Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188

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

Contents

Arbitration enforcement appeal by User:HughD[edit]

Appeal denied. NW (Talk) 18:43, 11 January 2016 (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 
HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Hugh (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
1 week block, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests#HughD, logged at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2
Administrator imposing the sanction 
EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. I am aware of this appeal, and don't require a notice. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by HughD[edit]

No violation of topic ban. No disruptive behavior. Good faith edits. Harassment by complainant. Misrepresentations by involved editors in statements in request for enforcement. No consensus for closure of harassing request for enforcement. No consensus for block. Lack of proportionality. Block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to our project. Repeated offer to apologize and strike through ignored. Respectfully request unblock. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

Statement by Arthur Rubin[edit]

As should be obvious, there is little accurate in Hugh's statement. To note one of the more obvious errors, he says he "offered to strike" a violation. He had plenty of opportunity to do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]

Hugh's appeal ironically casts aspersions on those who participated in the original enforcement request, specifically that we engaged in "misrepresentations". Of course, he provides no details or diffs. Does the casting of naked aspersions in the appeal of a block merit extension of the block? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC) I was not involved in the locus of this dispute, but added comment in the enforcement request regarding troubling behavior discussing elsewhere re climate change denial, which is closely associated with conservative US politics.

Statement by SageRad[edit]

What i saw of HughD's recent editing is at ExxonMobil where his dialog on the talk page seems fine to me. Rather my recent treatment by the above commenter, NewsAndEventsGuy, seemed contentious and troubling to me, so i would take his assessment with a grain of salt as it seems probably skewed. Anyway, there is obviously political bias going on in judgments here. I haven't looked to the specifics of why the block happened, but this has the flavor of a persecution based on politics. SageRad (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ricky81682[edit]

There's no basis for appeal here. These line-drawing games have gone on long enough. HughD was specifically told that editing on Watchdog.org was a violation of the topic ban and I expressly told him repeatedly to bring it here if he actually wants to dispute that expansion. Regardless of the extensive circular discussion held at my talk page (including a series of typical passive aggressive insults at my editing), HughD never actually requested an appeal of the topic ban here. Instead he directly made a request about it and when called out argued that it was a procedural not substantive issue as is his norm. HughD's argument above that Citizens United itself was in the scope of the ban but the Citizens United Supreme Court was not if kept, is going to make it virtually impossible for anyone to figure out what is or isn't covered by this topic ban as he always has another excuse for why he's done nothing wrong. The fact that he's arguing about style not content is irrelevant: the only to make his topic ban stick is to give him zero ability to play around with it. Further, I hope the separate evidence regarding the actions at Talk:ExxonMobil (which he will probably argues requires a separate topic ban for him on climate change) are just another part of the pattern of behavior whereby he continually removes other people's comments, reorganizes RFCs and then spreads notification after notification around when the results aren't going his way to delay a closing and to further and further WP:BLUDGEON his opponents until they leave it alone. A topic ban means to stay away from the topic, not permissible to edit on the topic "only for procedural or style purposes but not content purposes". Even then, everyone was seemingly in agreement that merely striking out the comments would have been sufficient but HughD chose not to do that evidence that he simply refuses to believe he's violated the ban based on his belief that he's only banned from "non-substantive, non-content-related editing" that only covers the organization but not the legal lawsuit about the organization. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

DENY (banned editor)

THIS IS A PERSECUTION NOT A PROSECUTION. The admin above is not neutral about this. HughD's restrictions should all be removed per IAR until a neutral uninvolved admin has determined that he's actually violated any policies. 166.171.122.92 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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

It appears to me that the ban is an attempt by certain editors, who disagree with HughD, to silence him. I have looked for evidence of wrongdoing by HughD but I can't find any. Biscuittin (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You looked? Really? Earlier today you flatly refused to review the case history. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I propose that the appeal be granted because the prosecution has offered no substantial evidence in support of the ban. The ban is also holding up a discussion at Talk:ExxonMobil because HughD is unable to participate in it. Biscuittin (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The editor casts asperstions against other editors with no diffs in his appeal. That's not a good start. It's a short ban, just live it out. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by HughD[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @Biscuittin: There is no "prosecution". This is not a legal proceeding. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any basis for an appeal. The topic-ban violations are cut and dried. Given the history of issues here, I think that the block should have been for a month. CIreland (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (reported by NewsAndEventsGuy)[edit]

No action taken. NW (Talk) 18:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ooops. Last summer, at AE I stated "I am retiring for 12 months". It was closed accordingly, and I gradually started commenting at talk pages again, but not article editing. I never really studied the closing instructions in that case. Oversight! I now realize the closing instructions covered the entire scope of wiki.... ANYWHERE on climate issues. After some time had passed, I somehow thought we closed that with a restriction on article space only. Sorry about my oversight. I'll go away from climate now, even on talk pages, per the closing instructions I previously didn't carefully notice. I'll also notify the various editors I've been engaged with lately.

