From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Mystery Wolff[edit]

Mystery Wolf is topic banned from all things electronic cigarette for six months. Spartaz Humbug! 06:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Topic Ban struck on 22 December. Instead, Mystery Wolff is warned that further personalisation of editing disputes will lead to appropriate sanctions. There is no merit to the claim that MW is a sock. Spartaz Humbug! 08:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

Request concerning Mystery Wolff[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Mystery Wolff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#4.3.2 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [12/3/2015 Disruptive talk page section on other editors.
  2. [[1] 12/6/2015] Disruptive talk page section on other editors.
  3. [[2] 12/5/1015] Disruptive talk page section on other editors.
  4. 12/6/2015 Wholesale reverts to stop article improvement
  5. 12/6/2015 Wholesale reverts to stop article improvement

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 11/29/2015

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Mystery Wolf is an WP:SPA. All of this editors edits save one have been in the topic or closely related [3]. This new editor which started editing November 11th has a good grasp of wikipedia syntax even being able to ping other users. Knew what was proper for the lede of an article within two days and used the "lede" spelling [4]. Within 4 days of starting knew the best format for a reference. [5] Has become protectionist over QuackGuru's edits and the specific wording used and understands "undue weight" a very experienced concept. [6] [7] His editing times match up pretty well when comparing his and QG both not editing after 14:00 and starting again about 22:00 UTC. Has opened multiple talk page section in an effort to stop improvement of the article and keep edits in place from QuackGuru [8][9][10] These sections have disrupted the articles talk page. Mystery Wolff has been informed of he correct DS locations [11][12][13] and was even offered to have a section started for them if they lacked the knowledge to do so. [14] But has continued to disrupt the page [15] instead of seeking DS.

Since the possibility of sockpuppets was brought up in the e-cig case, and seeing the advanced knowledge of Mystery Wolff a checkuser is requested. In any event if not a sock they are a disruptive SPA and should be stopped from adding to the disruption.AlbinoFerret 18:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel There have been no other sanctions against this user, I have removed the section. I have also removed all of the other ways of notifying except the one that is applicable and has a date/diff. AlbinoFerret 14:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian and S Marshaall. One things concerns me is the amount of knowledge Mystery Wolff has of the events long before his editing. "UK sockpuppets sniffed out" [16] refers to the investigation of FergusM1970 [17] how a new editor found this information is a very curious question. AlbinoFerret 20:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Mystery Wolff has changed the name of this section.[18]AlbinoFerret 14:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

12/8/2015 Mystery Wolff removes tags calling them vandalism [19] when the tags are replaced, removes them again [20] Assumes bad faith on the talk page in relation to the tags.[21] Misapplication of vandalism and citing it as an excuse instead of its purpose. Since he assumes they are going to be deleted, how can this be vandalism? AlbinoFerret 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz Mystery Wolff has not stopped editing, just slowed down. They made an edit to the talk page today, that is borderline ABF. [22] AlbinoFerret 19:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff continues his ABF off topic posts, this one on a specific edit. It looks like he is not going to oppose anything S Marshall proposes from the wording of this post. [23] AlbinoFerret 14:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I still believe that it is possible that Mystery Wolff is a sock of some kind. This post [24] shows advanced opinions, not something that is normal in an editor with a month or less of editing. AlbinoFerret 01:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Mystery Wolff[edit]

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.

Statement by Mystery Wolff[edit]

Archived to address feedback by Gamaliel below Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Archived to address 2nd feedback by Gamaliel below. (All the points remain valid) Mystery Wolff (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Text archived for TLDR concerns. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

To the specific allegations. All of which DO NOT explain how there is any Violation. A requirement. That alone should kick it out.

1. This is a talk page talking about the ALERT, edits, how to proceed, forming consensus. Besides asserting TLDR I do not understand the issue.
2. This a section where I responded to a direct question from EdJohnston. I responded, he ASKED me to wind it down....I did, we agreed to collapse the section. What is the issue?
3. Exactly the same as #2. Its already collapsed. Am I to guess how these edits in TALK violate anything?
4. This is a revert I did. Here is the exact edit summary "(Undid revision 693989905 by S Marshall (talk) Wordsmithing is changing the context improperly. Poor grammar on rewordings. Agree on removal of Drug items however, just not in a slew of others)" ---- I stand by that, I DO NOT SEE ANY ISSUE? What did I do wrong, per AlbinoFerret??????
5. Same as above, but with this Edit summary "(Undid revision 693990051 by S Marshall (talk) Edits change the context and importance of the citations, replaced with the POV of the editor, with undue weights. REVERTED)" It removed the citation source "The Report states" and replaces it as fact, and then does other dilutive edits
Mystery Wolff (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


I am unclear on the ongoing process of this AE. Of the 5 objections, I have responded to all 5. I done everything in order to not push changes into the LIVE page, and was careful to not edit war. Because an editor can edit 10+ times a day, and another only revert 2, an aggressive editor can push the article. While this may be an option for all, and perhaps the feedback to me just to BOLDly edit the live page, I refrained and kept my dialogue in the Talk pages, in order to have a stable LIVE page. Here is an example of some of the changes that were started in the LIVE page and moved back to talk. I have nothing to do with QuackGuru. I am not a sockpuppet as EdJohnston required I respond to in the TALK page, and which AlbinoFerret is asserting here in this complaint. As Popeye will attest, I am what I am and that's all I am. I believe I have addressed the concerns, but perhaps there is a process I am not aware of? Immediately after I asked for Full Protection in TALK, (taking up EdJohnston's suggestion in TALK), this AE was noticed to me on my Talk page by AlbinoFerret. The section above this subsection is that request. As it seems that request will not get attention in this venue, please collapse it. What else is required for this process. What else can I answer? (ping in reply) Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Upon reading the most recent updates in involved administrator's section, I do want to clarify. I do accept feedback. I have not stopped editing. After my last post in this AE section I spent 4 hours on Dec 9 updating the Article. The edits were reasoned, and researched, with detailed explanations within edit summary. None has been reverted. The logic was simply not be afraid, edit properly.
I have responded to all 5 charges at me here, and the Submitter has not responded to any of them. Its been alleged that I am a sockpuppet in this AE, without any investigation and with ongoing innuendo.
There is an old saying after baseless charges. "Where do I go to get my good name back?" I do not want to see this case closed to be in the pocket of ANY specific administrator. I already had AlbinoFerret, come on my talk page, warn me he would open an AE, talked about WP boomerangs, and then opened this AE. I believe there should be a determination, because if not the AE process will not be of use.
I can answer more questions, I can back up my actions, I will take feedback. But I don't want concerns about me being flushed onto an Admins Talk page. That is not what all the WP process information links say should be done.
I again ask this case be closed as false, and unwarranted. Go ahead and investigate, ask AlbinoFerret to respond to my replies. Administrators should not resolve it temporary, by asking for their talk pages to be part of a new process.
Please disposition the AE, close it. I want my good name back. What other information can I provide? Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This AE asserts I am a sockpuppet, and other false items, nonetheless, I have taken feedback I have heard here, specifically to TLDR, not using a previous ARB decision to be the basis of a new request (re:Full Protection), letting various process proceed without well as other feedback learned from. All the complaints (if not all nearly all) have been regarding the TALK page. That is no accident. I have been BOLDly editing TALK to the favor of protecting the live page from wild swings of content and only doing proper edits, I believe that is correct process. I can address any of my actions, explain any of my edits, but what I see is a constant flow of items from the requester AlbinoFerret being folded in. I can not keep up with the charges and innuendo...if AlbinoFerret still thinks I am a sockpuppet, it should be searched, if he does should be withdrawn out of this AE. I can no keep up with each of my actions being accused of being AE worthy, and posted here-----> I will wait Admin direction on what I need to do next, or respond to, or do (if anything). Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Responding to AlbinoFerret's newest assertions: I continue to edit properly, my edits are reviewed and modified by others and let stand. Some of the reviews are by people who have duties in WikiMedical Projects. An inquisitive mind should not be subject to an Inquisition. I have read ARBs related EC article. They are very long. I learn from reading. While Wikipedia is likely the most successful and broadest collaborative writing system ever. It is not the only one, and WP has lot of directions to read. You have to read them because acronyms are tossed around terribly, but they are at least hyperlinked. I happen to be 100% sure I am not a sock. There are 4 allegations because one is circular pointing to this very AE page. This AE is regarding a general unspecific (generic) Alert to all editors of the Article. Even regarded as assumed worse case, those edits do not violate the Alert.
  • To the statement of S Marshall, he alleges he has written to my talk page once, and was not responded to. That is not the case. As he says I archived it, I do not understand how he can represent that error. Here is that archived exchange, which also features the originator of this AE, AlbinoFerret.. The message was for me to not edit until QuackGuru was banned. Something that S Marshall was sure would occur. I referenced an ARB that I read, (this is on the 28th) which should explain some of the reasons why I know things, vs sockpuppet allegations because I benefit from that reading. I reply, S Marshal replies again. And then AlbinoFerret echos S Marshall hand in hand, that I wait for QuackGuru to be banned. QuackGuru is banned, and being uncomfortable with the entire exchange I archive it. This AE was started in response to my asking for Full Protection of the article. My edits to the article remain unchallenged except for one revert regarding tagging controverted 10+ times, is the Smoke Cessation section, which S Marshall is currently asking for drastic changes to. Why S Marshall knew that administrators would ban QuackGuru I do not know.
  • The 29th was a very active day. AlbinoFerret posted on my Talk page about MEDRS, QuackGuru jumped onto that, I noticed that QuackGuru is asserting I am sockpuppet on SMcCandlish Talk page(an involved participant of the Alert being cited in this AE) , as well as strategizing with QuackGuru on the ARB. I post on SMcCanlish's talk informing them both that I am not SockPuppet. SMcCandlish asserts that he did not say that. Then SMcCandlish requested to Lankiveil TALK that the Alert be posted on my Talk page, and L235 did the follow-through on my Talk. In SMcCandlish request to Lankiveil he asserts I am sockpuppet etc. Sockpuppet again is the basis of this complaint by AlbinoFerret. Ultimately EdJohnston requires I answer the sockpuppet, how you know that, questions in the TALK page itself, which I do. After that ackward self defense I was required to do on the TALK page, it goes to this AE. EdJohnston congizant that ARTICLE edits are not in question, and only TALK items which he was directly involved with...SUGGESTS to All other Admins in the "uninvolved admin section", that I get banned for 6 months, without any basis. To which perhaps I should cower. References provided upon request, I am not embellishing. If admins want to know why I looked up things...its because THESE are the FIRST THINGS being put on my Talk page. I hope there is no rule about required to be happy about being halled into an AE.
  • @AlbinoFerret: please complete whatever your AE request is, finalize it, you can not update the request daily. Mystery Wolff (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by S Marshall[edit]

We don't know if this editor is a single-purpose account or not yet. He has ~150 edits and has had his account for a couple of weeks. On the one hand, it might not seem necessary to open an AE request because this editor has pinged everyone in arbcom and everyone who's tried enforcing. Twice now. I think we can assume the AE sysops already have this on the radar.

But on the other hand I do think this is a good idea. He clearly has an issue with me personally, and he needs to be given a forum to express that in. This venue is a better place than Talk:Electronic cigarette, so let's make this a welcoming place for him and encourage him to make all his points in full right here.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Will it be in order for me to respond to Mystery Wolff here? This might spark a back-and-forth discussion that isn't normal at AE, but I hope the AE sysops will indulge that for the time being. He and I haven't actually had the conversations about this which experienced editors would have before we get to arbitration enforcement; in fact he's never edited User talk:S Marshall and my only edit to User talk:Mystery Wolff was archived without comment.

    On a personal level I don't think that Mystery Wolff is a sockpuppet or a new incarnation of a banned editor. I find his floundering with process and appeals to authority to be authentic and convincing for someone who's unaccustomed to Wikipedia. It's authentic for someone who's accustomed to academic rigour in writing and having some personal authority over how material is edited.

    If this was QuackGuru returned, then he would know how it always ends when people with three weeks' editing history appeal to authority for help managing established editors' behaviour. QG was always canny with process and he has zero history of sockpuppetry. I'm sure this isn't him. Mystery Wolff wants to discuss what I'm doing and analyse it; he wants this to happen before I'm allowed to do it; and he asks for this as if it was perfectly normal and natural. This is an academic writer who expects to be in charge. Education rather than enforcement is the answer here.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I take it back. This editor is making several accusatory posts about me every day, full of bizarre allegations about my so-called "agenda" and he won't speak to me directly. I can't work with him.—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian[edit]

I have absolutely no opinion on the underlying dispute, but I agree with S Marshall that this doesn't look like a sock of an experienced user. It looks like an overenthusiastic new user. It is not surprising that some editor who knows about the topic will find a ton of things wrong with a Wikipedia article, and try to fix them all at once. Hell, this is my normal feeling whenever I see any article about which I have nonzero knowledge.

I see too many walls of text, but a basically good faith discussion in the talk page section. A lot of the section is simply them being confused by Wikipedia bureaucracy. The basic point is this: the edits by S Marshall were consequential, and it is perfectly proper to object to them, giving reasons. They were not simply copyediting. I would simply remind the editor of WP:AGF. It is more precious than ever in contentious areas, and the key to avoiding many misunderstandings. Also WP:TLDR, which is the iron law of the internet. Kingsindian   19:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel's statement that they are quarreling with AnomieBOT is incorrect. They are quarreling with the previous edit of S Marshall, which MW reverted in two parts (part1, part2) because AnomieBOT had an intermediate edit. Of course, S Marshall's edit was not vandalism, though it involved a lot of tagging. S Marshall reverted MW's edit providing their justification, and MW did not edit-war over it, but opened a talk page section, where many people actually agreed with MW's position.
More generally, I see the topic ban proposal as WP:BITE. MW's complaints have to do with the pace of editing on the page, which they expressed in confused language and actions due to not being familiar with WP:BURO. Another editor has also expressed the same concern in this section; part of the problem is caused by MW, but partly because the pace of editing was too fast. It is unfortunate that WP:AE is reaching for the ban-hammer because every problem looks like a nail. Kingsindian   22:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark[edit]

Following the removal of one obstructionist editor from the topic, a deluge of edits began. Mystery saw this as taking unfair advantage of the situation, but its actually the positive outcome that was hoped for. We do not need someone else to take up the obstructionist banner to keep the article from improving too much or too fast. I've looked at SM's edits, and the complaint that he is twisting context doesn't hold water. They're just deconvoluting tortured grammar. There are a few cases where SM regarded grammar as too poor to fix and removed an entire properly-sourced claim. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I advise SM not to do that. Both sides should better focus on trying to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Rhoark (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tracy Mc Clark[edit]

In response to Gamaliel: A simple but strict "discuss content, not the editor" with serious consequenses if not followed should do.--TMCk (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Strike as it is clear by now that it won't work.--TMCk (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by SPACKlick[edit]

It's clear Mystery Wolff's actions are disruptive and that they're not absorbing advice given to them about how to express there concerns, or what venue to do it in. I cannot find one instance of them discussing the content of an edit on a talk page, whether at the article or of an editor, they have simply decided S Marshall should be banned. I still have concerns of some form of Sock/Meat puppetry here given their detailed knowledge of arcane bits of wikipedia but claiming "it's my first day" as an excuse repeatedly for misusing process. MW has been given enough rope and either some firm education or a reprimand is needed. SPACKlick (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Johnbod[edit]

