engaging in 'uncollegial behavior' and 'repeatedly creating articles with placeholder text and stubs with insufficient context..' They also banned him from making new submissions directly in article space. Revert warring on the rating of his own submissions certainly fits the pattern of behavior that Arbcom found fault with. It's reasonable that AE admins could adopt measures that are sufficient to keep these problems from continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Cailil that there is poor behavior all around.

• Orlady: In Orlady's request, several points of evidence are not diffs of edits by Doncram, but edits by somebody else, and in most cases it remains obscure to me how even the edits by Doncram could constitute sanctionable misconduct. There are many broad allegations, but little hard evidence. I'm open to evidence that her conduct constitutes wikihounding, but I don't find such evidence here (in the form: he makes edit A, she immediately follows up with edit B), and also this case does not contain remedies concerning conduct by editors other than Doncram and somebody who hasn't appeared here.
• Doncram: But the evidence of edit-warring by Doncram is clear, and this is sanctionable misconduct. A NRHP topic ban appears appropriate in reaction to it. I'm not a fan of overly elaborate restrictions like one that "would keep Doncram from undoing a Wikiproject consensus". Complicated restrictions are complicated to enforce. Also, that sounds like a content-based sanction, and we don't do content dispute resolution here.
• The Devil's Advocate: As Nuclear Warfare said, it is egregious misbehavior by The Devil's Advocate to accuse Orlady of what sounds like real-life stalking: "Many stalkers and harassers find ways to work their way into their target's everyday activities so they can provide an innocent cover for their actions." These are unacceptable personal attacks and aspersions, and a block appears in order in reaction to them (under normal admin authority, because the remedy covers Doncram only).

Essentially, this is, as depressingly usual on this page, just a bunch of people so tied up in their petty feuds that they lose all sense of scope and proportion. A round of bilateral interaction bans could help address this, but would not be covered by the remedy. Does anybody believe that an escalation to ArbCom to seek broader sanctions would help?  Sandstein  19:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact a ban of Doncram from NRHP topics is the obvious choice; I just wanted to leave it open what the best restriction was going to be. When I reviewed WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram I at first thought that Arbcom was deferring all the real decisions. But in fact, a read of the FOFs and the restrictions on Doncram gives a good feeling for their direction and intentions. It should be possible for the AE admins in September to enforce whatever thinking Arbcom had in March without an immediate return trip. Anyone who thinks that editors on the other side (such as Orlady) are likely to be restricted if the matter returns to the Committee won't be encouraged by reading the discusion of Orlady on the proposed decision page, including the comments left after each vote. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to agree that an indefinite topic ban on Doncram from NHRP related subjects, broadly construed, is going to be necessary here. I am, however, hesitant to find fault with Orlady. While her ANI filing about archiving the talk page was not the best judgment, there's already been a trout issued for that, and unless that can be shown to be a pattern, I'm not inclined to find such to be sanctionable (under normal admin authority, since the ArbCom decision authorized discretionary sanctions against only Doncram). It is generally not considered stalking to keep an eye on an editor's behavior when their edits have in fact been problematic, and I'd have to see more evidence of wrongdoing or ill intentions on Orlady's part beyond that to consider requesting sanctions from ArbCom. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doncram has not edited Wikipedia since 21 September, and there is no response to a message I left on his talk, inviting him to expand on his statement (as he indicated he might do). Should we go ahead and close this and make whatever decision is appropriate? EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]