One hedge... to extent anyone complains at ANI/AE about other aspects of my behavior I'd like the flexibility to respond.

Sorry about that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My reading of that close is that you restricted only regarding climate change not anything else, and participating in dispute resolution (including at AN/I and AE) is one of the usual exceptions to topic bans (see WP:BANEX) so I don't think you have anything to worry about in that regard. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, makes sense NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the wording of WP:BANEX I don't agree. The only exemption, for the banned person, is that they can ask questions about the scope of the ban. If NewsAndEventsGuy wants to resume editing talk pages and admin boards on the topic of ARBCC he should go through the steps of appealing the ban. The banning admin was User:Callanecc. But generally we do allow the banned person to respond at ANI if their own edits are questioned there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we're saying the same thing, but I'll illustrate the concern with an example to be sure. First, of course I would have to appeal before talking again about climate change, or initiating a complaint about someone else's actions in that area. However, there is another scenario and it goes like this....
  1. Closing instructions, which I only carefully read today, precluded climate talk page contribs by me. Oops.
  2. I made a bunch of climate talk page contribs during what I shall call "my stupid phase"
  3. Today I wised up and will wait out the ban.
  4. Tomorrow, one of the users with whom I interacted during my stupid phase might allege that during my stupid phase I broke AGF or NPA or something, in my remarks in the climate pages.
DISCUSSION - Although I was in vio of my voluntary ban in my stupid phase, I do not believe my voluntary ban ties my hands to defend against charges I failed AGF or NPA etc. As long as I don't bring up the underlying climate content any more than necessary to be comprehensible, fairness should allow me to explain my behavior in other respects should it be challenged. Is that that you meant, Ed? Finally.... if I honor the ban, such a complaint would be superfluous since ANI/AE is supposedly only for prevention and someone honoring a voluntary ban isn't making any trouble. Now that my stupid phase has come to an end, that is... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Ban Reset Request Recently, AE blocked/banned HughD (talk · contribs) for a month for a Tban vio. Key in that complaint was that he was given a chance to strike out some talk comments and did not do so. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess. Hugh is now setting me up for the same thumping, by asking that I revert or strike everything in many different threads. Since my goof predates interactions with Hugh, we should really treat ALL my violating comments the same way, whether they involved Hugh or not. The question should be "What solution is best for the project, overall? What solution is BEST at preventing problems?"

Reverting my violating comments will turn threads to hash. That's bad. Striking them out makes it hard to read, and there's been no formal complaint about the content of the remarks. So making them hard to read is only slightly better than just wasting them.

Instead, I'd like to suggest that the original 12 month clock on my voluntary Tban be reset, but my comments be left as they are. With that simple action, all the threads I inadvertently participated in will still be intelligible, and Hugh need not feel like there is a double standard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


Just as it is not easy to uncrack an egg, removing material which is pertinent to others' comments in discussions seems moderately useless. You noted your own violation, and your suggested "reset" makes far more sense than blocking yo for something you yourself noted. "Go and sin no more." Collect (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, father.Apologies to the religious with thin skin NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: For what it's worth I think you are making a good faith effort to deal with the issue. HughD was blocked for only 1 week, not a month. Perhaps a 1 week self imposed block would appease all since this was a first reported violation and self reported at that? Note that this is not HughD's first violation of his topic ban. Springee (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in, and just to be clear, there is nothing in my complaint against myself that is in any way intended to make more trouble for Hugh. He has a reasonable request (that I strike my comments) since he was expected to do the same. I'm only saying Hugh's suggested solution creates more problems than simply resetting my 12 month clock, and I'm fine with a long Tban. There's more to life than wiki (no offense, everyone). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Self reporting is admirable and shows a desire for good of the encyclopedic to work, in good faith. I wish more editors were as forthcoming with "oops" as many are in accusing others. It's refreshing to witness. It is not really workable to delete comments that are already woven into dialogs, but recognizing past issues is a good step. Here's to the hope of more collegiality in Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for gracious words despite me thumping you over lack of detail in your proposals and lack of RSs or logical reasoning. Which might seem an odd thing to say after the "thank you" but believe it or not, I think the greatest thing I can give back to say thank you is honest feedback..... Reduce the signal-to-noise ratio and you'll be far more effective in obtaining the consensus you hope, or at least one you can live with. Details! Diffs! RS and policy based reasons! And short.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


  • I'm going to close this as no action. If you want to voluntarily and unofficially restrict yourself from the topic area that's fine, but I don't see how the encyclopedia would be helped by resetting the topic ban or implementing a block given your recognition of the error and the steps you have taken to mitigate it. NW (Talk) 18:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Kachelus[edit]

Editor has stopped editing. Since there is no active problem, closing. Please come back if problems recur. Hopefully they won't. Jehochman Talk 13:52, 14 January 2016 (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 Kachelus[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Kachelus (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 

This editor is a long-term WP:SPA who's involvement at Wikipedia since September 2009 is (almost all) editing longevity articles. Discretionary sanctions are warranted against accounts that have a "clear shared agenda" such as those who consistently edit articles, and vote in AfDs to favor the position of the Gerontology Research Group, as opposed to the goals of Wikipedia. This is that type of editor.