Was this notified to the EC talk page? I have only just become aware. Mystery Wolff's editing style, both on the article and talk, is very different from Quack Guru's. His edits to both are rather erratic and not especially helpful most of the time, but on the whole I don't think he should be topic banned. His talk comments are often long, wild, personalized and also rather unclear. Stripped of that, his underlying position is not in itself an extreme one, as far as I can see. I still hope he will calm down and begin to express himself more clearly and concisely. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Mystery Wolff[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @AlbinoFerret: The links under "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any" do not appear to be working. Also a number of links under "If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)" Gamaliel (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mystery Wolff: Your statement does not address the matter at hand. Can you provide something that either addresses the substance of the request against you or explains why this is "an abuse of process" according to Wikipedia policy? Please do not include personal reflections or opinions such as those in your statement above. Gamaliel (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an unorthodox suggestion, but what do other admins think about imposing a daily word limit on the talk page for Mystery Wolff? It seems like only a quarter of the text they post is directly relevant. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd be against a complex sanction that might result in further dispute about adherence to the sanction. We should expect that new participants on a difficult topic like Electronic cigarette would be cooperative and diplomatic, and they would be able to express themselves clearly on talk pages. If such a user is inexperienced they should wait to get feedback from others before changing the article. (The combination of aggressive and uninformed can have bad results). It appears that User:Mystery Wolff doesn't meet those expectations. He is likely to use up even more space on admin boards the longer he continues to be active about this. I favor a six-month ban of User:Mystery Wolff from the topic of electronic cigarettes on all pages of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This editor just got into an argument with AnomieBOT. Wow. Concur with the topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Mystery Wolf - can you please stop misusing the ping function. I have a watchlist and am perfectly capable of noticing if there is something going on that I want to involve myself in. Now that I am here, its pretty clear that Mystery Wolf is disrupting the page with their ongoing demands that the article only be edited in a way that they approve of. I'm not seeing any malice or intent to misbehave, its just that they do not know enough about how this place ticks to understand how to act collaboratively in this high tension area. If this continues or Mystery Wolf cannot accept that they need to learn to how work within our norms then I can't see any alternative to a topic ban but I'd prefer to see Mystery Wolf consider the feedback they are getting here and think about their approach. If we can see a prospect of some improvement I'd be minded to give them a chance to try again. If not, well, I guess our hands are tied. Spartaz Humbug! 23:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Noting that Mystery Wolff has stopped editing. There probably is no need to enact anything unless he returns and causes further disruption so I'm minded to close this and leave it to affected parties to drop me a note on my talk if there are problems in the future. Spartaz Humbug! 10:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Noting that MW is back and resuming personalised commentary on proposed changes. This is clearly disruptive and I'm afraid that we need to enact the topic ban. Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • In reviewing my close of this, it looks like I have misread some date stamps and edits after MW took a short break are not actionable. I do think there is no doubt that their earlier conduct was problematic but they do seem to be improving their interactions. Consequently the TB I imposed is unfair and not proportionate to the improved conduct. I have therefore lifted the TBan and replaced it was a final warning about personalising disputes. Spartaz Humbug! 08:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


CFCF is formally warned that any further instances of reverting other users enacting a consensus will result in sanctions. They are reminded that discussion not reverting is the correct way to resolve a dispute. They should note that any edit that undoes another user's edit is a revert and are reminded that 1RR or not, undoing a consensus change is clear disruption.Spartaz Humbug! 08:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

Request concerning CFCF[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
AlbinoFerret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#4.3.1 :
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles#4.3.6 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 12/18/2015 Replacement of table removed during reorganization and merge.
  2. 12/18/2015 Forum shopping and canvassing.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 11/17/2015
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

A discussion on sub articles in the e-cigarette articles happened here.[25] Where it was pointed out that one of the sub articles was a coatrack not on its topic. A merge discussion was started by me, during which CFCF opposed the plan. The discussion was closed by an uninvolved admin with consensus for the plan.[26] I carried out the plan. CFCF, without further discussion, and in violation of the arbcom warning to discuss reverted part of the move.[27] When I reverted it back to remove duplication CFCF instead of discussing it on the articles talk page went to WikiProject Medicine and started a section with a non neutral post.[28] and continued to argue in that section with false information trying to make his case. This is forum shopping, trying to undo part of the merge discussion that was closed against his position. This is disruptive behaviour. AlbinoFerret 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


The merge discussion laid out that there would be a moving of safety information from Aerosol to Safety. That was done in accordance with the closed merge discussion, it was merged back to Safety of electronic cigarettes. Nothing was removed from WP, the 4000bits mentioned by CFCF were not deleted but moved here.[29] Since it was toxicological information it was placed in the Toxicology section of Safety. The post on Wikiproject medicine is indeed canvassing, it is non neutral and aimed at getting editors who agree with him to involve themselves. Had CFCF made a post requesting more eyes on the topic it would have been fine. But the non neutral post favors his desired outcome. Seeking to reagrue the case in the merge discussion is forum shopping, this post by CFCF is a personal attack [30] AlbinoFerret 16:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Its just plain sad that Alexbrn has decided to dredge up a now 8 month old ANI section. In this case I have done my best to follow what should be done. Discussed, gained consensus, waited for the close, then carried out the consensus. What Alexbrn doesnt have is a single diff of any wrongdoing on my part in the case at hand. I will alss point out that the main complaint in that section is that I was over involved in the topic area. Since returning from a self ban I have involved myself in other topics. Including posting here on different topics and continuing as a NAC with about 236 closes to date. AlbinoFerret 17:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Addressing Doc James question of "removal of all safety information" I will point out that while some things were removed to Safety. What replaced it is a long standing section from the Safety of electronics article. Its all "safety information, the move and merge did not remove safety information byt placed on topic safety information on the page. This was replaced on the Safety page by a summery (the lede of the Aerosol page). So to say that all "safety" information was removed is false. AlbinoFerret 17:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

S Marshall, I did not bring CFCF here for violating the 1RR, but violating the warning he received from arbcom. I believe lack of discussion before reverting is the reason for the separate warning. He did not discuss his revert any place, as the warning required. Reverting without discussion was pointed out to be as much of a problem in the arbcom case as the reverting itself. I am opposed to changing the 1RR on CFCF because of the reverting without discussion in this case that the arbcom remedies required. AlbinoFerret 17:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to CFCF's latest statement here [31] he did revert. Here is my edit that removed the table from the article.[32] Here is his edit replacing it.[33] While CFCF should be aware of what a revert is, I direct him to WP:3RR Where we find the definition of a revert "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." True, it was a partial revert, but a revert none the less. The so called discussion is a link to the closed merge discussion, that isnt discussing the material before reverting it. That is discussing the merge to begin with, with no mention that he was going to revert. AlbinoFerret

Spartaz the table was not self reverted by CFCF. I removed it when the merge was done,[34] then CFCF replaced it.[35] I then removed it again.[36] AlbinoFerret 13:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc and Spartaz, A comment by CFCF that this is his single edit to the articles is simply untrue. In fact one of them was a revert of tags[37] placed by S Marshall.[38] While the discussion was ongoing.[39] The revert happened before he posted to the discussion on the tags.[40] AlbinoFerret 14:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

CFCF now points out that he has made 2 edits to the articles. Both reverts without discussing before doing them. This was also a part of the pattern discussed at arbcom. CFCF doesnt normally edit the articles to add content, his edits are overwhelmingly reverts and imho acting like an overseer reverting things he doesnt agree with. AlbinoFerret 14:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notice [41]

Discussion concerning CFCF[edit]

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.

Statement by CFCF[edit]

Informing concerned parties, including those parties that bear interest in retaining factual information in the article is not forumshopping. I normally post about different concerns of objectionable edits or topics which need looking at on the WikiProject Medicine Talk Page several times weekly, as do many others. My post asked nothing beyond increased scrutiny and "more eyes" directed towards the merge. It is nonsense to suggest that this act of trying to get more people to engage to be disruptive—and this filing is utterly disruptive in that it tries to imply one may not inform anyone beyond the very small group of editors who already engage in the ecig article base. It serves to "scare away" any editor who is not of the mindset of the AlbinoFerret, and whether AlbinoFerret agrees with my analysis of the situation and wishes to paint my message as non-neutral is beside the point—that is his value judgement.

The edits in question were not a simple merge, but resulted in the deletion of a significant portion of content of ~4000bits. I informed WT:MED about this, and other editors such as Alexbrn agreed that this was not Edit: to be expected of an ordinary merge. I also tried to engage in discussion with AlbinoFerret to explain how WP:COATRACK is an essay as opposed to the section on Wikipedia:Keeping summary sections and detailed articles synchronized which is a guideline, but this is ignored in this filing.

Neither of the diffs provided provide any evidence of infarction upon discretionary sanctions, and I find it very concerning that they are made out to do so. The first is evidence of a content dispute, and the second is evidence of trying to improve the discussion by bringing in uninvolved third party editors. I can not imagine how informing the community of medical editors can be assumed to decrease the quality of discussion. CFCF 💌 📧 15:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC) 

Filing gratuitous reports has been a widely employed tactic on these articles, and scaring away editors is extremely damaging to the quality of discourse—and I hope this can be dealt with appropriately.CFCF 💌 📧 16:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Also to clarify to users below, no reverts were made on my part, all that was done was that some content from a previous iteration was restored—and considerable discussion was present before I made any edit at all (see [42]). Your arguments amount to no edits being allowed from my part, which is definitely not the case. CFCF 💌 📧 23:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
S Marshall—I did not revert the merge, I restored content that was lost in the merge. I found the removal of safety information here to be problematic, which is also what I've expressed. I am not anti-electric cigarettes, but I believe that whatever we present on the topic should be balanced and adhere to the best possible evidence. If I come of as anti-ecig it is only in contrast to some very pro-ecig editors. The removal of any safety information should have been discussed. CFCF 💌 📧 00:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc—This is the edit in question: [43] which I would considerer ordinary editing protocol as part of part of a large merge. It followed at 25000 byte change to the article [44] and is very minor in comparison. I did not revert the merge. I had also previously expressed concerns about removing the safety sections from the article here:[45], so it is by no accounts true that I did not engage in discussion, going so far as to point it out early when I saw the draft at [46]—this concern was not only ignored, but left entirely unanswered.
(Note also how I pointed out the exact edits to his sandbox that I later restored to the full merge version: [47],[48], [49])
Neither do I believe the edit this should be considered a revert, nor do I recall being warning not to engage in editing of the article set without first informing about each and every thing I would do. This is in my view by all accounts an ordinary edit and not a revert. Also I may add that this is my single edit over a period of several months on these articles.—Issuing a warning is the same as saying these articles should not be edited at all by me and that I should not object to any edits by AlbinoFerret—a de facto topic ban, which is not what was assigned.CFCF 💌 📧 09:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Response to administrator comments[edit]

Callanecc—I had missed AlbinoFerrets responses, but I can attest that discussion concerning these exact sections occurred in this diff [50]CFCF 💌 📧 10:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And note that the revert of the page move was in error—I restored it in under 2 minutes when I saw that there had been an independent close. I saw that I had been rash and restored myself without comment from any other editor, and according to WP:EDITWAR self-reverts are not counted. The reason I contest calling the other edit a revert is because I did not restore to a previous version at any point, but regardless I have never been subject to a 0RR rule, and I have engaged in discussion. CFCF 💌 📧 11:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Spartaz—Please note I did not revert the merge for more than one minute, see the two edits [51][52] less than two minutes between them. This edit was wrong, and I also saw this at once, restoring as soon as I could (there was no intervening comment by any editor in this time). The resulting edit as made by me was only a 4000 byte restoring of content to the article [53]. CFCF 💌 📧 11:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Responses to AlbinoFerret[edit]

Response to AlbinoFerret (Spartaz), I never stated that the table was self-reverted, I readded it and you reverted that, yes. As for the tag removal I had forgotten about that single edit [54], I removed those tags, took part in the discussion, performing a single edit. Later other editors engaged and the result of the discussion is that the tags are no longer there.
This still amounts to two edits over a period of two months on my part, which is not any high volume of editing, and definitely not disruptive. CFCF 💌 📧 14:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC) 

  • Yes, I have made two edits to the articles in the past 2 months—both times engaging in discussion, and on this specific occasion you were well aware of this discussion (relinked the diff I posted above which specifically singles out the edits you made which I objected to [55])—though you did not respond to my concerns. Neither did the close cover the removal of information which I tried to make you aware of.
The earlier edit a few weeks ago was part of a discussion involving the section Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Smoking cessation in which I took part in what I see as a constructive collaboration with S Marshall, and where he expressed it as such. As there was discussion ongoing which I and others were taking part in and active work towards improving the article I removed the tags, while also stating my intent and rationale. Seeing as much content on the page is somewhat dynamic it is difficult to change anything if one is never considered to perform a single revert—and I would not have considered any of the edits I made to be full-scale reverts. I believe I have done my best if not well enough to engage in discussion and consensus building on both these occasions—pointing out what my concerns are, giving proper edit summaries, and not reverting after any of my edits have been reverted. CFCF 💌 📧 15:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Alexbrn[edit]

As CFCF mentioned I did comment on this at WT:MED, but to be strictly accurate I only set out what I would generally expect to happen: I haven't examined the details of this particular merge (in general these are articles I am pleased to stay away from).

I think both editors agree that the merge should not have lost information. One is saying information was lost, the other that it wasn't. Which is it? Given that AlbinoFerret has already tried the patience of the community in this topic area,[56] I would hope the merge was executed with scrupulous neutrality.

I don't think a single posting to a noticeboard can count as WP:CANVASSING. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Doc James[edit]

So a merge is the moving of content from one article into the other. I guess the question is was there "removal of nearly all safety information"?

The merge was poorly done [57]. It does not say which content from which articles was merged and thus is not sufficient per CC BY SA.

Need to look into it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

S Marshall[edit]

CFCF's on 1RR but not 0RR. He hasn't broken the letter of his restrictions. Decisions since the Arbcom case concluded have removed two obstructionist editors, and that's changing the dynamic of the page; so it's particularly important to allow the strongly e-cig-skeptic side to retain a voice here. CFCF is looking increasingly like King Canute when the tide started to roll in, but I think it's important to allow him space to dissent.

I'm personally of the view that with both QG and MW topic-banned, it's now time to relax CFCF's 1RR restriction. Part of the problem is that his 1RR is a trap for him: the article has improved so rapidly since the bannings that his only way to ensure compliance with the 1RR would be to go through dozens of edits line by line. It's a little too harsh now, I think, in view of recent events.

However, I don't think WT:MEDRS is the right place to go for support. E-cigs are not therapies or medical devices; they're relevant to the medical profession in the same way as alcohol is, but I think the extremely strongly medical approach that's been taken with the article to date has distorted its contents. There's such a huge disconnect between what the article says and what the vaping community expects it to say, that I'm not surprised the article has historically attracted SPAs.

I think CFCF was a bit unwise to unilaterally revert the merge, though. He continues to show a great deal of faith in his own judgment.—S Marshall T/C 17:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • With my last two edits I believe I've fully addressed any licensing issues.—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to confirm that CFCF has engaged in constructive dialogue on the page. I think his participation there since the Arbcom case has been a net positive for the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


CFCF was warned to discuss with the opposing editor before reverting.[58] He did not do so before reverting AlbinoFerret's page move or restoring the contested content. That alone is actionable, regardless of whether there are legitimate objections to AlbinoFerret's edits.

This is a gestalt impression that unfortunately is not easily illustrated through diffs, but I very much get a sense that CFCF regards the MED project as his posse. I often feel that project giving off a WP:OWNership vibe, so I don't think going there can be excused as neutrally notifying an interested community - especially since he bypassed the article talk page and went to MED directly.

It should also be noticed that the merge had been the closing consensus of an uninvolved administrator in an RfC with ample participation.[59] This is starting to look like a pattern, as CFCF was edit warring against the close of another RfC in November.[60] That's mitigated somewhat by being a poor close, but still there's a defined process for challenging a close, and it doesn't involve edit warring.

I think this ultimately stems from CFCF's attitude that he is so obviously right that consensus must be on his side, or else that consensus is superfluous. Nowhere is this more apparent than when he was edit warring on the MEDRS guideline itself to make it agree with his position in a content dispute.[61][62] Besides ArbCom's finding of CFCF edit warring on e-cigs, digging through ANI finds CFCF edit warring on at least 6 other articles outside the e-cig area in the latter half of this year.

I don't particularly care what is done about CFCF within e-cig discretionary sanctions, but someone needs to put him over their knee and convince him he's not the King of Wikipedia. Rhoark (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

CFCF's latest replies are absolutely typical of what I've come to expect of him. As evidence of having met the requirement of talking before reverting, he presents... the fact he participated in the RfC prior it closing against him. And then he wasn't really reverting against the RfC... it was some other kind of undoing, according to special pleading I don't really follow. This is exactly like the MEDRS guideline situation where he insisted he wasn't changing it, just making it agree better with what it was really supposed to mean all along. He seems unable to grasp why anyone else's opinions should ever impinge on his editing. Rhoark (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


I closed the RfC which was not difficult, consensus was clear albeit with a relatively small number of opinions, and both sides of the long-running dispute were represented. I think it would be wise for AlbinoFerret to let someone else perform the merge, or at least to start a separate discussion on how to merge the contents. There's no rush. I find it hard to see CFCF's actions as anything other than entirely predictable pushback for a merge performed by a partisan, one which brought a relatively small proportion of the sub-article content to the main article. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


CFCF was warned in the recently closed Arb case to consult the other editor before making a revert in the topic area and restricted to 1RR every 72 hours. CFCF is continuing to engage in the behavior that resulted in Arb imposing strict editing restrictions on him.