  1. August 20, 2014 and June 29, 2014: Example of the typical editing by Kachelus which is of typical hyper-technical listcruft for the WOP tables, revising location of an alleged supercentenarian with no source provided (one being a edit summary to a random obscure GRG subpage with zero evidence for its credibility).
  2. December 19, 2015 Restoration of the nonsense that claims are "unverified" when they are classified as "unverified" under the GRG as opposed to when they are unverified as meant under WP:V. This has been well settled since August 2015.
  3. December 20, 2015 Reverting at Australian page to again assert GRG's "verified" status as opposed to what Wikipedia cares about.
  4. December 30, 2015 In an AFD, demands that "First create a list on wikipedia with all verified dead supercentenarians in a sortable table, sortable to gender, to year of death, to place of death, and then all the other lists could be merged or deleted. But not the other way round, because in this way there is danger of losing information in case of being not installed of the big table. So I wait for the big table." showing a complete disassociation for what is useful and productive here.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Editor has been editing in this area for many years and while there is almost no talk page comments, this one at that time had the ARBCOM notice on the talk page.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Kachelus As was suggested with respect to 930310 above, if you have any concerns about Legacypac, please propose a section here that explicitly explains the issues. It did no good in the section above and it will do no good here either. As to Ollie231213, I don't need to rehash the fact that a number of outside admins with no involvement in this area that agreed and supported the topic ban. If the same happens here, so be it. As to your editing, first, the issue is that the GRG has those categories and yet Wikipedia discussion after discussion among people who work on the entire encyclopedia and not the supercentenarian hobbyists have found the GRG unverified claims as not reliable sources. There have been numerous RFCs and debates on this policy with clear-cut support against the vast minority viewpoint that the GRG needs to be separately distinguished in any way. If you don't agree with that, fine but those views are considered disruptive and counter-productive here. It is not your opinions per se but the fact that your opinions reflect a complete disregard for the fundamentals behind Wikipedia's sourcing policy here with such things as demands to create a directory of supercentenarians before even considering deleting anything here that are problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz According to the editor, they do edit on other topics on other wikis so I don't see the particular issue with a topic ban as it may encourage editing on other topics here and a broader view about policies here. Even if the viewpoint is considered disruptive, I admit that it is contained to a single AFD at the moment for what it's worth. Perhaps just a warning and a reminder to review arguments to avoid is sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Diff


Discussion concerning Kachelus[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 Kachelus[edit]

Ok firstly sorry I have to say you are wrong, Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). In English wikipedia my main itenerary is longevity, yes, in other Wikipedias it is amateur soccer, politics, history and geography, but these are things you didn't know. So long-term WP:SPA is only partly true, because this topic is only dealt in English wikipedia. Over the years I tried to get the several lists in this topic to a similar content and show the correct historic names of regions about 110 years ago if they were not already written in these lists. In Wikipedia is not only GRG a source, several other media also reported supercentenarians I showed. Unfortunately GRG did not prove them, but that is not my fault when wikipedia lists made differences between verified, pending and unverified cases — it was not me who introduced that. I just want to keep information on wikipedia before people wish to remove them for reasons we cannot really understand. Over the years no one concerned about that, just now, I don't know why. But now I understand your wish to ban everyone who is not on your opinion (e.g. Ollie231213) and I think that is not what Wikipedia stands for. Legacypac nominates for AfD, and you wish to ban editors who have the opposite opinion (keeping), sorry that is not the way I want to waste my free-time for arguing against, I am not paid for that. Do, what you wish to do and be lucky with that. I wish you a very Happy New Year!--Kachelus (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac[edit]

The editor concerned named me in this discussion but did not tag or notify me. I only stumbled on it now. The tenacious editing, throwing all appeals to policy out the window is annoying. I suspect this editor is part of the off wiki coordinated efforts to clumsily vote keep on everything ever copied from a GRG list, then duplicated several times on Wikipedia in an effort to boast the credibility of that organization. Like the editors they defend who were banned, this editor needs some time to edit in an area they are less personally invested in.