His response does not indicate a willingness to take the community's and Arbs' concerns on board.

It might be appropriate at this point to begin graduating blocks or topic bans. Minor4th 22:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning CFCF[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Given that CFCF was reminded to contact the editor they are in dispute with before resorting to reverting and then reverted an edit which was enacting a consensus rather than try to discuss it with either the editor they are in dispute with or on a talk page. That CFCF didn't believe it to be enacting the consensus and so immediately reverted without discussing is exactly the problem. If it were urgent that it be reverted I'd be willing to consider that a partial defence. Regarding what sanction is to be imposed, I'm on the fence between a warning that anything further like this will result a topic ban, or imposing 0RR Edit: (and ban on a reverting page moves). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Reverting the page move should also be considered, while not specifically covered by 1RR it suggests a wider pattern of action without discussion. I can't see in any of the links CFCF gave above of where they attempted to discuss AlbinoFerret's merge before reverting it. Justifying it as "very minor in comparison" also makes me concerned that CFCF believes this type of action to be appropriate even after being warned/reminded by ArbCom. Regarding whether CFCF 'reverted' or not WP:3RR says An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert and Help:Reverting says Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version so I'm comfortable in calling it a revert. The fact that CFCF brought up the issue during the RfC and there was either consensus against or it wasn't included in the close (I'm not making a judgement either way) makes me lean towards 0RR and a ban on a reverting page moves (or TBAN) rather than a warning. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm minded to go with a final warning at this stage but am a bit on the fence about it. I think Guy's point that the merge could be seen to be partisan is a mitigating factor but it would certainly have been better for CFCF to added the content they disputed being left out rather than reverting the merge. Spartaz Humbug! 11:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks to CFCF for clarification. I don't think we should punish for a self revert but the conduct was still disruptive. As such a final warning seems germane. Spartaz Humbug! 11:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I think this has now reached an impasse. Callanecc is minded to impose a sanction and I am minded to extend a final warning. Can we please have further eyes on this or is Callanecc willing to settle for a final warning at this stage? Spartaz Humbug! 09:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm happy with a logged final warning which includes the issues we both raised. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


Vergilden and jps are each warned for 1RR violation. A 1RR notice has been posted at Talk:Precautionary principle. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

===Request concerning Vergilden=== }}

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Vergilden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log (Been here since 2010-11-11.)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced



Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
1RR violation at Precautionary principle
  1. 06:53, December 18
  2. 07:26, December 18
  3. 08:40, December 18
  • Also previously engaged in single reverts here[63][64] and here[65] after previously having their content removed and being told they need to use the talk page to reach consensus per WP:BRD and not revert further. Notification of 1RR occurred after this specific incident, but before the Dec 18 reverts.

Genetically modified organism

  • Content added by them removed,[66] but they revert back in.[67] Removed by a second editor[68] and reinserted again in the same 24 hour period.[69]
General edit warring

Genetically modified food controversies

  • Makes controversial change to say there is no scientific consensus on GMOs, is reverted and asked to come to talk page.[70] Reverts again anyways.[71]
  • Another case of adding content[72], being reverted[73], and simply reverting back[74] instead of trying to reach consensus at the talk page.

Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms

  • Adds content that is removed [75]. Immediately reverts it back in.[76]
Notice of discretionary sanctions

18:00, December 14 for general sanctions, and specifically of 1RR [77]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The overall problem with this editor is that they add controversial content, and when they are reverted specifically asking them to go to the talk page and not revert, they revert anyways. This has been a common trend in all their recent edits in the last few days across multiple pages, so they did not technically violate 1RR until today. Vergilden is a newish editor (~200 edits), but has been made aware of what edit warring is and protocol when their edits are reverted.[78]. Most of the time no attempt at talk page discussion occurs in the above reverts or their edits are in direct opposition to an ongoing talk discussion to keep reinserting the content.[79]. In addition to the recent 1RR violation, this general edit warring behavior was specifically said to be covered under the discretionary sanctions by the drafting Arb at the case.[80] Reviewing the edit summaries in the diffs should also show the combative edit warring language cover by discretionary sanctions in addition to the 1RR violation.

In addition, this editor is a WP:SPA, where all of their edits (barring a handful of minor edits) are related to adding content related to sources from Nassim Taleb or recently by proxy his views on GMOs. I don't see any evidence of WP:COI, but there does appear to be strong advocacy on the topic associated with being an SPA such as hyperbole about censoring when trying to explain reliable sourcing or resorting to personal attacks when someone doesn't agree with them such as calling me a "jobsworth"[81]. Comments seen in this conversation[82][83] are WP:COATRACK arguments that go beyond typical new editor problems and are more in line with SPA problems. This is especially after reading their initial statement above trying to argue their content on GMOs doesn't apply to sanctions here since it's on the precautionary principle page (even after multiple warnings).

I'll also note that jps has had multiple reverts on precautionary principle, but they had not been alerted to the discretionary sanctions prior to their recent edits. They now have a notice on their talk page.[84]

Given that editors have tried to slow Vergilden down and stop this behavior with no improvement and continued inflammation of the topic, this is the only available option now. A block could be justified both under the ArbCom sanctions for edit warring and as described by WP:SPA. I wouldn't suggest a block if not for the SPA aspect, but a topic ban for GMOs and topics relating to Nassim Taleb would hopefully alleviate the issue too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Minor4th, I'm going to have to ask that you stop mischaracterizing my warning on 1RR as you've made multiple posts here directly contradicted by it now.[85] In the last paragraph, I specifically mentioned 1RR and that associated with the discretionary sanctions, they could be blocked or topic-banned. To say it's not part of the "official" warning template is silly considering I had to specify the topic was under 1RR instead of 3RR. The combination of the main ds notice, 3RR template and manually warning about 1RR within the ArbCom case sanctions was what we had at the time as I don't believe many (including myself) were aware of the newer templates finalized earlier that day discussed here (you can bet I'd use the newer one if I was aware of it). There shouldn't be any arguing that Vergilden had been made aware of the relevant sanctions, and the reason we're here is because they plowed ahead anyways. This is the place to go when trying to resolve behavior issues individually at the article fails, so please also refrain from the inflammatory "gotcha" comments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Vergilden[edit]

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.

Statement by Vergilden[edit]

I was not aware the PP article was covered under the restriction regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals b/c of its seemingly tertiary relationship to such things (primary risk management, secondary legal).

If PP is covered, it needs to be made more explicit so accidents like this do not occur again. Nonetheless, I was trying to resolve the objection through the talk page rather than undos but jps reverted this morning even though we had an open/unresolved discussion. Even if he wasn't warned of these sanctions, this is poor behavior.

Regarding previous warning on obviously GMO related content, note that my actions on reverting content remained within the boundaries specified and I moved discussion to the talk page. By example, I added a section to discuss the content I wanted to edit and provided different ways to modify the submission so as to address the previous objections (i.e., "there isn't general agreement" to "some scientists have questioned" and provided reliable sources to substantiate, even offering to harmonize the controversy sections across the similar GM pages where there consensus on the content was reached)

For the record, I highly respect the Wikipedia process but it seems that both Kingoffaces and jps have an agenda to censor content they feel to be objectionable and use the various policies in specious ways to keep the content from being published. For example, it is still not evident to me the reason my submission in the PP article can't be published. A litany of different reasons were cited and each did not seem applicable. For them, the talk page isn't a place for honest discourse and debate, but a place to try to build a case against good-faith editors.

Thank you for your consideration.

Vergil Den 17:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to address concerns about my tenure

It may be the case that I've been an editor on Wikipedia since 2013, but never in my entire editor history have I come across, what I don't know what else to call, editor censorship from the likes of kingoffaces and jps. So yes I may have many posts but frankly, this kind of behavior is new to me.

Vergil Den 18:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to address concerns about my use of term "censorhsip"

My concern is the use of editors moving the goal posts (i.e., they are refuted on one front and then pitch a new argument). Again, I think it is reasonanle to think they there are trying to censor the content. I would be happy for this committee to adjudicate on the matter allowing the jps and me to present our best cases.

Vergil Den 18:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: The following arguments have been lobbed by KoF and jps: WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS , WP:POVPUSH, WP:COATRACK, operative statement is "sometimes", fact as opposed to an opinion, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:COMPETENCE.

If there truly was a policy violation in my submission to the PP page, one of these would have been sufficient (like in the case of the 3R that we are discussing were one violation of the rule is sufficient to convene this committee). Again, I think any reasonable person would conclude that something is amiss.

Vergil Den 18:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Further in support of my contention under this amendment, prior to the exchange between KoF and jps regarding the paper submission to the PP page, many of these same arguments were lobbed by KoF against *case law* content I submitted on the PP page, content that was reverted by KoF that I had to revert. This was *case law* referenced directly from the court of appeals official documents. Again, the behavior by KoF and jps follows that a reasonable person would suspect that these editors are censoring content.

Vergil Den 19:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to address concerns about my use of term "jobsworth"

As I stated previously, I stand by my contention that the behavior exhibited by KoF and jps is censorship. A jobsworth is a type of censor and in this case, an an editor using his/her authority granted inherently to Wikipedia editors to censor content rather than to "engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content".

Vergil Den 19:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Amendment to respond to statement about my lack of regard for consensus

Actually, I highly regard consensus when it's warranted. I think my actions demonstrate that it was exactly consensus that I was seeking through reasoning on the talk PP page. I first opened up the discourse on the talk page to debate the concerns raised. I was lobbed with over ten rules through the entire debate which I researched and reasonably refuted. Subsequently KoF and jps decided to lob more rules. My reverts today were in reaction to jps who took it upon him- her-self to initiate the first revert while we were still debating. In each of my reverts I requested jps to cease reverting while we debate on the talk page (unbeknownst to me that my reverts were pulling me into this sanctions forum). I was insulted by jps with curt responses and insults (e.g., anemic). Not once did either of the editors seek to understand my position which I stand by. Overall, my submission was treated as junk and belittled as an editor.

Vergil Den 21:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by jps[edit]

My apologies for my role in this. I was not aware of the 1RR rules imposed on GMO articles until kingofaces let me know today.

As a form of penance (because ignorance of the law is no excuse), I am adding talkpage boilerplates to many articles.

I throw myself on the mercy of the AE board and beg for its forgiveness. I promise NEVER to break 1RR on GMO-related pages from here forward.

jps (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Minor4th:: FYI: Your statement about the other user not being notified of 1RR restrictions until today is incorrect. jps (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Minor4th:Read the diff again. The diff explicitly mentions 1RR. jps (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Minor4th[edit]

In the diff of the notice given to Veridigen (or whatever the name it, Kingofaces43 used the wrong template and only notified the editor of discretionary sanctions - NOT 1RR. It appears there was no notice of the 1RR restriction until after Ver and jps had both edit warred (both having 3RR).

Neither editor should be sanctioned because they were not properly notified. And I recommend that this game of gotcha stop and that editors actually try to discuss problem behavior they see rather than run to AE on the first whiff of a violation. For crying out loud! Minor4th 17:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@jps - that notice references discretionary sanctions and 3RR - no mention of the 1RR restriction. i hope you're not requesting sanctions against him when you were matching him, revert for revert. Minor4th 19:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@jps - Ok, it's not part of the template or warning though, and it's not mentioned that it's the result of an Arb case and could result in enforcement at AE. That is not sufficient to notify him of Arb remedies. Plus he said on the talk page that he wasn't aware that that page fell under the GMO topic area. It would be appropriate to give you both a final warning or to topic ban both of you. I really don't care which. Minor4th 20:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43:. Please don't ABF; I won't play that game with you ;) Minor4th 23:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  • One last question for Kingofaces43: why did you template Ver twice for edit warring on Precautionary principle, but you didn't template jps for edit warring or otherwise caution him for his 3 reverts? Why are Ver's reverts worthy of Arbcom sanctions, but jps' 3 reverts apparently failed to even catch your attention? I'll note for the record here that last week you also went nuts with the templates and templated me and Montanabw (twice) when each of us had only made one edit to the article. Why are you so aggressive about going after those you disagree with, and at the same time entirely willing to allow edit warring and PAG violations by those with whom you agree on content? It's not the first time I've raised this issue. I will keep pointing it out when I see it. Minor4th 04:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by David Tornheim[edit]

This is a brand new editor*, who clearly is not familiar with all the Wiki-rules and with the ArbCom proceedings. To bring this new editor here immediately is over the top. I agree with Minor4th's comments immediately above and Tryptofish's comments on how to handle this.

I see no reason that Precautionary Principle should be included in the restrictions on GMO ArbCom case. Precautionary Principle may have some overlap with GMO's just as a subjects like science, technology or engineering, but it is a very small overlap. Precautionary Principle applies to wide variety of subjects and products far outside of GMO's, agricultural chemicals and companies that manufacture them. For example wireless technology.

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

* Vergilden is a brand new editor to the GMO field and still new to Wiki and its arcane rules. Although the editor has been here since 2013 as noted below by Capeo (immediately below), Vergilden shows no evidence of encountering drama (see talk page history), does not have a user page, and the only work of this editor until December 2015 was almost entirely on one article Lindy Effect. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Vergilden's amended statements are quite telling:
Note: The following arguments have been lobbed by KoF and jps: WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS , WP:POVPUSH, WP:COATRACK, operative statement is "sometimes", fact as opposed to an opinion, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:COMPETENCE.
If there truly was a policy violation in my submission to the PP page, one of these would have been sufficient.... Again, I think any reasonable person would conclude that something is amiss.
...prior to the exchange between KoF and jps regarding the paper submission to the PP page, many of these same arguments were lobbed by KoF against *case law* content I submitted on the PP page, content that was reverted by KoF.... This was *case law* referenced directly from the court of appeals official documents. Again, the behavior by KoF and jps follows that a reasonable person would suspect that these editors are censoring content.
A jobsworth is a type of censor and in this case, an an editor using his/her authority granted inherently to Wikipedia editors to censor content rather than to "engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content".
What this shows is that all the problematic WP:stonewallingbehavior (to block certain content) that I (and others) described here in the GMO ArbCom proceeding is being continued by KingofAces43 and others to prevent WP:NPOV coverage in our articles. (I would like to see diffs from Vergilden that back up these assertions/allegations.)
--David Tornheim (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo[edit]

I'll just note the editor in question has been here since 2013 and has hundreds of edits.Capeo (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

David, the edits in question are specifically about GMOs so it applies. Capeo (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Vergilden, you're not covering yourself in glory here by calling your editing against consensus "censorship". Specifically you saying "The consensus rule doesn't apply to attempts to censor valid content" on the article talk page is simply false. There are very few exceptions to consensus and none apply here. And please, sign your posts. I could see giving Vergilden a final final warning hear and a short bit of rope if they show they understand the issues in play. If they continue to unrepentantly claim their edits are "right" then well... Capeo (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly at this point it matters little what Vergilden was alerted to (though the difs show they were clearly alerted and forged ahead anyway) because their responses show they have no regard for consensus which is the backbone of pretty much this entire project. A short block is probably in order then a TB if they return to edit warring. Capeo (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

My goodness, the GMO case seems like the gift that just keeps giving and giving. Anyway, KingofAces is basically correct about the facts of what happened. Clearly multiple reverts, and yes, the page is within the scope of the 1RR restriction. On the other hand, I believe that it is credible that Vergilden did not realize the situation, and my suggestion would be to let this go with a "final warning" but no block. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: With regard to the notice for that page, there are specific templates from ArbCom for that purpose: Template:ARBGMO alert, Template:ARBGMO talk notice (I strongly recommend the "style=long" parameter), and Template:Editnotice GMO 1RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]

Vergilden may not have been aware of the 1RR, and has less than 100 edits over the last 3 or so years. While not exactly new they are still a WP novice. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (jps) on the other hand is an experienced editor who defiantly had knowledge that a case was ongoing because they made a case request statement for GMO.[87] He was also notified of the Proposed decision.[88] Yet he reverted the page 3 times.[89][90][91] jps is an experienced editor and should be aware that there is no excuse for edit warring. He could have requested page protection as I did when I saw the reverts in my watchlist that I have yet to clean up from the GMO case. I believe some form of sanction is in order for jps. AlbinoFerret 19:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (Mystery Wolff)[edit]

I am an uninvolved editor, who looked at this because of an AE action on me, and wanting to discover the process by which the AE page works. Upon searching I find which to me make it look like a systemic issue with Wikipedia and processes. So here are some items I believe germane to this Action Request.
1. A 1RR policy is an invitation to feud. It would be better to have a 0RR policy than 1RR, because it instantly causes a ruckus to the person being reverted. It invites editors with shared interests to team for their vision. Their vision may or may not be NPOV. It is nearly impossible for any good faith content dispute to avoid hitting the 1RR
2. The page in question does not appear to have any sanctions on it. This is a process failure. In an article that I am editing (electronic cigarettes), I had to request a notification be put up in the Talk page, a badge at the top, so all editors were aware. Without this, it is unfair to cite 1RR on any editor working the page in question.