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Kachelus[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This post by Kachelus does indeed appear to go against the usual Wikipedia content standards so I can see an argument that his continued participation on longevity articles is not a net benefit to Wikipedia: "..these lists were generated by many users in lots of months, even years. Is it your wish to destroy their work?" (See WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). If there was an entire group of defenders of a set of articles willing to deploy this kind of argument in deletion discussions, you can see that it might have a bad effect. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The post highlighted by EdJohnston is very concerning. Does that amount to a topic ban? Perhaps not if this is a lone voice but we cannot have groups of editor's trying to impose an different standard of notability for their pet editing areas. Open to alternative suggestions on how we deal with this? Spartaz Humbug! 19:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems clear to me. Kachelus is essentially a WP:SPA and seems to be engaging in exactly the behaviour that prompted the case - the primary commitment seems to be to the GRG and bringing its message to Wikipedia, rather than to Wikipedia itself. This is exactly the kind of editor who impedes attempts by those not deeply wedded to the subject, to enforce Wikipedia's standards of sourcing and notability. I do not think a TB would harm the project, and I do think it would help the project. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiking[edit]

No sanction. The editor was not given a proper notice of the discretionary sanctions before this complaint was filed. Jehochman Talk 19:42, 12 January 2016 (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 Wiking[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 10:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Wiking (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:ARBPIA, "general 1RR restriction"
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 5 Jan 2016 16:54: Removes category and entire paragraph, with obvious connection to Israel/Palestine. Part of the paragraph was added here (and subsequently expanded by other editors).
  2. 6 Jan 2016 13:47: Does the same again
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
NA
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • The editor rejected the suggestion to self-revert as a way of avoiding a trip to AE: [1].
  • I have now indicated the edit that Wiking's first edit reverted. There's nothing in the WP:1RR rule (nor in the ARBPIA decision) that says an edit is a revert only when it reverts a recent edit. Not sure why we would give our blessing to gaming the rules in this way; I pointed out the editor's error and suggested he/she conform to the rule and he/she gave a clear response that surely causes doubt as to whether he/she will do so in the future. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified


Discussion concerning Wiking[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 Wiking[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Wiking[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Wiking's first edit does not appear to be a revert, so they do not appear to have violated 1RR. Number 57 11:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    • In response to the updated evidence, I still don't see the first edit as a revert – the original edit referred to was over three years ago. Number 57 12:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
      • In response to the further comment, I still can't see this as a revert of any form (otherwise any removal of text can be seen as a revert, even if it removes text added in 2004), not do I see this as gaming the system. Number 57 12:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The result is no sanction because Wiking does not appear to have been given notice of the presence of discretionary sanctions. The filing party started by leaving hosting talk page messages. A little more slack is needed. I have protected the subject article. From the history it looks like the worst problem was caused by IPs making very biased edits. Wiking may also have a point that the group JDL isn't banned in the US or Canada. I'm not aware of the US having the power to outlaw any group or having outlawed JDL. Factual accuracy is paramount, not revert counting, or classifying edits as reverts or something else. You need to discuss with each other what the facts are, with reference to reliable sources, and figure out how to make the article accurate, neutral and informative. Jehochman Talk 19:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts[edit]

Filing party warned not to abuse process. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 12 January 2016 (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 Lugnuts[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 15:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lugnuts (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 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Date calling established editor a troll
  2. [2] calling editor a troll again
  3. [3] Making clear this is a troll
  4. [4] uncivil behaviour toward other editors by displaying large font F--K on talk page
  5. [5] casting asperstions.
  6. [6] insertion of copy vio, duplicative material against a previous AfD, while failing to discuss it on the talk page in-spite of edit summaries calling for discussion. At the same time counting my reverts and trying to bait me into edit warring violation.
  7. [7] additional name calling after this report filed. Shows total lack of understanding of Wiki policy on RS, copy vio etc in a longevity AfD.


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


Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This is just this editor's activity today that shows they are not interested in editing the Longevity area in a civil manner. Their past conduct has been unhelpful as well as editors try to clean up this area and bring it within WP policy.

The assertion that most of my AfDs have not been successful is obviously false [8]. Some editors resent their pet articles developed with a gross disregard for policy being deleted. There are notifications of DS on the various Longevity pages. Anyway, DS are not required to deal with the uncivil behaviour. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[9] to which he swore at me.


Discussion concerning Lugnuts[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 Lugnuts[edit]

This is the most WP:POINTY thing I've ever seen. Legacypac made three reverts to blank the page List of Japanese supercentenarians. I reverted the most recent with the edit summary of "this needs to go to AfD, per a previous edit summary. And one more revert and you'll break WP:3RR". User:Oscarlake made a similar revert stating AfD would be the best venue. Straight after doing the revert I posted a polite notice on LP's talkpage reminding him of WP:3RR. I have no idea about the alleged copyvio inserts or whatever the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity is. Looking at LegacyPac's recent contributions, he's gone out of his way to take longetivity lists to AfD, which most, if not all have been kept. He's also been told twice (once, twice) that his talkpage edits are not welcome. I'm not going to waste any more time on this pointless event. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I've just found this very sneaky piece of work from LP too - reporting me for "vandalism". Which was declinded straight away. That report looks like trolling to me. Oh no, I said the T word. Burn me with fire. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Collect[edit]

Tempest in teapot? Users have the specific right to remove posts on their own user talk page. Others who repeatedly repost material once deleted are, indeed, the ones who are misbehaving as a rule. Lug should not have used the F-word, but the context makes its use understandable, even if it ought not have been used. Otherwise, I do not see any reason to keep this "case" extant. Collect (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]