3. There seems to be advocacy of stratification of Wikipedia editorship, that is wide spread. All edits SHOULD be deemed as Good Faith, and with merit. (excluding obvious vandalism). The edits by Vergilden appear well intended and cited. Because he interjected them should not mean that others can just revert them out and then take a 1RR warning on an entirely different Article without meaning relationship.
4. There are self appointed sheriffs point out warnings on other peoples pages, as if they are acting in an official capacity. There remarks are conclusionary and asserting they will be warned by them only once before they are banned. This fosters atmosphere of intimidation with this very AE page being the object being wielding as threat. See the sequence on Vergilden talk page by jps and Kingofaces43. In the real world this is not done, it actually a violation of the law to represent yourself as being law enforcement. Ambiguity lost in lack of statements and wikilawyering is a factor, but tossing badges out and saying "this is you one and only warning, is way across the line.
5. A review needs to be done prior to the AE opening up actions on this page. It appears to me that Kingofaces43 has taken something from GMO and wrongly applied it to PP page. The two article are not joined at the hip. If a review was done, this whole AE action would be kicked out long before any give opinions. That should be the process....Check to see if Standing in AE...before starting. A simple go- no go test at the start of the process is missing. 6. Lack of disclaimers of interests is apparent. Regardless of whether there is a conflict of interest in the comments being made, the appearances are obvious....appearances, by the same ol participants. It looks to me that Kingofaces43 and AblinoFerret are long time associated editors with each other via their talk pages. Is that NECESSARILY a problem. NO!. Could it be, yes. When editors are coming on here an lobbying for a person to be banned. WHICH is what Kingofaces43 is doing, and AlbinoFerret makes the case for same.....Albinoferret should state his relationship with the requester. If the AE continues to not ask for any form of statement of interests of people commenting, it risks getting itself gamed to death by wiki-lawyering old timers pushing out every new editor by claiming new editorship is SPA, and then asserting same in in AE. There is a process breakdown...the process is failing.
7. The is no warning on the talk page of GMO. In fact jps did not know about this until today...and needed to be alerted to it. 8. The AE process is so ill-defined (read as "open to interpretation") The requester here is attacking commentators about giving input. Why? And it leads everyone down the rabbit-hole....but we go to the rabbit hole because its process.
9. This AE request is basically an editor that does not like another editor's edits, and is pointing to 1RR to get the other editor be banned. One a topic which is not part of an ARB in question. I reflects an old guard who does not want others who may have less experience in Wikipedia from editing. Experience in wikipedia is NOT REFLECTIVE of the merits of the actual edits.

10. I have pointed out many process failures here. What I would suggest here is that Kingofaces43 and Vergilden not be allowed to revert each others edits going forward for 6 months. Editors associated with these editors from Talk Page history or otherwise should not revert the same. Edits being reverted should be done by other editors of the pages. If either of these editors wants edits looked at, they should open up talk page topics and solicit openly review. I strongly urge the AE to NOT ban. It is my firm believe the AE is being gamed IN GENERAL. That Wikilawyers are manipluating the processes. That vigilante warnings are being put on peoples Talk pages. Familiarity of how to use the AE process should not be a determinant of whether reasonable edits should occur. The AE process is failing, its not defined well, and here in fact is case in point. IMO thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: The ARB in question states: Locus of the dispute: The dispute centers on pages about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics, with numerous editors engaging in poor conduct, including battlegrounding and edit warring.
The "Precautionary Principle" is a generic term. It is not called out in the Locus of the Dispute definition that was APPROVED, it is in fact used on many many many different items, without any relationship to GMOrganisms. It is essentially a fancy way of saying "a stitch in time saves nine". To jump to the conclusion that the PP page should should now be blanketed into the DS is massive scope creep. Its also done in a way that is not notified to editors, as has clearly been shown here. If editors are edit warring, that can be shown for it...for itself.
The AE should be cognizant of scope creep, and Gaming of requests to the AE, that can be solved by other dispute resolution methods. "Precautionary Principle" is an agnostic term used in a plethora of industries and topics. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Vergilden[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed." This quote from Arbcom's decision should imply that all editing at precautionary principle is covered by 1RR and is included in any topic bans imposed under the GMO case. That article is mentioned four times by various editors on the evidence page. From the data presented in this complaint, I conclude that both jps and Vergilden should be warned for breaking 1RR. The precautionary principle article is now fully protected by User:MusikAnimal for four days. That implies it's not urgent for AE to take immediate action to protect the encyclopedia. But I would advise both jps and User:Vergilden to think carefully before making controversial changes to the article after protection expires. Vergilden has been here since 2010, but they should be aware that articles which are under newly-imposed Arbcom sanctions are not a good place for bold editing. Use negotiation to get your ideas accepted. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Notice placed. I agree that a warning to both is appropriate. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Closing. Issuing warnings to the two editors. Since the talk page notice was added as an arbitration enforcement it has been logged as a discretionary sanction in WP:DSLOG. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


Ollie231213 is topic banned from the Longevity topic area broadly construed. Spartaz Humbug! 09:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

Request concerning Ollie231213[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ollie231213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Ollie231213's conduct at various AFD discussions is bordering into uncivil territory with numerous personal attacks. There has been numerous circular and odd policy debates that Ollie has created and required for months, few of which has improved anyone else's experience here.

  1. December 4, 2015 "Legacypac, I'm sorry that you don't have basic critical thinking or research skills"]
  2. December 4, 2015 Statement that "Not every bit of information in every source has to have citations. The original research has to be done somewhere." shows a fundamental misunderstanding of policy here.
  3. August 2015 RFC Extensively long RFC arguing whether the GRG should get its own treatment as some "super reliable" source shows again problems with policy understanding.
  4. November 3, 2015 "And again, why don't you try educating yourself on the subject at hand." as part of the extensively long RFC about whether to include succession boxes in longevity biographies.
Evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I simply think the editor would benefit from working away from WOP article and away from the flaws there. These repeated AFDs are getting heated (which isn't Ollie's fault) but at least a warning and a discussion would be helpful.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Ollie231213[edit]

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.

Statement by Ollie231213[edit]

Firstly, I apologise for being uncivil in a couple of instances. However, please understand my frustration when being faced by pro-deletion arguments which are based on both a poor understanding of the subject in hand and Wikipedia policy. The post I was replying to is a deletion argument which is original research and contains false assertions. Note that other users have challenged similar comments from Legacypac elsewhere.

Secondly, point number 2 is a misinterpretation of what I meant. I meant that not every bit of information in the sources themselves has to have citations, not the information in Wikipedia.

Thirdly, Ricky was an involved editor in the RFC mentioned above, and actually, in that discussion I argued that not all sources should be given the same weight, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment What Legacypac means when he says I "oppose and reverse efforts to simplify X/Y/Z", what he actually means is that I oppose and reverse efforts made BY HIM to make drastic changes to articles which he did NOT discuss on any talk pages first. Furthermore, WP:SBSGUIDE clearly states that succession boxes can be used for records, which is why I reverted the edits made by another user who decided to remove succession boxes from a number of articles. A subsequent RfC discussion on the matter showed that opinion was quite divided. To try and use this to show that I don't understand Wiki policy is quite ridiculous. Note that Legacypac has made previous unfair accusations of WP:BADFAITH against me. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment In response to EdJohnston's post below: It is TOTALLY FALSE to assert that I am trying to "advocate for the GRG" as if there is some kind of COI. What I am arguing for is that Wikipedia respect the concept of age validation, and give correct weight to reliable sources. The irony is that the real agenda on longevity articles is not a pro-GRG one, it's an ANTI-GRG one held by a number of editors, and can be seen clearly [92] [93] [94]. I'm just arguing that GRG should be given more weight than say, a newspaper source, and that age validation by the GRG is an important thing that should be included, bringing the articles in line with WP:NPOV. The idea of a "GRG fan club" is one that has been propagated by a number of "anti-GRG" editors but it has little basis in reality. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Can EdJohnston and Spartaz please explain how they have come to conclusion - based on the evidence given here - that I am here to advocate for the GRG? Is it based on the evidence given, or on a preconception about longevity-related articles? I will say it again: the real campaign here is ANTI-GRG ([95] [96] [97]) and is not based on Wikipedia policy, it's just a case of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing. I'm not on a pro-GRG campaign, on I'm an anti-anti-GRG campaign, which is not the same thing. I don't want longevity articles to be full of lists of people who are fraudulently claiming to be older than they are, which is what would happen if the anti-GRG editors have their way. I'm simply suggesting that oldest people lists should include notes to indicate if a claim has been validated by the GRG (or any other similar, reputable organisation for that matter - but no other such organisation exists). If you look at the GRG's coverage in other reliable sources, you'll quickly notice that they are considered the authority on the topic of the world's oldest people ([98] [99] [100] [101] [102]). However, the anti-GRG editors want to try and treat the GRG as if it's "equally reliable" as newspaper reports and to ignore the GRG's validation system. However, scientific consensus is that age validation is important as a concept (it's not just a GRG designation) and consensus in the media is that the GRG is an authority on the subject. I have suggested things like having two separate lists on List of oldest living people - one list of the oldest verified people according to the GRG, and one list of unverified claims reported on by newspapers but not included on the GRG lists. That is in line with Wikipedia policy. The anti-GRG editors wanted one mish-mashed list of unverified and verified cases, effectively deciding themselves which cases were valid and which were not. Doing this is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR, which are core policies. So, how can you justify topic banning me but not topic banning anti-GRG editors? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment In response to this comment from Spartaz:
"Regarding, your question on my talk page and comment above, i'd simply refer to your own statement above I'm just arguing that GRG should be given more weight than say, a newspaper source. If that's not seeking to subvert our sourcing model then I don't know what is. I'll enact the tban tomorrow morning unless someone has objected by that stage."
Please let me quote from WP:NPOV:
  • "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
  • "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."
  • "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements."
So, one of Wikipedia's core policies clearly states that Wikipedia's content in areas like longevity should be based on the most reputable authoritative sources available and that sources do not have to be given equal weight. So yet again I ask the question: what part of Wikipedia policy am I violating? Are your opinions based on the evidence presented and the arguments I am putting forward, or preconceptions? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Please read through this discussion. My point of view is shared entirely with Canada Jack, and it's a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac[edit]

This topic is overburdened by lists that slice and dice super old people. As things are now structured, a man born in Warsaw who moved to the US should be listed on pages for Poland, Austria-Hungary, Europe, North America, US, oldest people, top 10 men, living or not living, US state, and maybe 10 other places. There are not enough editors interested in maintaining the lists, or who know how they all fit together. This editor opposes and reverses efforts to simplify [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] and so on.

He also fails to understand the appropriate use of Succession boxes, WP:SBSGUIDE the most important point being "2. Simply because a record has been earned does not merit a succession box for that record. Succession boxes for records should only regard records that are part of a series (for example, not all Guinness Book records deserve a succession box)." Ollie reversed efforts to comply with the guidelines [110] by reverting User:DerbyCountyinNZ 44 times on Oct 23 on 44 pages. See [111]. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Reply Ollie correctly notes he opposes my efforts (and those of all other editors) to clean up and simplify coverage of super old people, regardless of the argument used, facts of the case, or who is suggesting the changes. If the coverage is not expanding into never ending lists, articles,and minute details on super old people you can count on Ollie to be there to oppose it. Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply to Ollie's Comment his diff shows one of the main reasons he needs to be topic banned. In that discussion he wants to relegate all RS sources NOT GRG into 'unverified' status. There is plenty of opportunity to look into Canadian Jacks's involvement in Longevity outside this action. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EEng[edit]

  • I think Ollie is acting in good faith, but his limited experience elsewhere in the project hobbles his understanding of applicable guidelines and policies, especially as they apply in this extremely fraught (historically, here on WP) topic area.
  • I don't think Ollie has a WP:COI.
  • Ollie's right that his statement "Not every bit of information in every source has to have citations. The original research has to be done somewhere" is being misinterpretated: there is no doubt he meant that the sources WP relies on need not, themselves, carry within themselves citations for everything they assert i.e. we allow (obviously) secondary sources to do OR.

However, there comes a point at which well-meant but misguided efforts become too much for the project to bear in (I repeat) this historically fraught topic area, which has been a semi-public embarrassment for years, and desperately needs cleaning up. EEng (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Ollie231213[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • WP:ACDS specifically states that participating at WP:AE and WP:RFAR counts as awareness for policy purposes. I would think that since WP:ARCA is a subpage of WP:RFAR, that would qualify. I will add a proper alert notice to this editor's talk page in any case. Gamaliel (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah they are "aware" with the comment at ARCA. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 14:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Restored this request from archive to allow it to be formally closed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Having checked the five diffs supplied above by User:Ricky81682, I propose that User:Ollie231213 be banned from all pages related to longevity, broadly construed, both article and talk. Notice that in a recent case (WP:ARBEC) the Committee made reference to enforcing discretionary sanctions against accounts that have a "clear shared agenda". Consistently editing articles, and voting in AfDs, to favor the position of the Gerontology Research Group is incompatible with the goals of Wikipedia. Our standards of verifiability and of notability are different. Reference has been made to the opaque decision-making of the GRG which makes it difficult to understand the factual basis of some longevity records. In cases like that, Wikipedia policy must take precedence. Consistent adherence to the views of the GRG is an obstacle to us reaching proper conclusions here on Wikipedia. The recent AfDs of some old people are full of SPA voters that seem to advocate for the GRG position. At some point, admins need to rein in the bad behavior. Throwaway accounts in AfDs aren't worthy of attention, but steady advocacy of GRG positions (in counted votes such as AfD) by single-purpose accounts may show a need for more topic bans. The case of Ollie231213 is the current example that needs a ruling. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur with a topic ban. The user clearly is here to advocate for a specific position on longevity articles rather than following our long standing policies and guidelines. Spartaz Humbug! 11:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Regarding, your question on my talk page and comment above, i'd simply refer to your own statement above I'm just arguing that GRG should be given more weight than say, a newspaper source. If that's not seeking to subvert our sourcing model then I don't know what is. I'll enact the tban tomorrow morning unless someone has objected by that stage. Spartaz Humbug! 21:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


Nocturnalnow is topic banned from American Politics after 1932 Spartaz Humbug! 09:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

Request concerning Nocturnalnow[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Nocturnalnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBAPDS on the biography of Huma Abedin
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 13 December Reverting in contentious negative material without talk page consensus that the material is appropriate, nor any attempt to engage in talk-page discussion.
  2. 15 December Again reverting this material without any attempt to create talk page consensus.
  3. 18 December Yet again reverting this same material without talk page discussion.
  4. 18 December And yet again reverting it with no talk page discussion.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 15 November Previous arbitration enforcement request closed with the warning that further edit-warring would result in sanctions.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 November.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Despite a previous enforcement request which was closed with a strong warning, this user has continued to edit-war negative contentious material into the biography of Huma Abedin, absent any talk page consensus - in fact, the user has completely refused to engage in any talk page discussion whatsoever. Their last edit to Talk:Huma Abedin was on 23 November, after POINTily nominating the page for deletion (a move which was obviously unsuccessful). They have continued to edit the page, but ignored repeated requests to discuss the material in question. Consensus on the talk page has run against their proposals, and so they have simply ignored the talk page altogether. The user has apparently no interest in anything but tendentiously pushing a POV on Abedin's biography, and has no scruples about simply revert-warring to get their way. This is not how we edit living people's biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I note that the user's response nowhere addresses the substance of this enforcement request; to wit, the fact that they are inserting contentious negative material into a biography with no attempt to engage in editorial discussion and gain consensus that the material is suitable. Is it the user's position that consensus is not necessary and that they are not required to discuss their edits on the article talk page? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Since Nocturnalnow has brought their prior edits up, I note that under their prior name, they were heavily engaged in editing Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, including an unsuccesful attempt to rename the article to "controversy" and otherwise positively portray the widely-rejected, wholly-discredited conspiracy theories about Obama's birth and citizenship. This, along with the series of edits to Hillary Clinton-related pages such as Huma Abedin, suggests that they have a partisan political ax to grind. Wikipedia is not a platform for attacking one's political opponents. They may be able to positively contribute in other areas of the encyclopedia, but they don't seem able to set aside their personal biases and beliefs when it comes to biographies of people whose politics they disagree with.
These prior edits also demonstrate that Nocturnalnow is perfectly capable of engaging in talk-page discussion, knows about Wikipedia's consensus-driven editorial processes, and has taken part in them previously. Their personal choice to refuse to engage in discussion of their proposed edits on Huma Abedin and simply revert-war them is therefore all the more inexcusable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Mouse001's accusation that I have a "pro-Hillary agenda" is an interesting example of projection, coming from an editor with fewer than 100 total edits, of which 59 are overwhelmingly negative edits on articles related to Hillary Clinton, and is clearly here in furtherance of pushing a negative POV toward Clinton. On the other hand, I have never edited either Clinton's biography or the article about the e-mail controversy. It would seem obvious who here has a political agenda with their edits, and who is here to write neutral, policy-compliant biographical articles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Nocturnalnow just claimed "I do continue to discuss there" with regards to the talk page. However, the user's contributions belie this. They have not edited the article talk page since 23 November. The fact that several other editors (including @Cwobeel:, @Muboshgu:, Johnuniq, etc.) have expressed disagreement with Nocturnalnow's edits (effectively all of which have been to insert contentious negative material into Abedin's biography - i.e. grinding a political ax against Abedin and, by extension, Clinton) is, in fact, how we build consensus on what is and is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Nocturnalnow's complaint seems to be My plan to use Abedin's biography as a platform for political smears has been rejected by consensus, but I don't like the consensus, so I'm going to do whatever I want anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Nocturnalnow[edit]

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.