Even if such a case is applicable here, I see no warning of Lugnuts of the DS. It appears that Legacypac is in need of sanctions. Started a merge discussion on the 6th.[10] Mentioning an AFD that was withdrawn.[11] and then waited 2 days and blanked the page with no other editors commenting on the merge.[12] WP:SILENCE is the worst form of consensus and after waiting two days on a merge discussion? Lugnuts did the correct thing and reverted the actions. Looking at the history,[13] Legacypac has been in a slow edit ware to remove the material and has been reverted by multiple editors. AlbinoFerret 16:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the vandalism link Lugnuts provided, Legacypac is involved in WP:FORUMSHOPing. AlbinoFerret 16:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz[edit]

Albino Ferret, above, has it right. Legacypac, whose actions make clear they are aware of the applicable DS, is behaving highly disruptively. A six-month topic ban would give more responsible editors the opportunity to sort out whatever might require expeditious action without require repeated, unproductive, tinewasting community intervention. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Canadian Paul[edit]

I've interacted with Lugnuts for many years and worked on cleaning up longevity articles for even longer, and I can say that I've almost never seen those two intersect, let alone in any way that would justify a topic ban. Such an action would do nothing but create a little trap that Lugnuts might one day accidentally step into and have it used against them. Lugnuts is one of the most productive editors on Wikipedia and contributes an incredible amount to the development of the project and building of an encyclopedia; that alone makes them a valuable editor. Most of the concerns here are with civility, about which I couldn't care less given the breadth of his contributions, but even if it were a problem, it would have nothing to do with a topic ban on longevity. Canadian Paul 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DerbyCountyinNZ[edit]

I concur with the pointts expressed by CanadianPaul above, and note that this seems like yet another WP:POINTy response by Legacypac to an editor taking issue with their abrasive and often disruptive edits. Legacypac has repeatedly used inappropriate forums such as this on such occasions, only relatively recently within the bounds of this AE, but given statements here and elsewhere by other editors, apparently in other areas of Wikipedia as well. It is time WP:BOOMERANG was applied (shades of John J Bulten!). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Lugnuts[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Legacypac is warned to stop using process abusively. I'm not a big fan of BOOMERANG. If anybody feels that Legacypac is truly disruptive, consider starting a separate thread about them with proper evidence and narrative. I do not want to shoot from the hip here. Jehochman Talk 14:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

RolandR[edit]

No sanction. Jehochman Talk 14:16, 12 January 2016 (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 RolandR[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 04:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
RolandR (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/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Jan 11 11:49 AM EST RolandR Reverted an IP editor
  2. Jan 11 12:02 PM EST I reverted RolandR
  3. Jan 11 12:17 PM EST RolandR reverted my edit
  4. Jan 11 12:30 PM I didn't revert, but added a tag.
  5. Jan 11 12:38 PM IP Editor reverted back
  6. Jan 11 13:47 Nableezy made edits, kept the changes of the IP editor, I can assume that he thought that an electrical fire was not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
  7. During this time period, the page was then protected.
  8. Jan 11 21:34 RolanR reverted the change of the IP editor hours later, even though the article has already been reviewed by others and the false information was not in the article anymore
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

User has reverted IP editors and has posted DS notices on talk pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.54.58.110&oldid=699317206

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The issue here is one of posting false information on pages. While the initial revert of the IP edits may have been correct, I have reverted RolandR's edits once, and then in the edit summary, as well as on his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RolandR#B.27Tselem_Fire (where he didn't address my concern that the information was false, he just repeated the mantra "IP IP"). He was actually reverting information that does not belong in the article let alone in the lead section. At this point in time, the news has come out that the fire in B'Tselem's office was a short circuit fire. I do not know why that needs to be included in the article. I do not know why it needs to be in the lead. At the point RolandR was reverting, he was doing it to push an undue bias into the article, but regardless, he has reverted more than 1 time and it was not to revert an IP edit. As you can see from the timeline, quite a few hours passed. The IP editor reverted the article, I posted on RolandR's talk page with link to news articles showing him that the fire was not arson. Then Nableezy edits the article in an unrelated way, and then a few hours later RolandR comes back and reverts. That should not be allowed. Firstly, the article was already "settled" if you will, or accepted. Secondly, the information currently in the article is false, yet if I revert, I will be violating 1RR because RolandR is not an IP editor.

This is one major issue with the whole IP issue and how false information can end up staying in an article. There ought to be a better way to deal with this.

  1. If the IP is adding correct information, and another editor leaves it in, does it then still get to be reverted, and if it does, does it get to be reverted hours later?
  2. If the IP is adding/removing information and the non-IP is just reverting without looking since IP-IP-IP says we can, what can a non-IP editor do to not run into 1RR rules when he wants to keep that information in?