Statement by Nocturnalnow[edit]

            • Merry Christmas to All;

Here is my Christmas present to you all, from Canada. Nature Christmas


Misuse of Checkuser i.e. Checkuser Violation and Administrative abuse of CheckUser, as well as abuse of this request for enforcement process, are now the most serious 2 things to look at, in my opinion, about this request for enforcement.

Please see the result section of this request. NW' (Talk) invaded the privacy of (talk with no cause whatsoever, unless NW just did not like the comment of the IP. This publicized ( in the Result section here) action by NW' (Talk) has the effect, even if unintended, of casting suspicion on that IP's comment and objectivity as well as casting suspicion that I or one of the other editors here (who are opposed to a topic wide ban) used that IP as a sockpuppet, thus implying that any or all of the comments opposing this request are less than valid comments.

Please advise me on my talk page where I can complain about this misuse of Wikipedia:CheckUser.

A helpful editor at Jimbo's talk page has provided me with WP:AUSC which led me to the Ombudsman Commission resource as well, so I no longer need this particular info.

This is my reasoning regarding misuse of Check user: Please have a look at this particular usage. I believe this usage breaks the spirit and letter of this Wikipedia policy, i.e."checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing." The reasons given by NuclearWarfare to the Checkuser are not within the scope of our policy, imo, and since the misuse, imo, happened within this Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, I am addressing it in my statement as I feel possible Administrative breaches of Wikipedia policy are more important than the rest of this Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an individual editor.


Since my statement has become extremely long winded, if you do not have time to read it, I suggest you read the Statement D. Creish on Dec.22nd, which is much more concise and happens to hit the central points I make in my long statement.


This submission is without merit. Two commenters complained that I had not responded enough to the submission. Maybe that is because the submission has no merit. Now that I have gotten interested in the nuances of this process, I am probably talking too much so some will try to use my defensive words here against me, but when I see anybody... and I mean including Administrators..trying to push around average occasional and well meaning editors like me, I get really pissed off because I know that hurts the encyclopedia by turning it into an "insiders' game".

Now, some of you have been pushing for more of a response from me, so here goes nothing ( or something, hopefully)

Please note that Ed Johnstone put in a topic wide ban "Result" recommendation here only 8 hours after the submission.(cur | prev) 05:56, 19 December 2015‎ EdJohnston (talk | contribs)‎ . . (141,786 bytes) (+920)‎ . . (→‎Result concerning Nocturnalnow: Recommand a topic ban under WP:ARBAPDS) (undo | thank)... based upon what looks like some sort of U.S. Presidency advocacy false correlation, i.e. "A review of contributions suggests that Nocturnalnow has wide-ranging ideas for correcting articles on American politics."

Also, it strikes me ironic that the Submitter has been Blocked several times; me? never. Not under this Username nor Mr.grantevans2 prior name which had thousands of edits going back 8 years. I think objective editors will soon come to the opinion that the Submitter is the editor who should be banned from the Huma Abedin BLP, not me.

I offer my apology in general and specifically to Johnuniq for not having earlier addressed the 4 diffs identified by NorthBySouthBaranof. I just got caught up in the suggested "result" which I saw on my talk page before I had a chance to make my statement, but that's no excuse. The diffs were me trying to reinsert what I saw as having been long standing content which NorthBySouthBaranof was unilaterally removing without talk page consensus to remove it. In addition, re: the diffs, if its ok, I will borrow from what the IP says below, as he says it quite well, I think: "The contested edit does not violate BLP and does not come anywhere close to it. The content was originally POINTily removed by NorthBySouthBaranof[112]( edit summary:"Undue weight and detail here as well".) minutes after NorthBySouthBaranof was accused by D.Creish of including an UNDUE amount of content.[113]"

In terms of discussion on the talk page, the Huma Abedin talk page is full of quite unexpected nasty, unpolite, and "fuck what you have to say; I am in control" type responses which have made many editors stay away completely. I do continue to discuss there but nobody likes to get accused of bad editing, associated with "defamatory" articles or called names. Here are just a few examples, I will "Bold" the kind of words I am talking about:

"The information in Wikipedia on the scandal, conspiracy or whatever you want to call it, as it is currently presented, is, in this author's opinion, vague and incomplete. If you, or anyone, have other ideas about how to better present that information I would be very happy to hear them.Starburst2000 (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

None of that "evidence" has any credence among mainstream media - it is a offensive fringe theory which deserves absolutely no credence in her biography. All of your "sources" are from the fringe right-wing echo chamber, all of them fail the reliable sources policy and we are not going to pollute Abedin's biography with their garbage. Wikipedia is not a place to mindlessly repeat long-debunked and deeply-offensive partisan attacks on a living person. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)"

This portion of the article has serious issues. As currently framed, it says that Bachmann has alleged that Abedin has three family members who have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. That fact is either true or untrue, but it does not constitute an allegation of a conspiracy. There is not an allegation that Abedin is in some nefarious cabal; rather, the truth (or untruth) of those statements goes to the question of whether Abedin has more *sympathy* for the Muslim Brotherhood than your average state department official. As currently written, it massively fails NPOV - will change it to something that more accurately reflects what Bachmann, McCarthy et al. have questions about. WillMagic101 (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no.The reliable sources on this matter are unanimous in describing these allegations as scurrilous, unfounded conspiracy theories. We are required to give prominence to the point of view most widely held by reliable sources, and fringe theories lacking any mainstream credibility do not belong in the pages of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Newt is correct, this was all about a letter "asking a question" regarding Abedin's security clearance process. The question is neither an idea or a theory so I can not agree that it fits into our fringe theory policy in any way other than trying to ram a square peg into a round hole. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The "idea" is that she is in any way connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. That is a highly-defamatory implication and claim, and has been widely rejected and condemned in reliable sources. It must and will be depicted as such in this article. If you continue to edit against consensus to depict this biographical subject in a negative light, I think it'll be time to request that you be topic-banned under discretionary sanctions. You have done nothing here but try to smear this living person, and that's not what we as encyclopedia editors are here to do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Professor JR modus operandi seems to be to make contentious edits, slow edit war over a period of days, and never discuss anything. I'd argue that if that continues, a trip to WP:AN/I may be due.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

.....Do you realize how ridiculous this is? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It is becoming tedious to explain again and again why such material is really not useful for the BLP of Abedin. A good case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? - Cwobeel (talk)

It is evident that a consensus of editors disagrees with your assertion that this trivial partisan nonsense has any place in Abedin's biography. That's really all there is to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I should maybe mention that I previously had other User names with many thousands of edits, the most active one was Mr.grantevans2 for which I forgot my passwords after I took hiatuses from editing. This fact is noted at the top of my current and last User page and Talk page. I have written down my new password so I don't ever forget it again.

My contributions to American politics far outweigh any short term dust ups with a few editors whose paranoia and bias against suspected "conservative","republican", and "right wing" publications and editors is obvious for all to see on the Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton talk pages.

Wow, what a secretive little kangaroo court railroading job is being attempted here...really,really strange. I'm pissed. If I had been away for a few days I would not have even seen this. I may have been set up on the recent flurry of edits referred to in this submission; you can judge that for yourselves.

This is the second very personal and persistant attack at this location by NorthBySouthBaranof, in my opinion. NorthbySouth is the wrong person to bring this since he is quite manipulative in a sophomoric way in these venues as well as on BLPs. For example, he claims above that his last submission against me ended with a "strong warning", however, the actual closing words are "Closing: There has been a lull in the admin discussion. I'm closing this (as a noticeboard case) with no action. This is without prejudice to any admin who wants to impose 0RR or other restrictions, either on individuals or on the Huma Abedin article. If edit warring on this article continues then more admin action is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)"

There was no "strong warning" against me whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof is not a credible editor in my opinion; not at all, in fact,NorthBySouthBaranof was mentioned himself in his last attack as being just as problematic as anyone else. In addition; NorthbySouth has been edit warring in total on Abedin more than anyone else and against many,many editors. Any superficial review of the Huma Abedin BLP will substantiate this claim.

For Ed Johnstone to try to close this out in 1 day and leaving me a note saying There may still for time for you to respond is bizarre and without due process. He claims that I have "wide-ranging ideas for correcting articles on American politics" yet the one comment I made on an Editor's talk page which he links to, says nothing of the sort????? Also, I am wondering why Ed would be using my words on an Editor's talk page against me or why he, as a non-involved Admin., would even be going there? Since he sees something in the comment he links to which is obviously not there to be seen, I do not think he is uninvolved enough to be making a decision on this matter. He must be very sensitive to my opinion about the glorification of the office of the U.S. President, but as anyone can see, I am not even editing Barack's BLP, although I did add some needed content To Bill Clinton's blp which was accepted as an improvement. Also, since many American children are told "one day you can be President", it is reasonable that most Americans, and even some American wannabes, might have a little bit of idolization of the office. Being a Canadian actually makes me more NPOV concerning U.S. politics, and that should be welcomed, I think, right? On the other hand, even if I DO have "wide-ranging ideas for correcting articles on American politics", isn't "correcting" a good thing? Doesn't that make our encyclopedia better? That is kindof what I did with my accepted edit on Donald Trump, changed "anti-immigrant" to "anti-illegal immigrant", which is how the cited source phrased it. No, Ed Johnstone's reasoning for banning me from U.S. politics, even if true, is absolutely the reason for encouraging my editing of US politics; i.e. to "correct" some sentences to comply with the sources.

I also am shocked that there even exists such a broad ban as to exclude American politics. If an editor is so bad, ban the Editor, but to ban someone from American politics is something that can result, even if without intent, in censorship; which has no place here, I think.

Plus, even if one accepts that there exists such a ban, I certainly, having not even received any kind of block, have not earned such a ban.

A couple of you guys should be ashamed of yourselves for attacking me like this on such flimsy and light purported evidence, much less trying to silence my edits.

My contributions to American politics far outweigh any short term dust ups with a few editors whose paranoia and bias against suspected "conservative","republican", and "right wing" publications and editors is obvious for all to see on the Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton talk pages.


A couple of editors insist on not AGF re: my the AfD to delete Huma Abedin. Victoria Grayson, an editor with rollback privileges, voted "delete" on the the AfD to delete, as well as User:Hyperduc, a blemish free editor going back 6 years. These 2 delete votes should be enough to AGF that the nomination was not pointy, I ought to know, the reasons I gave in the nomination were and are still valid, in my opinion, and AGF should be given in that regard, I believe.

NorthBySouthBaranof should be censored for misusing this venue, imo.


I am getting really pissed. Remember, before I said a word, and within 1 day, I was given a "result" on my talk page by Ed Johnstone; the result being a ban on all U.S. politics editing because I said this on a User's talk page, which Johnstone characterized as proof of "wide-ranging ideas for correcting articles on American politics"....WTF???, is the wide scope of the ban a punishment for saying I don't idolize the position of the President of the USA? If so, then we have a really big problem. This process so far seems to me to be anti-democratic and slanted towards extremely passive-aggressive, word twisting, trap laying, rule touting, full-time, embedded, "insider" editors who like to throw their "insider" weight around and expect honest editors (who give up valuable time to edit) to listen to their robotic repetitious threats and kiss their puffy asses. Its absurd and tyrannical that an editor like me, never blocked and with thousands of problem free edits on multiple U.S. political topics, should even be threatened with such a far-reaching ban. If I am banned from all U.S. political articles, I would appreciate any editors letting me know what appeals are available in addition to Jimbo's talk page as mentioned before by someone. Hopefully there are other appeals I do not know about, or even better, I won't get banned at all because none is deserved.Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Improper use of Checkuser in the Result section

I seem to remember that the invasion of editor's privacy by checkuser is heavily restricted. Perhaps someone can tell me on my talk page where to complain about this casual usage based upon some kind of vague suspicion that the IP might have Wikipedia experience???? Well I'm suspicious that the requesting Admin just did not like the comment being made. This action by NuclearWarfare is enough to throw him out of the "uninvolved" admin. group eligible to make a decision here as he has, by publicly requesting checkuser, thrown suspicion upon the objectivity and value of the IPs comment as well as a thinly veiled suggestion that I or one of the editors opposing the cruel and unusual punishment that is planned for me from day 1 of this process, is using that IP. This enforcement process, in my case, is the most shameful thing I've seen on should be closed immediately in my favour as well as with an apology to the IP for invading his/her privacy just because you could. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the second IP for Template:Cite web. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


            • Merry Christmas to All;

Here is my Christmas present to you all, from Canada. Nature Christmas Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel[edit]

On their previous visit here (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive184#Nocturnalnow), Nocturnalnow wrote "I am absolutely willing to stop editing the Abedin BLP" and "I also am accepting the constructive comments here by Gamaliel and others about me needing to read more about and practice more of our editing process and policies re: BLP". Neither statement seems to have been true. This editor's disruptive behavior has escalated since then, including a blatant WP:POINT violation of nominating the article for deletion. Gamaliel (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing by Nocturnal now: [114] [115] [116] Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vesuvius Dogg: It is a mischaracterization of EdJohnston's comments to say that he is advocating topic banning Nocturnalnow "based on a single diff". This diff is merely an illustration of Nocturnalnow's battleground mentality. The ban is justified by the many examples provided in this and the previous AE request. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vesuvius Dogg: It's up to the uninvolved admins to decide the scope of the topic ban. I have no particular objection if the topic ban only applies to Clinton-related topics, as opposed to American politics in general. It's clear that they have a track record of battleground behavior in the former. I haven't personally witnessed their behavior on non-Clinton political articles, but given their lack of restraint on the Clinton articles, I have no confidence that they will act differently there. Gamaliel (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq[edit]

Nocturnalnow has a total of 420 edits, and 55% of those are to Huma Abedin or Hillary Clinton or their talk pages. That's not counting comments on those topics on other talk pages or the pointy AfD. The editor needs a far wider range of experience before righting-great-wrongs at the Clinton-related articles. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Nocturnalnow's statement highlights the problem because it does not address the core of the issue. It is not hard to read the request where "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" cannot be missed. Nocturnalnow may like to challenge the validity of the points made, but ignoring them altogether indicates that they should not be editing a contentious BLP because they are unwilling or unable to address concerns raised. After being unsuccessful with edits they wanted to make at Huma Abedin, Nocturnalnow created the AfD which uninvolved editors may want to read to judge whether WP:AGF or WP:POINT applies. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The most recent section at the article talk is from 16 December 2015—it shows two comments from NorthBySouthBaranof and one from myself where we explain our reasons for reverting this edit (diff #2 under "Diffs of edits that violate..." in the OP). Notcurnalnow did not respond, but instead repeated the edit (diffs #3 and #4 above). More than 24 hours has elapsed since my above "Nocturnalnow's statement ...does not address the core" comment yet there still has been no attempt to justify the four edits here or at the article talk. I don't mind that Nocturnalnow requested a comment from Mouse001, but it is entirely unsatisfactory that such energy has been expended with no engagement with the objections to the core issue of edits at a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by an IP editor[edit]

The POINTy AfD deserves at least a trout.

The contested edit does not violate BLP and does not come anywhere close to it. The content was originally POINTily removed by NorthBySouthBaranof[117] minutes after NorthBySouthBaranof was accused by D.Creish of including an UNDUE amount of content.[118]

The allegations against Abedin's family members came from their own magazine's masthead and were, obviously, proven true. This may be a minority viewpoint in NorthBySouthBaranof's so-called "reliable" sources but it is not fringe and obviously not discredited. NorthBySouthBaranof misrepresents the controversy to justify taking an extreme position in line with the Clinton machine's defenders while accusing everyone else of "partisan hackery", which does not lead to a constructive editing environment. If we are going to be strict about BLP, that is BLPVIO against the writers holding differing opinions.

Gamaliel intentionally misrepresents Nocturnalnow's statement from the last ANI to falsely imply that Nocturnalnow had agreed to stop editing. Nocturnalnow's full statement expresses a desire to continue editing.

I am absolutely willing to stop editing the Abedin BLP, however, when I announced such an intention awhile back, an Editor who in my view has been also trying to improve the content expressed his disappointment with my leaving the BLP. That, plus my own reluctance to abandon what I thought is a non-NPOV BLP, led me to conclude I should continue editing Huma Abedin.

Gamaliel should be sanctioned for that deception. (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Vesuvius Dogg[edit]

I'm most definitely an uninvolved editor here, having never (I think) made even a minor edit to Huma Abedin or Hillary Clinton. But I must object to EdJohnston's recommendation of an indefinite ban against Nocturnalnow extending to all articles involving American politics since 1932 (see below) based on a single diff on a Talk Page which, to my eyes, hardly demonstrates the kind of bias which should prompt such a blanket ban. Can this admin produce any other diffs to support this punitive action? This seems excessive, even vindictive. Wikipedia's disciplinary response should be far more measured. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I don't see a record of this editor involved in disputes involving American political topics extending back to 1932. I see him involved in Huma and Hillary, to be sure, but I can't find other diffs that would support an indefinite and very broad topic ban such as that proposed by EdJohnston. It would seem to me a slippery slope, an attempt to censor this editor and perhaps entrap them should a future edit fall under this bigger ban which is itself subject to loose and open interpretation. My feelings on this are (admittedly) colored by the current plea on Jimbo's page from a longstanding editor appealing the GMO ruling. I'm continually reminded that there are real people, with real feelings, behind these User names, that they clearly have a genuine commitment to building an encyclopedia (even if their bias gets the better of them in particular circumstances), who can find themselves feeling caught in a big and somewhat arbitrary net. I'm only asking you to be circumspect, and cognizant of the evidence at hand, when enforcing remedies, and to keep them proportionate to the perceived disruption to this medium. Thanks. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mouse001[edit]

There are numerous problems with this request and comments made on here. First of all, EdJohnston's attempt to indefinitely ban NocturnalNow from the entire topic of American Politics is wholly unjustified and an act of blatant censorship. In addition to that, Gamaliel appears to have misrepresented NocturnalNow's statement, as the IP editor stated. NorthBySouthBaranof, who persistently edit wars(some examples here and here) and is obviously engaged in partisan editing, misrepresents NocturnalNow's activity for reasons stated by NocturnalNow, the IP editor, and my reasons below.

The text that is part of the edit war that is presented in all four diffs of this arbitration request should NOT have been removed by NorthBySouthBaranof after it was re-inserted for the first time, due to lack of consensus for removal per WP:CON (the text was long-standing, as properly stated by NocturnalNow in his edit summary). NorthBySouthBaranof should have used the talk page to gain consensus, but instead he removed the material so he holds some responsibility for the edit war. NorthBySouthBaranof started using the talk page to gain consensus for the removal of the disputed article content after the second diff, so the first two diffs should be redacted from this arbitration request because NocturnalNow was justified in those reversions.

I do not believe that NorthBySouthBaranof's statements hold water or warrant a ban of NocturnalNow. I would encourage an administrator reviewing this arbitration request to see it for what it is; an attempt to further a pro-Hillary agenda by oppressing an editor who is trying to make positive contributions to WP.

--Mouse001 (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet another mischaracterization by NorthBySouthBaranof - 59 of my edits are not "overwhelmingly negative edits" on articles related to Hillary Clinton.--Mouse001 (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cwobeel[edit]

I think that the comments by Nocturnalnow in response to this enforcement request speak for themselves. After reading their comments, it should be obvious to an impartial observer that they are not here to build the pedia. A ban restricted to Clinton and Abedin articles may give them the chance to demonstrate otherwise, although given their poor understanding of what is a useful edit in a BLP, or their seeing this request as an attempt to "silence" them, does not bode well for the long term. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Case in point, their own words in today's post [119]: This process so far seems to me to be anti-democratic and slanted towards extremely passive-aggressive, word twisting, trap laying, rule touting, full-time, embedded, "insider" editors who like to throw their "insider" weight around and expect honest editors (who give up valuable time to edit) to listen to their robotic repetitious threats and kiss their puffy asses. Poor understanding would be a kind way to put it. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by D.Creish[edit]

In the last month or so my only involvement has been reversion of the same inappropriate criticism of the congresspeople, twice inserted by the filer NorthBySouthBaranof - Nov 27th Dec 14th.

It does seem like a BLP double standard's applied here: those arguing for removal of well sourced criticism of Abedin support insertion of lesser-sourced criticism of her accusers. For example, it took a number of weeks and discussions to remove "conspiracy theories" from the referenced section heading, when the term is used in only two cited sources: one an op-ed and the other a blog called The Sisterhood. Compare that with the content in offending diffs which Nocturnalnow was prevented from inserting: a comment from Newt Gingrich and content from the National Review.

This double standard seems to extend to editors. I believe this is the second time NorthBySouthBaranof has brought action against NocturnalNow. He has not been subjected to similar action yet his behavior is arguably more contentious as he's less willing to engage in compromise (as the talk page quotes from Nocturnalnow show.) In part, Nocturnalnow's behavior is a response to this.

The environment around this article is less than ideal. If it could be restricted to entirely perfect, non-partisan editors it would improve (although I might find myself ousted!) The second-best scenario would be to allow the partisanship on one side to balance the other, which is what we have here. The least ideal scenario would be to ban only one group of partisans, as the article would become either unreasonably negative or unreasonably positive. With the recent topic-ban of Professor JR and this proposed topic ban of Nocturnalnow that appears to be the unfortunate direction we're heading. What I'd like to see enforced instead is the encouragement of genuine talk page dialogue - no stonewalling, no double-standards and less hyperbole. D.Creish (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by another IP[edit]

Huma Abedin is not a person I know much about. The Dec 14 addition referenced Politico.Com and NationalReview.Com. Does NorthBy consider these reliable or unreliable sources... I am more concerned about whether sources backing info are reliable or not, than if individual users agree that we ought to include information.

That said, NocturnalNow ought to use Template:Cite web to standardize the inclusion of these references.

Regarding engaging in talk page conversation, it appears that Talk:Huma_Abedin#Renewed_edit-warring_around_issues_of_due_weight was not created by NorthBy until after the second edit cited above. I also notice that NorthBy did not bother to use the Ping Template to inform NocturnalNow that they were being addressed in the talk page.

The dispute here appears to be that NocturalNow is saying the info is long-standing and needs consensus to remove, while NorthBy is saying it is new and needs consensus to include. This kind of dispute seems to happen a lot. It seems like the recentness of edits or whether users like them seems to matter more than whether information is reliably sourced. I think Wikipedia should be more about analyzing the validity of the sources and less about either side playing games where they can try and lock a piece of information in or out based on stalemates.

I do not think it would be good for either of these editors to be excluded from this process. NB should have pinged NN before complaining about their lack of engagement in their talk page section, and should not have complained about edits made prior to beginning discussion or prior to notifying the person about that discussion. I think this request is premature and disagree with punishing NN until they have been allowed more time to actually engage in discussion of the topic on that talk page.

Far as I know, this request is the first observable instance of NN being informed by NB about a talk being in progress about their edits, efforts should have been made to include them privately before resorting to this. -- (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Nocturnalnow[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Ed, I'm honestly a little surprised to see you suggesting this indefinite topic ban – a restriction of this magnitude seems far more like something I would impose, not you! But having reviewed this complaint and the previous one, I think your suggestion is perfectly defensible. So too would be a more scope-limited ban, but I'm fine with Nocturnalnow working on something completely unrelated for a while and demonstrating a better grasp of BLP/NPOV before requesting that they be allowed to edit American politics again. NW (Talk) 22:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • {{checkuser needed}} I would appreciate it if a checkuser to take a look at, who has commented above. NW (Talk) 22:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @NuclearWarfare: What do you want to know about the IP? (please ping when you respond).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: Whether there is any evidence that an established user has used that IP address. Entering a dispute and citing Wikipedia policy while providing diffs at AE and ANI[120] seems like...unlikely behavior from a new editor editing Wikipedia for the first time. NW (Talk) 23:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • clock In progress. It's a crap shoot, but I might luck out. I won't be able to publicly disclose the named account, though, per the privacy policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Not surprisingly, nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • To be expected I suppose. Thanks Bbb23. NW (Talk) 21:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If admins favor a more limited ban, applying just to Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton, I could see the argument. Part of my concern is whether Nocturnalnow is able to edit neutrally about American politics. Consider a read of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huma Abedin (3rd nomination). The AfD was opened by Nocturnalnow after it appeared he couldn't persuade others to make the article sufficiently negative. (See also Talk:Huma Abedin/Archive 1#I can no longer contribute to this BLP). Here is part of his response to this AE (above): My contributions to American politics far outweigh any short term dust ups with a few editors whose paranoia and bias against suspected "conservative","republican", and "right wing" publications and editors is obvious for all to see on the Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton talk pages. Wow, what a secretive little kangaroo court railroading job is being attempted here.... EdJohnston (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, I'm convinced. Rereading the statements here was the icing on the cake. Thanks Ed. NW (Talk) 13:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with EdJohnston's suggestion of an "indefinite ban of User:Nocturnalnow from American politics since 1932 under WP:ARBAPDS". This is likely to repeat if not dealt with. HighInBC 16:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Winkelvi[edit]

Nothing left to do here. T. Canens (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 
Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – -- WV 01:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Indefinitely topic banned from Rick Alan Ross and related pages [121]
Winkelvi has been indefinitely topic banned from Rick Alan Ross and all related pages. [122], logged at Editing of Biographies of Living Persons.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
Notification diff here.

Statement by Winkelvi[edit]

Withdrawing this request since the ban has now been withdrawn by the filing administrator -- WV 23:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No discussion from sanctioning administrator, no questions asked, no AGF, no response to my follow-up comments; I feel the admin qualifies as involved; sanction is for a BLP and related topics, however, complaint from admin is not about the article but discussions with the article subject as an editor; I believe the issue can be solved without a sanction.


  • The so-called attacks happened prior to Bishonen’s talk page warning. Follow-up comments clearly stated I was trying to apply AGF. The comments I made to Rick Alan Ross about him as an editor after Bishonen’s warning were observations and never designed or intended to be attacks. Bishonen was offended by my comments about the repeated use of "my bio", but I don't see how, when read in context and with objective eyes, they can be seen as an attack. They were AGF advice.
  • Sanctions are a black mark on an editor going forward. I request the opportunity to self-monitor rather than being sanctioned. How I have edited the article has never been an issue.
  • My comments to RAR were in regard to the editor, not the article subject. There is a distinction. I and several others have felt he has been disruptive as an editor and a single purpose account. He has never given indication of intentions to be an editor contributing to Wikipedia beyond his continual requests and demands for changes at the article. There are discussions at the article talk page now and in the past about RAR's continual requests for content to deleted or reworded more favorably. The talk page now and in its history shows several editors have felt the same.
  • Because my comments have been to and about RAR the editor, I question the validity of the BLP sanction per policy. The ban is in regard to BLP article disruption.
  • The statement from Bishonen: "I have exemplified in several warnings how you have made up "policy" out of whole cloth..." I may have misunderstood policy and/or misstated policy according to my understanding of it, but making it up? No.
  • "I believe you when you say your intentions are good and you have nothing against Ross; but it really doesn't make any difference at this stage". Why doesn't it matter? Bishonen admits I have good intentions but the next statement is my good intentions don't matter, I am to be disbelieved. This tells me Bishonen has made this personal based on emotion.
  • "This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator" Based on the emotion and personalization outlined above, I don't see how she is an uninvolved administrator. WP:INVOLVED states that editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases they have strong feelings about. Her comments in the sanction notification shows she has VERY strong feelings about my comments regarding RAR. It’s further demonstrated here: " the last straw for me", "I will not put up with…”.
  • Bishonen did not AGF with me or communicate beyond threat, but I have no animosity and acknowledge her concerns. This was a wake-up call. My appeal is offered with the utmost sincerity. If any solution other than a formal TBAN is possible, I’m listening.
  • Reply to Bishonen: I absolutely can and will, however, I do request specifics, Bishonen. As someone on the autism spectrum, specifics are necessary so I can abide the letter of the proposal and and have a full understanding of what you mean by it. I think I already do understand what you are proposing, I just want to be sure so there will be no missteps on my part. And thank you, for this reasonable solution. I truly do appreciate it. -- WV 17:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply to Bishonen regarding this: "I want you to take Rick Alan Ross and its talkpage off your watchlist, never open a discussion about him or his article on any noticeboard or talkpage or anywhere, never take part in any such discussion that somebody else has opened, and, in fact, simply not mention him again." I absolutely can and will do all of that. My interest in the article is relatively new (I don't even remember how I happened on it -- possibly via recent changes?). While I care about the integrity of the article as I do any article, I don't feel like I have a super-vested interest in it as I do with other articles in Wikipedia. So, yes, I have no qualms trusting certain editors to keep an eye on it for the issues that have plagued it for years.
I do, however, see a possible problem down the road with this: "...simply not mention him again". If someone mentions this case, if someone brings him and me up as an issue at a noticeboard, I would likely have to respond (or may do so just as a natural response to an attack, poking, or query). That part of it might get sticky and/or leave room for those seeking to harm my editing capacity. Please understand that I am not balking at anything you've proposed. I'm just thinking ahead to any situations that might arise that could make that one part of your stipulations difficult or impossible to follow. -- WV 17:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "you may then have to mention him. That'll be fine. But I hope nobody will. I don't see why they'd want to, other than to make mischief." Precisely the kind of scenario I was thinking of. Yes, you would hope anyone wouldn't do such a thing, but we've all seen similar happen, haven't we? Based on what you've said here, I have no reservations whatsoever in agreeing to this proposal. I've already removed from my Watchlist the RAR article and another I had edited that mentions the editor in question. Thank you again, Bishonen. -- WV 18:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen[edit]

Rick Alan Ross has learned during his time on Wikipedia to use the proper channels to express concerns about his bio, and seems quite resilient to reasoned criticism. But I can only imagine how unpleasant it must be to experience the treatment W has been meting out to him, and after several bootless warnings I felt compelled to step in. Having a Wikipedia article about oneself at all is surely a dubious pleasure, a fortiori for people who are at all controversial, and we ought to be careful not to make it nastier than it has to be.

I have responded here on Winkelvi's page, in detail and with diffs, to several of the claims Winkelvi makes above, for instance the claim that he has only been talking about "RAR the editor, not the article subject". W may feel that, or remember it like that, but it's not how it has come across.

It's only a small topic ban — from one bio — which I should think will make little practical difference to W's editing, as he has lots of other interests on Wikipedia. But presumably that's not what upsets him; it's that he feels it's a stigma ("a black mark"). I can certainly sympathize with that, and it's a common feeling about any sanction. Winkelvi, would you rather make an informal undertaking from yourself to give RAR a wide berth — to avoid referring to him at all? I think that's the form the "self-monitoring" you suggest ought to take. It shouldn't be something like "I'll be nicer to RAR", IMO, because you obviously think you already are being sufficiently nice to him, and you have been unresponsive and often downright angry when several editors have urged you to act and talk differently. I'd be quite happy to rescind the ban if you undertake to leave RAR alone on your own responsibility. (It's enough if you say it here; no need for anything more formal than that.) Indeed, I can remove the ban from the discretionary sanctions log, if you like. It's not a mysterious technical thing like the block log, but merely a list that anybody can edit. It may be verboten to remove a listing, but I wouldn't mind trying and seeing what happens. Please think about it. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC).