@serialjoepsycho, I'm not sure why asking to remove this is wikilawyering. Do you think an electrical fire belongs here? It's one thing to revert an ip, but he just ignored me, and my point that it was not agood edit

  • can someone for the love of Jimbo, address my questions? That I believe is the more important issue.

@Number57, this is not a content dispute. After RolandR reverted the IP, in my edit summary, I put in the link to the news article showing that it wasn't arson. He reverted anyway, I then on his talk page pasted links showing it wasn't arson. But he still didn't care. He wanted an article on B'Tselem's lead to show that the right of Israel committed arson on B'Tselem's headquarters.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARolandR&type=revision&diff=699411721


Discussion concerning RolandR[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 RolandR[edit]

This is purely a content dispute, relating to the weight to give to a statement and the relative reliability of different sources. There is absolutely no breach of any sanctions. As the ruling states, "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters". Sir Joseph does not contend that I have violated this, and has not suggested any other sanction that I have breached, so I fail to see why he has initiated this frivolous case. This is not an AE matter, and I have no case to answer.RolandR (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho[edit]

I'm counting one revert that would be counted per policy. RolandR's revert of Sir Joseph. The reverts to the IP's serve an administrative function and do not count. More specifically are exempt by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 which RolandR highlights as his reversion rational. Reviewing the comments here by Sir Joseph and the conversation on on RoladR's talk page [14], I see what looks like some wikilawyering. AE is not the appropriate location to try to settle a content dispute. Perhaps the talk page of the article might be used.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You there really something actionable here, if it's reasoned that this case is vexatious.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
And Sir Joseph, WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 is a topic ban. There is a policy that already answers your question. See WP:REVERTBAN.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@SJP exactly, the policy says that while you can revert doesn't mean you MUST revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This section says Statement by Serialjoepsycho. That's not you. And yes just because you can revert doesn't mean you must. It is up to the individual to handle that, not AE or the individual they are in a content dispute with.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning RolandR[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This filing is without merit. The result is no sanction. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (e/c) I don't see anything actionable here – there was no 1RR violation within the bounds of the WP:ARBPIA3 sanctions. Whilst I think the material being reverted back into the article is certainly questionable content for its introduction, this is a matter for the talk page and perhaps WP:3O. Number 57 13:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]

Closing as it is probably better to do nothing here, than to do something. Jehochman Talk 13:50, 14 January 2016 (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 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 15:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (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/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) restricted from referencing external sites to which he has contributed :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 6 January Link to wikidata (an entry he created) and through it to Findagrave (an entry he created). The same article Coroner of New York City also contains from the last few days other links to Wikidata entries he created, most of them with similar links to Findagrave entries he created. E.g. links to [15],[16]
  2. [17] similar edit made after this case was started
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. September 2013 2 week block for violation of same sanction
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I alerted Richard Arthur Norton of the potential problems with these edits yesterday on his talk page.[18] He replied, and some further discusion followed.[19] Meanwhile, he continued making the same kind of edits (see diff in evidence above).

The original sanction was in part due to problematic links to Findagrave. For the current links, the question is whether Wikidata is an external site or not (if so, it would be an obvious violation of the restriction), and whether avoiding linking directly to Findagrave by linking to self-created Wikidata pages where the (usually) only source is a self-created Findagrave page is enough of a loophole to avoid being a breach of the sanction. To me, these are violations of arguably the letter and certainly the spirit of the sanction, and the discussion shows that he doesn't really care one way or the other and continues anyway, even during the discussion we had. Fram (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Carrite: the problematic edits (copyvio images, copyvio texts, and links to copyvios like copies of complete articles from Time Magazine, not "fair use" bits) continued until the ArbCom case, the "nearly a decade ago" was the worst period but the problems didn't end then. Otherwise the ArbCom case wouldn't have been started or would have been swiftly rejected. In January 2013, he added links to pages he created on things like Familypedia and Findagrave with e.g. a full 2012 article (not an obituary) from the Wall Street Journal in it. That's why the sanction was created, not because of edits from 2006 (these only showed that the problem was persistent, not a one-off mistake). That he now seeks a way to include his links indirectly anyway is very problematic, and your misguided or misinformed defense is not really realistic. Fram (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton: please don't try to give motives for my actions. I don't have a clue which AfD you are talking about, but I don't doubt you can find one where you opposed my position. I have participated in many AfDs, and many people have expressed a contrary opinion one time or another. That's hardly a reason for me to go after them in any way. Please accept the more logical explanation that I check your edits because you have been creating copyright violations and/or linking to them for years. I am highly dubious that the Wall Street Journal has in any way given you permission to reprint whole articles on websites (which is a rather extreme interpretation of "fair use" in any case, a reprint of a full article without any comment or reason), and I think this defense of yours only highlights again that your interpretation of what is fair use or copyrighted can not be trusted and is why the restrictions were created in the first place. I presume your subscription has something like this WSJ subscriber agreement[20]? No, that doesn't allow the copying of articles on freely accesible websites ("While you may occasionally download and store articles from the Service for your personal use, you may not otherwise provide others with access to such articles."). That you are still trying to defend the evidence of your links to copyright violations([21]) is cause enough to maintain all restrictions on your editing and to check your edits for further problems. Oh, and please don't change your post a day after you posted it, it makes the discussion hard to follow. Fram (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @Richard Arthur Norton: so you are claiming that I am still vengeful since the time of some undisclosed AfD, but not necessarily because of that AfD but because something else whih you don't name? And because I was feeling vengeful for some unknown thing from 5 years ago, I waited two years for the ArbCom case and a further three years for this clarification request, and supported the loosening of your sanctions (in some other aspect) in late 2014 probably as well? Are you going anywhere with that argument, or do you think that extremely vague accusations like that will somehow convince whoever closes this that the case should be rejected? Fram (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton: Murdoch bought the WSJ in 2007, your copyvio was from an article published in 2012 and made by you in early 2013. So your defense is clearly invalid by a quite wide margin. Fram (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: could you explain why? Why do you consider this frivolous and why don't you mention the editing restriction in your reply? It's not about the problem of people linking to Findagrave (or the problem of linking to Wikidata as if it is a Wikipedia article), but the problem of one specific editor with a specific editing restriction against linking to external pages he created doing exactly that but in a novel way. Fram (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC) @Hobit: it is thanks (in parts) to my checking of his edits that the problems were acted upon in the first place. Checking back to see whether the problems persist should not be a reason to cease doing that. Too many established editors with a known track record of problems are left alone anyway because not enough people can be bothered. I have seen the same pattern way too often in the past. Fram (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[22]