  • Rp to Winkelvi: You're only supposed to edit in your own section, Winkelvi; I've moved it up there. I want you to take Rick Alan Ross and its talkpage off your watchlist, never open a discussion about him or his article on any noticeboard or talkpage or anywhere, never take part in any such discussion that somebody else has opened, and, in fact, simply not mention him again. I understand you feel a responsibility for the article, but it's quite well watched, with several editors as keen as you are to prevent it from turning into a puff piece, so I hope you'll feel able to trust them to take care of it. Bishonen | talk 17:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
  • Reply to W again: If somebody should mention Ross and you together in the same context somewhere, you should allow yourself to respond if you feel the need, and of course you may then have to mention him. That'll be fine. But I hope nobody will. I don't see why they'd want to, other than to make mischief. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
  • That's fine, thank you, Winkelvi. Of course you're free to remove whatever you like from your talkpage, including my ban message. I'll take care of the ban log in a while. Pinging JzG: I think we're done here, as the filer and I are both happy. AFAIC this can now be closed. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
  • Note: The ban has been rescinded and I have removed it from the log. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC).

Statement by involved Cullen328[edit]

On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation passed a resolution calling on all volunteers at WMF projects to treat "any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect". As Bishonen has shown, Winkelvi has adopted a consistently belligerent and confrontational attitude toward BLP subject Rick Allen Ross, who has had legitimate concerns about our biography of him. Winkelvi has persisted despite several warnings by other editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, your presence here is disallowed by policy, Cullen328, as you and I have been involved in a contentious dispute only a couple of days ago. If I'm correct about how policy reads for this type of proceeding, you should recuse yourself and, if allowed, delete your comments. -- WV 17:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not claim to be uninvolved, Winkelvi, and I will allow my statement to stand unless an uninvolved administrator advises me otherwise. The "contentious dispute" you mention is this very matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved Collect[edit]

I first saw the BLP at the BLP/N noticeboard - and I sought to depuff what appeared to be improper puffery, to word material in a neutral manner, and to try to make the negative material conform with WP:BLP. [123] and the like. WV repeatedly added [124] a "COI" tag to the BLP long after RAR clearly had ceased any edits on the BLP. While it is clear that RAR does call it "my" BLP, it is a matter of common sense that he was referring to the BLP about himself, and not asserting any editorial ownership of the BLP. WV, alas, seems to regard RAR as some sort of enemy of the state ("He is trying to sanitize the article on him. This has been pointed out numerous times by several editors. Why it isn't obvious to some is a puzzle, indeed." and "Ross isn't a contributor. He's the subject of an article he's trying to control" indicate a teensy bit of adversarial view). Where a person takes an adversarial view about a person who is the subject of a BLP, it is likely wise for the community or an impartial admin to impose restrictions on them. Collect (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by largely uninvolved Blackmane[edit]

This was the most recent ANI thread concerning Winkelvi and RAR. In summary, WV sought to have RAR topic banned from the article but observations from commenting editors indicated that RAR was in fact compliant with the various relevant policies. A topic ban was proposed by another editor but was soundly rejected. A block of RAR was also proposed but also soundly rejected. WV's behaviour in the thread descended quite rapidly until Drmies closed it with no action. It wasn't pretty, so a topic ban from the RAR article was a fairly light sanction all in all. Blackmane (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Figureofnine[edit]

I became aware of this situation because I watchlist Winkelvi's user talk page. We are emphatically not wikifriends, and I have found his behavior problematic in the past. However, in this instance, while I am not endorsing his conduct in this matter, I feel that there is an important principle here that may be overlooked. My reading of the discussions is that Winkelvi has a problem with Ross as an editor, not as the subject of this article. Now, perhaps I have overlooked something to contradict this impression, but that is my observation. I do not believe that Ross has necessarily done anything wrong either. Since seeing this issue arise I have gone to the article talk page and interacted with him. He seems reasonable. He is the subject of an article and understandably is sensitive and concerned about it. Indeed, I found that there was one inaccurate rendition of a source, which I corrected at his request. However, I urge all admins involved to carefully distinguish between whether Winkelvi has behaved in an untoward fashion toward the subject as the subject, or as an editor. We run into these kinds of situations sometimes in COI situations and I think that distinction is important. I think that such Tbans should only be applied when is antagonism to the subject as the subject, not because the editor feels that the subject is behaving poorly as an editor. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear: I am not endorsing Winkelvi's actions. What I am suggesting is that his actions be viewed as directed toward a fellow editor, not toward the subject. If penalties are warranted (I am agnostic on that), they should be dealt with as offenses against a fellow editor. I have my own neutrality concerns regarding the overall approach of the article, and have started a discussion on that point. The talk page discussion has tended to get stuck in micro-issues. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Francis Schonken[edit]

Supporting Bishonen's action without further ado. I'm involved (although usually quickly bored with the topic area, as I explained elsewhere before). I think what R. A. Ross (that is the subject of the article, and the talk page editor) needs is a somewhat more impartial introduction to how Wikipedia works, overcoming former obstacles which after ten years of anon and other frictions seem well underway to become more manageable. Winkelvi's efforts are largely outside that dynamic, rather preferring to send the subject on a wild goose chase than actually address issues the Wikipedia way. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Winkelvi[edit]

I'm not sure what Winkelvi understands by "No discussion from sanctioning administrator, no questions asked, no AGF, no response to my follow-up comments", but you only have to look at his talkpage to see the response from 'Shonen (permalink), made over two hours before he made that accusation here. In her response, she points out her two previous warnings on 24 November, (first, second) that Winklevi reverted as "b.s.", and her third warning on December 22. She also patiently explains why she is not INVOLVED, and draws his attention to multiple other editors who have complained about his actions, and his negative reactions to each. When talking does not convince an editor that he needs to step away from a topic, then a topic ban is the next logical step. Without any understanding from Winkelvi that he needs to revise how he is interacting with others, any lifting of the topic ban would be counter-productive and we'd just be back here in another few weeks. --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Winkelvi[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • However passionately Winkelvi may believe he is upholding the standards of Wikipedia, it is unquestionably the case that his input in respect of Rick Ross, both as a subject and as an individual editing Wikipedia, is not helping. In fact it goes beyond not helping and into actively hampering efforts to draw the fine line of neutrality in covering controversial biography subjects. Bishonen is not, in my experience, given to capricious imposition of long-term restrictions. I do not think this is a particularly controversial ban and would encourage Winkelvi to leave it at least six months before appealing. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • See this thread and the latest comment in Winkelvi's section. It appears that both Winkelvi and Bishonen are OK with this appeal being closed as declined. On the merits I share JzG's view. I hope Bishonen will clarify if she wants to undo this ban as a discretionary sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Minor4th[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Minor4th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

1RR violation:

  1. Yesterday: initial revert (@ 08:31, 20 December 2015) to modify lede to remove mention of "cancer", then today:
  2. revert @ 15:40, 21 December 2015‎
  3. revert @ 16:14, 21 December 2015‎ (note also a WP:CRYBLP in the ES)
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them.

Minor4th writes "... based on the DS and 1RR restrictions on this article ..." just prior to the final revert in the above sequence.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This editor appears to want to remove the word "cancer" from the lede, and is edit-warring in pursuit of that apparent objective.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Responses to the statements of others

@Minor4th: Your statement makes it seem you think you have access to The Truth™ of this matter, and so can edit-war to correct what you see as an "error". I think you're wrong and your use of sources here is selective and muddled. But this is not the place for that content dispute (which continues on the article Talk page), but to address the question of your 1RR violation. Alexbrn (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: We do not need a WP:MEDRS to tell us what a journal article claimed, since that question is one of textual interpretation, and obviously not a WP:BIOMEDICAL question subject to procedures like systematic review etc. However if you want a journal article than mentions "cancer" then check out the title of PMID 23430588. Generally, the medical literature uses the more technical caricno-stemmed wording, which we should translate into lay terms for our audience. Alexbrn (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: You appear to be incorrect in saying Séralini avoided cancer claims. His paper mentions it has found "serious suspicion of carcinogenicity" and our 2012 Nature news source[125] tells us: "Séralini has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive". Alexbrn (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: I did not violate 1RR. I take it you know consecutive edits by an editor count as but a single edit? I would also question your self-designation as "uninvolved" given you've just been party to a case investigating problematic GMO editors. Alexbrn (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Minor4th[edit]

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.

Statement by Minor4th[edit]

General response to enforcement request[edit]

Diff #2 [126] provided in the OP is not a revert. It is an edit. The only revert in the 24 hour period by me was the single revert shown in Diff #3, wherein I also cited the BLP violation. There is no dispute that is a revert, and whether or not you agree that it remedies a BLP violation, it's only a single revert and does not violate the ARB restriction.

Clarification needed: If I am wrong about this, then I need someone to clearly explain how diff #2 is a revert. If that's the case then virtually every edit could be called a revert because nearly every edit changes some previous editor's work. If that's the rule then I'll abide by it, but that essentially means that editors can only make one edit (or several consecutive edits) per page per day in the topic area. I don't think that is what was intended.

Specific responses to comments[edit]

Alexbrn is edit warring in the word "cancer" in the lead contrary to the scientific sources - and that creates a BLP issue because he's attributing the conclusion "there's a strong link between GMO and cancer" to a scientist who did not make that conclusion. This is intentional to make the scientist look like a lunatic by falsely attributing outrageous claims to him. This is a prima facie BLP violation. Minor4th 17:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I agree to self revert, but I cannot concede that "cancer" and "tumors" mean the same thing in this context because that is false. If the closing admin or anyone making comments here does not understand the difference between "cancer" and "tumor" in this study, then you don't understand the study or the science. And if you don't understand the study, you don't understand the whole underpinning of the "Seralini affair." One must be able to properly evaluate the sources in this area to edit with competency.

For reliable sources regarding "cancer" vs. "tumor", see the following related RS:

1. Retractionwatch [127]:

Seralini and his colleagues provide a timeline in the press materials of their version of events. One element in particular caught our eye:

Wallace Hayes wrote an article to defend his position that raises doubts about his understanding of the study and raw data. He mentions in his defense he was unable to conclude that “there was a clear link between GMO and cancer.” An obvious error of W. Hayes as the term “cancer” has never been mentioned in the paper of Séralini’s research team. And it does not affect any aspect of the research on Roundup.

Now, “tumor” and “cancer” are not necessarily the same thing. But the original paper certainly referred to tumors repeatedly, and Seralini, as Nature reported at the time,

2. Republication of the retracted paper [128], clarifying that the study was not a cancer study:

This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation. Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study.

3. Nature [129]. This is the EXACT quote that Alexbrn proposed on the talk page when we started discussing this a couple of days ago, and now he is complaining that I am edit warring the word "tumor" in:

Séralini's team had found that rats fed for two years with a glyphosate-resistant type of maize (corn) made by Monsanto developed many more tumours and died earlier than did control animals. It also found that the rats developed tumours when Roundup was added to their drinking water.

(edited) Minor4th 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohntson - I was fixing a factual error, not just playing around with wording. Minor4th 06:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

' Kingifaces43's aspersions - Kingofaces43 is casting aspersions by calling my edits "advocacy" and describing me as being the subject of many warnings and disputes in this topic area. That is false on its face. Please look at Kingofaces43's continued aspersions against editors he doesn't like and how it promotes battlefield editing in this controversial topic. Sanctions against KOA are appropriate per DS. Minor4th 00:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish - I have agreed to self revert and stated that I did not intentionally violate any editing restriction - but it's improper to ask for a concession on the substantive issue of whether "cancer" = "tumor." Minor4th 19:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Masem has evaluated the situation exactly right. Minor4th 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw has correctly described the edits and distinguished a legitimate edit from a revert. Minor4th 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by David Tornheim[edit]

Alexbrn is violating consensus. I will explain further after doing more research. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

AlexBrn is just as guilty of edit warring (see list of diffs below). But worse, he has attempted to edit-war in the cancer claims both without consensus and in light of misrepresentations about the study. The discussion continues on the Seralini page and the lede, a discussion I started here. Others are currently working together to try to come to a consensus decision (Tyrptofish here KingofAces43 here and me here). AlexBrn's claims of "consensus" like this, and this comment are not helping. AlexBrn's attempt to force in the language "claimed there was a strong link between genetically modified organisms and cancer" is not helping. The original study does not even mention any connection to cancer. AlexBrn correctly pointed out that the revised republished study does speak of a "serious suspicion of carcinogenicity"; however, the Abstract clearly states that the study "was not designed as a carcinogenicity study." And in the sentence before and after the quote about a "suspicion of carcinogenicity", it is reasserted that it is a toxicity study and not a full carcinogenicity study. The texts says a full carcinogenicity study "would be a rational follow-up investigation". (Republished Study) In responding to the Editor who was hired to retract the original published study, Seralini said:

In fact you clarified your position in a statement published in FCT: “To be very clear, it is the entire paper, with the claim that there is definitive link between GMO and cancer that is being retracted” (Hayes, 2014). Yet we made no such “claim” in our paper. We drew no inference and made no claims about “cancer” ; nowhere did we claim a “definitive link between GMO and cancer”. It should be noted that tumorigenesis is not synonymous with cancer. Tumours can be in some cases more rapidly lethal than cancers because their size can cause hemorrhages and possible impairments of vital organs, as well as secretion of toxins.

AlexBrn's edit-warring in cancer claims without consensus and with disregard for misrepresentations about the study is in violation of WP:BRD:

  • [131] Revision as of 15:44, December 21, 2015 -- puts the language back in after being reverted
  • [132] Revision as of 16:02, December 21, 2015 -- again puts the language back in after being reverted.

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Re Mystery Wolff's post:

  • I agree that Minor4th's edits are GoodFaith and should not be sanctioned.
  • I disagree about GMO Page Protection. I do not believe I have sufficient space to explain why here.

--David Tornheim (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

For purposes of evaluating whether edits were reverts, I do not think that, in this context, it is useful to treat "tumors" as different than "cancer". (There are such things as benign tumors, but the source material here is about cancerous tumors.) I also think that we need to be careful about invocations of BLP. I'm no lawyer, but it is hard for me to believe that a successful defamation claim would result simply from saying that a scientific journal article made some conclusions about carcinogenicity; I suspect that the defamation was more about accusations of scientific fraud. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Looie's comment about the need to start setting boundaries (in a dispute that I think is metasticising more than Seralini's rats). I also consider the special pleading that has been rife in this discussion, that maybe Seralini said that the tumors were benign tumors, and that that makes edit warring justified, to be a distraction. This isn't an AE about which sentence should use the word "cancer". It's an AE about disruptive conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Looking back here, in terms of the advice from the administrator about conceding the point, it sure looks to me like no one is conceding anything, and that's all the more reason to set boundaries. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG[edit]

This was not an accidental violation, IMO. For some reason that entirely escapes me, both Minor4th and David Tornheim seem to want to use technical jargon (tumour, mutagenic) in place of the plain English preferred by many of the reliable sources on which we base the article. The claim that this is a WP:BLP violation is without merit, since it is not our claim but that of the reliable independent sources (example). It's worth remembering that a significant part of the criticism of this study centres on its prior release to journalists via a press briefing. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the source of the link to cancer is Séralini himself - many of the news articles are, after all, illustrated with a photo of Séralini holding up a rat with cancer. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: the diffs you present do not constitute more than one revert to the article. Nor are they problematic: they restore consensus versions following discussion on Talk, in each case removing POV WP:BOLDly added by one or more apparent partisans. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: MEDRS does not apply in this specific instance because we are not claiming that thr Séralini affair does or does not cure cancer, we are covering the Séralini affair as a drama that played out in the popular press, largely because of Séralini's media manipulation (dramas solely within the scientific press are rarely notable). We don't need a MEDRS to say how the popular press represented what they were spoon-fed by Séralini, to go back to what is defensible from the paper is fallacious precisely because Séralini's message, i.e. the Séralini affair, went far beyond what could be defended from the actual study results. Which is why the paper was retracted, and why we have the article in the first place. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Looie496[edit]

This is now the fourth enforcement request derived from the GMO case, none of which have produced any action. Admins should consider that each violation that slips by will only encourage further violations, increasing the magnitude of the enforcement actions that will ultimately have to taken. Worse, it is likely that the violations that are ultimately sanctioned will come from editors who don't really want to violate the remedies but feel forced to in response to violations from others. In other words, failure to set clear boundaries is only going to end up hurting the editors you are trying to be nice to, because they are going to keep testing the boundaries regardless of how far they have shifted. Looie496 (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo[edit]

The RS say "cancer" so cancer is what we should say. That's why we prefer secondary sources over primary ones. We need not reflect Seralini's equivocating that he never said cancer when his entire emphasis, and the impetus for the criticism and notability of this whole affair, was the cancerous tumors in the rats that he showcased more than any other thing. There's no BLP violation in following the RS characterization of the paper. Capeo (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn already stated this but there's no MEDRS claim so there's no need for MEDRS compliant sources. This is about describing why the paper was controversial and what AlbinoFerret called a letter to the editor is actually the editor in chief of the journal describing why the article was retracted. A person more than qualified to contextualize the paper. And what AlbinoFerret calls gaming is usually called consensus. Capeo (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Masem, this isn't an article about the paper itself. It's and article about the controversy surrounding it and the main cause of the controversy is that, despite Seralini's equivocating, the paper connected GMOs to causing "cancerous" tumors, which is wording Seralini has used in interviews on his own web page. This connection was reinforced by Seralini himself as the tumors were the emphasis of his own press releases. The fact that he backed off on it after being called on it has no bearing on what caused the controversy itself. Even the republished paper is still loaded with pics of rats with tumors despite his claims and he rightly got called out about it yet again. Capeo (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And I have to laugh that people are talking about MEDRS when a retracted paper republished in a zero impact journal isn't a MEDRS in the first place. Capeo (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Masem, the paper has zero scientific notability at this point and falls firmly into WP:FRINGE. Its only notability is the reaction to it connecting GMOs to cancer. The article already mentions that Seralini claims he never said cancer. Generally speaking we need to mention why this event is even notable in the first place in the lede before anything else. That's aside from the fact that Seralini says things like " In our study, we never mentioned the word cancer, because there were tumours, which varied from more or less cancerous." [133] That doesn't even make sense. And Seralini outright claims the very WP:FRINGE POV that his paper proves GMOs are toxic and cause tumors. This isn't a scientific topic. It's purely fringe and should be treated the same way we treat other fringe topics. Capeo (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Masem, it says nothing about it being a "cancer study" and makes no claim that is was. It says simply what the RS say, which is the only reason it is notable, which is that it connected GMOs to cancer, which is what we should say. That can then be followed up with Seralini's denial and why RS completely rejected said denial due to Seralini's own sensationalist emphasis on the tumor results over all else. Tumors he himself called cancerous. Capeo (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This is actually from the retractionwatch source Minor4th posted above. They note Nature reported that Seralini "has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive that began last month and included the release of a book and a film about the work." Capeo (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]

Looking at the sources, a letter to the editor, a news article in a journal, one in the popular press. I question if these pass WP:MEDRS because the sources are coming to a biomedical conclusion (cancer). Are there any MEDRS sources that use the term cancer? This is also a problem mentioned in the Workshop, multiple editors reverting. Sadly the abs didnt put a stop to multiple editors jumping in and reverting. What it ends up doing is editing by mob rule, whoever has the biggest group wins instead of discussion. That is gaming the system. AlbinoFerret 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn As pointed out in Masem's post below, The original paper did not mention cancer. Sources coming to that conclusion should be MEDRS compliant. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43[edit]

In addition to the reverts and gaming of BLP described here, there are also violations covered by pseudoscience/fringe discretionary sanctions.[134] Those sanctions deal with behavior issues closely tied with content. Improper escalation (such as this BLP invocation) is also covered in this related case. Even in Minor4th's section above and the article, they have violated WP:OR in the manner they have tried to argue that reliable sources are "WRONG" from personal opinion and trying to unduly validate the WP:FRINGE point of view of the BLP subject.[135] The events of the controversy are already accurately described by multiple reliable sources even without WP:PARITY in mind.

Especially given the variety of issues here they are still digging in on (and lack of enforcement so far in other cases), we've reached the point at least with this editor that the time of warnings being useful has long passed considering they've followed drama on this topic for awhile now. We need the sanctions to be enforced to stop disruptive behavior like this or remove editors with ingrained problems. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Just a note that Atsme below is highly involved in following the drama on this topic being extensively involved in the ArbCom case, especially after many editors involved in WP:MEDRS and fringe topics tried to deal with their problem behaviors at fringe BLP topics (e.g., [136]). Not directly involved in GMOs per se, but highly involved in purusing editors that have tried to deal with their behavior problems at ANI, etc. in the past. Peripheral editors like this are a problem in this topic (as seen by the number of people that come to GMO enforcement cases), but I'm not sure if or how that can be handled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Atsme: I'm not going to engage your behavior issues here further [137][138] However, those issues[139][140][141] are going to be mentioned when you claim yourself to be uninvolved when inserting yourself into topics at ArbCom or noticeboards related to editors you have been very involved with dealing with your behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Masem, the key detail you missed was that Seralini did try to make the association to cancer, both in media interviews after publication and within the paper (i.e., waving around a bunch of pictures of rats with tumors with no controls or statistical tests). When a WP:FRINGEBLP is criticized for their actions and they backtrack contrary to actual events that they never said something, we don't give that point of view any weight at the article or here at this board. The characterization that Seralini did not try to portray a link between glyphosate, GMOs, etc. and cancer is distinctly a fringe point of view.

I'll also ping @EdJohnston: to read the above since they've been pinged recently about Masem's summarization. Additionally, we so far have a few policy violations by Minor4th, some of this case being muddled by the fringe content aspect, and comments like Atsme's that are trying to go after Alexbrn for responding to Minor4th's advocacy in a reasonable manner. We're in a situation where some editors will push and push the line, and other editors will go after the editor who tries to respond to that in these boards. I don't have any solutions for that, but any thoughts on how to potentially handle this situation we've had in the last few requests here? Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme[edit]

I am an uninvolved editor regarding this article. I don't edit articles involving GMOs, etc. but I do edit BLPs. I ask that the admins who are following this case to please make note of the following before drawing their conclusions:

ALEXBRN REVERTS (uses TW to avoid individual reverts which also needs to be noted, and also uses rather evasive edit summaries to diffuse attention to the fact he is edit warring and changing the context of a statement):

It appears Alexbrn has also violated 1RR and has established a patterned behavior of edit warring. Just look at how the edit history plays out which is why I can't understand why Minor4th has been targeted as the sole violator:

December 21st
  • Minor4th (cur | prev) 16:14, December 21, 2015
  • Alexbrn (cur | prev) 16:03, December 21, 2015
  • Alexbrn (cur | prev) 16:02, December 21, 2015
  • Alexbrn (cur | prev) 15:44, December 21, 2015
  • Minor4th (cur | prev) 15:40, December 21, 2015
  • Alexbrn (cur | prev) 14:53, December 21, 2015
December 20th
  • Minor4th (cur | prev) 23:38, December 20, 2015
  • (two in-between edits by another editor)
  • Minor4th (cur | prev) 13:27, December 20, 2015
  • Alexbrn (cur | prev) 08:31, December 20, 2015
  • Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:34, December 20, 2015
  • Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:32, December 20, 2015
  • Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:27, December 20, 2015‎
  • Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:02, December 20, 2015

Thank you for attention to this matter. Atsme📞📧 16:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Admins, your attention, please

The diff Kingofaces included to discredit me was unwarranted and worse, based on a false allegation of me being a SPA in an old AN/I case. My edit history has long since proven my purpose on WP and that the allegation was false and unwarranted. I tried to get ArbCom to address his behavior but since it was not within the locus of the case, they dismissed it. I have not mentioned his name in this incident prior to now so why is he allowed to besmirch my reputation, and attempt to discredit my statement here as an uninvolved editor? If it's not considered bullying, it is certainly harassment and actionable behavior either way. He has been warned more than once, but because he keeps getting away with it, he keeps bringing it up. Ignoring it does nothing but embolden him all the more, and that isn't what should be happening right under the noses of multiple admins. Please stop his disruption and attempts to divert attention away from this very important case. Atsme📞📧 21:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Kingofaces, your harassing me does not make me an involved editor but it does draw attention to your bullying. I'd offer you a backhoe but you're digging a pretty deep hole without one. Atsme📞📧 23:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • EdJohnston, since you are the admin overseeing this AE request, please take the appropriate action against Kingofaces for his unwarranted attempts to intimidate me by dredging up diffs that have no relevance to this case, and that clearly demonstrate his intention to besmirch my reputation. According to WP:Civility, such behavior is actionable, especially when it is repeated over and over again as Kingofaces has done...and he's doing it right under your nose. Atsme📞📧 23:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • JzG, with all due I've been advised by an admin in the past - even if you believe you are right you cannot edit war. As you know, the number of reverts are not a requisite for an editor to be blocked for edit warring,[142]. It's rather obvious who made the most edits/reverts/changes and created a battleground, and it wasn't Minor4th. Also, Kingofaces violated WP:CIVILITY policy by dredging up diffs in his relentless attempts to besmirch me and diffuse my participation in important discussions. The fact that his behavior continues to be ignored is shameful, especially at this venue, and is beginning to smell a lot like the stench of bias and double standards. Atsme📞📧 19:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Alexbrn whether you violated 1RR doesn't really matter. Admins know the rules about battleground, gaming strategies, group support, and the like. I'm simply stating facts and presenting diffs to support them. You were edit warring, and doing so is just as actionable as violating 1RR so there is no need to belabor or argue the point. Furthermore, your strawman argument that I was named in the GMO ArbCom case has nothing to do with your battleground behavior at the Seralini BLP. I never edited that article - you did. My recommendation here is a good trouting for the edit warriors, and an iBan against Kingofaces for his unconscionable behavior toward me and his aspersions against Minor4th on this noticeboard, not to mention other venues. He has a serious issue in that regard, and it will require admin intervention to correct it. Atsme📞📧 20:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Masem[edit]

Reviewing the base situation from someone uninvolved with GMO articles, but otherwise able to look at the scenario from a scientific viewpoint:

  • A professor, whose past publications and statements have appeared to make him critical of GMO, publishes a reviewed paper that from lab studies that certain GMO products cause rats to develop more tumors and die sooner than control specimens. The paper appears to purposely avoid attaching the word "cancer" to the results.
  • The paper on publication is criticized by many third-parties (attracted by the established aspect of the professor's criticism of GMO), claiming that the linkage of GMO to "cancer" (their words) was not shown by appropriate scientific methods. The paper is ultimately pulled, even with the editor-in-chief commenting on the claim about timing GMO to cancer.
  • The professor restates that his paper was not a cancer study, and before it was pulled, has the work amended to make this clear.

While "tumor" and "cancer" may be synonymous in some areas (such as everyday language one might use with friends or family), this seems like a matter of scientific precision in a hotly contested area (GMO) and the need to distinguish between the two (as the professor apparently took steps to do and had to clarify this), even if others in the scientific community felt the tumor study was really an obfuscated cancer study. So for our article to claim, factually, that the professor wrote a cancer study is not appropriate. It's an edge case of BLP, as we are putting other people's words to speak for the professor's intentions when he has made it clear in verified manners of what his intent was (not a cancer study), even though we are otherwise not talking about specific claims about the professor himself that BLP normally covers. It is still is fair to include the fact that other scientists took the paper as a cancer study and thus were very critical of how the study was done that they saw the linkage of GMO to cancer, but in introducing the paper for the first time in the lede and in the body, it should not be called a cancer study if the professor has been very clear this was not the intent. Even if every other scientist in the area commented that the professor's paper was a cancer study but the professor remained insistent it wasn't, we should still be respecting the claim of the professor first followed by the claims by everyone else to stay consistent with BLP. If anything this is more a situation that falls under WP:YESPOV, where we clearly have a controversial statement (if the paper was a tumor or a cancer study), so there's a proper way to approach this.

In terms of the actions of the editors, I do think that the BLP issue is there, but it is very much an edge case which did not need immediate attention as most BLP violations typically require but instead more discussion and possibly more eyes on it. Actions by both editors should be at least trouted and warned against, particularly as at the time across these changes there was an active discussion. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

(Moved replies to Capeo and Kingofaces43 to User:Masem/GMOcaseComments due to statement length)

Statement by uninvolved MarkBernstein[edit]

  • Masem is correct: the distinction between "tumor" and "cancer" is indeed significant, and is not merely semantic evasion. I have not reviewed the paper or the subsequent literature, but if Masem’s review is correct, @EdJohnston:’s preliminary conclusion cannot be.
  • With respect, I disagree with JzG that we should prefer “plain English” to technical terms such as “ tumor" and "mutagenic". Jargon should be avoided where possible, but precise language is sometimes necessary. Evidence has been presented that the test animals developed tumors, but not that these tumors are in fact malignant; it makes sense that the article reflect this until the question is settled.
  • You can’t settle this without assessing the scientific evidence; if you try, you may embarrass the project.
  • As other editors have said above, you can’t punt the issues indefinitely without nullifying the GMO decision. The latter might be the best course of action, though this is probably not the place to do that.
  • Does misstating or misrepresenting -- perhaps unintentionally -- the conclusion of a scientific paper written by a living person violate BLP? I cannot think that it does, reserving possible exceptions for malice and for unreasonable or incredible distortion. If scientific articles are to be simultaneously edited by experts and by laypersons, misunderstandings will arise. Do we want to place every scientific and engineering topic under discretionary sanctions? A considerable portion of the technical literature, after all, is written by people who are currently living.
  • 1RR as currently understood may prove unfeasible in contentious technical areas. As JzG demonstrates, one editor may reasonably perceive a merely semantic distinction where another editor perceives a substantive correction. This invites games of gotcha.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw[edit]

Looking at the history and the current version of this article, it appears that Minor4th made an appropriate correction and it was the other user who was edit-warring and attacking Minor4th. Minor 4th made an edit, was reverted and then restored the edit -- that was an edit 1RR, not 2. I think that a warning should suffice on this one, as it is clear that NPOV and proper phrasing of a BLP trumps other matters. Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Mystery Wolff[edit]

I am now familiar with GMOrganisms and related pages from this AE page due to my short time needing to check it for another article set. Reading the comments I believe I agree most with Montanabw above, except I do not believe Minor4th should be warned because its not 1RR. Also 1RR is such a tight standard good faith NPOV and really minor edits, should be allowed. The BLP points are also well taken.

But what I really think is that what I will call the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly solution should be deployed. WP:[GBU]?
In the movie of the same name North and South are fighting over the same bridge, each day, lots of deaths, no progress, cease fires to clean up the bodies and rinse and repeat. The only solution to stop the carnage and deaths, was to blow up the Bridge.

This situation is just going to keep on going for GMO and related. So I think the Admins should just agree to blow up the bridge, and put in Full Protection of the entire set of articles. Then on a once a week move schedule, an admin will move into the articles, the agreed upon changes out of TALK. Nothing is going to be earthshakingly different that article and the outside readers won't benefit from a more stable viewable article.

Its just far to big of an Enclopedia to see these same topics coming back and back to AE. 3 times in 2 weeks, at least for GMO. And just like GBU, there seems to be more and more bodies that can get banned for GMO. Just blow up the bridge. Take away the thing they are fighting over. You can generated more ARBs more AE's and more methods to techically bypass the DS and warnings. Or just blow up the bridge, send to full protection. Given the science and controversy I don't think it will every come out of Full Protection, but that is OK, because of the sheer time savings to all.

Summary: Send to full protection.....Blow up the bridge per WP:GBU. Mystery Wolff (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Minor4th[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The difference between 'cancer' and 'tumor' in the lead doesn't appear enough to justify Minor4th's claim of a BLP violation. Even if you insist that 'cancer' should be 'tumor' the first time around, the word cancer still appears multiple times elsewhere in the lead, and also appears in the title of one of the references provided (Arjo et al):" in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats". Since Minor4th is only tweaking the wording and not fixing a factual error, this series of edits is just a plain 1RR violation by Minor4th. A block should be discussed unless Minor4th will concede the point. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The 1RR rule is established to allow quick action on simple violations. Since the complaint has been open for five days there is no more chance of a quick action. Our article on the Séralini affair article doesn’t put Séralini in a good light. It passes along the published criticism to our readers. The reverts that were submitted for admin action in this complaint don't change the overall verdict much, so the intensity of the brief revert war seems out of proportion to anything that could be gained. This request should be closed with no action. All parties should be aware that continued edit warring won’t be tolerated. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I generally concur with EdJohnson, including his last sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)