Discussion concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[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 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]

Another fishing expedition by User:Fram to get me banned. He has been looking at my every edit for the past five years looking for another gotcha! moment that he can bring here. He is still vengeful from when I opposed him in an AFD debate 5 years ago. This is terrible convoluted logic, and a poor understanding of how the transitive property works. I am not to link to Findagrave entries, that I create, from Wikipedia. I link to Wikidata from Wikipedia. Wikidata links to Findagrave. Having me not link to my Findagrave entries was wrongheaded from the start, you are forcing the Wikipedia standard of fair-use onto an external website with a different standard of fair use. The terms of use for obituaries from the New York Times and Newspapers.com and Genealogy Bank and Familysearch, and yes even my Wall Street Journal subscription, allows allowed for the non commercial use of articles from their archive. The terms of service for the Wall Street Journal changed after the ownership changed to Rupert Murdoch and he put articles behind a paywall and stopped sharing on Facebook and threatened to stop allowing Google News to post snippets. You cannot compare the current terms of service to a previous version, my iTunes and Facebook terms of service change monthly. Time magazine failed to fully renew copyrights until after 1945. Calling it "a loophole" or violating the "spirit of the sanction" is poisoning the well. If the law says to come to a complete stop at a stop-sign, you do it. You don't also come to a complete stop at a yield-sign. If you slow down at a yield sign you haven't found a "loophole" or are violating the spirit of a stop-sign, you are obeying the law. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Another lesson on logic and semantics. You wrote: "please don't try to give motives for my actions" because I wrote "He is still vengeful from when I opposed him in an AFD debate 5 years ago". Motives are about "why", I wrote about "when", which is the time frame. If I wrote "He is still vengeful because I opposed him in an AFD debate 5 years ago", you would have been correct, I would have been ascribing a motive for your actions, and not describing the time frame. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I said the terms of service changed after Murdoch bought the WSJ, I didn't say the day after, or the year after, just after. My iTunes and Facebook ToS change monthly, My CNN.com ToS just changed again today. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite[edit]

I have no idea why people are so out to get Richard Norton. He's a net positive to the encyclopedia; a group of shitty edits a decade ago and it's a never ending vendetta. Quite ridiculous... There is no logic to the original sanction, let alone with Vogonesque adherence to it. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in death[edit]

While the linking through wikidata is one step removed, after this enforcement request has been opened, RAN has engaged in edit warring to overlink (I am being kind here, other editors have described this behaviour as linkspamming) findagrave *within* references. Cutting even closer to the restriction there, while technically he is not adding a reference, he is re-adding links to a website he is forbidden from adding references to, within the reference. Its pretty much the same story for RAN, get restricted, refuse to accept restriction, try every way to get around it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hobit See Talk:Lloyd_D._Brown for a fairly good explanation of why overlinking is a problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Hobit[edit]

Three points

  1. I entirely agree with Carrite in that RAN is a net positive and the on-going sanctions are just plain silly given the actual issues.
  2. RAN is one of those people who will keep pushing boundaries. He will walk every line and keep crossing over them. It's like having two kids in the back seat who keep violating the spirit but not the letter of every rule. You say "Don't touch your brother" and they see how close they can get to touching without actually touching.
  3. Fram is like the second kid in the car. Yelling "he touched me" or "make him stop". Not saying Fram doesn't (usually) have a point. But at some point _that_ kid is even more trouble than the first one.

In an ideal world RAN would just stop getting as close to braking the rules as he can (stopping for yield signs isn't illegal to use his analogy and might show good faith) and in that same ideal world Fram would stop feeling the need to watch over RAN--letting someone else do it. Frankly, the close watching is counter productive. As much as I like RAN (and generally agree on his take of how fair use should work here), I suspect if no one was watching his edits for a year, he'd get himself banned as he seems to need to keep crossing over that line and when no one calls him on it for a while he'd push too far. Getting RAN to stop pushing boundaries just isn't going to happen. But the committee can suggest Fram stay away from RAN. I don't think an interaction ban would be reasonable, but a polite suggestion might be. Hobit (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


@Fram: none of the things he's doing now are actually problematic AFAICT other than he is (again) skirting his editing restrictions. A long long time ago he did some things that were actually serious issues. Those problems haven't come up again AFAIK. Nothing he's done in years and years have been things that would have been an issue for any editor not under editing restrictions. Might be time to listen to the advice from Disney. If real problems do happen, others _will_ find them. Hobit (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


@Only: Are you seriously objecting to someone adding a hyperlink inside of a reference to make it clickable? In what universe is that a bad thing for the Encyclopedia? Hobit (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I have a really hard time seeing this as anything other than a frivolous complaint. Linking to Wikidata is fine. Linking to Findagrave is fatuous for all values of linking, but pepole seem to like is so whatever. Anyone who can persuade me this is actionable could also probably sell me the Brooklyn Bridge. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The example given of George Charles Tranter shows RAN linking (via Wikidata) to a Findagrave entry that seems to be entirely written by himself. Clearly the restriction wants to keep RAN from linking to material he has authored on external sites. The diffs supplied here show a violation of his restriction. It is curious that this Findagrave doesn't actually point to any grave; it looks like RAN has used their website merely as a repository for the miniature bio that he wrote. This appears to be circumvention. He is currently banned from creating an article on George Charles Tranter himself, but he creates one on Findagrave and then links to it. RAN should be warned not to add references to any Wikidata entries that lead to his own work. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

GreatGreen[edit]

GreatGreen is topic banned from Longevity broadly construed. Spartaz Humbug! 10:07, 17 January 2016 (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 GreatGreen[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
GreatGreen (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 
  1. November 23, 2015 Restoring the list of all "pending" and "unverified" GRG claims by stating "No place vor vandalism". The GRG has its own definition of "verified" for nearly a decade, there was a distinction here between what the GRG "verified" and what the GRG didn't, while completely ignoring all other sourcing policies we follow. Thus the page would be colored blue or red based entirely on a single source's definition.
  2. November 23th discussion on talk page After notifying the editor, I began a discussion on the talk page. The editor has no interest in responding about the RSN discussion or other policies, instead arguing that the coloring should be kept because "chance that they will become verified is characterized by a quiet long term" (again, that's only based on the GRG's definition, and ignores all other policies here).
  3. December 12, 2015 Again, restoring separate tables for "verified" claims and "unverified" claims along with OR tables of "Oldest living German person by state" and "Oldest German person by state of birth" (no source directly states that those people are the oldest person or living person by those states)
  4. December 18, 2015 Further talk page arguing for the restoration of those tables because "The article is NOT mentioned Verified SC" and that we are destroying years of work, finally arguing that if we were to remove those tables, then all biographies should be re-evaluated.
  5. More on December 18th. Again, arguing "that GRG does science and it is necessary to know about cases that are not verified but should be in future..." to again have claims that the GRG does not support listed here (while distinguishing them) so that our tables parrot the GRG's pending and verified tables without regard to our general sourcing policies.
  6. December 23, 2015 Restoring the headings saying that these are "verified" claims
  7. December 23, 2015 Again.
  8. December 23th on talk page "And it doesn't matter what the other articles says because these are all "rules" you "developed", but the problem is some of your so called rules are contradictorying. You were active enough to change all article so do it again for the other ones" implying that he will oppose it because he's active there on the German page.
  9. January 1, 2016 Continuing arguing about "undermining" the list and that there's no need to look for 'reliable' sources since "that isn't the fact, because to give a full research you have to mention at minimum these SC because being 110 years and older doesn't depend on a persons verification, it is a question of its real age. Just why these people are "ignored" by institutions like GRG or one document is missing for a full verification doesn't claim these cases are wrong." and that "The only point is (and that's where I understand you) to point out validated cases. E.g. unverified cases could be colored grey" again showing a GRG focus rather than the project.
  10. January 9, 2016 Adding von Staphni information (without attribution) after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irmgard von Stephani was closed with three comments all voting delete not merge like some of those have gone.
  11. January 12, 2016 Restoring von Staphni because "sense of deleting was to prevent a single article as famous people like deserve. The article has been also corrected" (no idea what has been "corrected" here nor why not take it to DRV or otherwise).
  12. January 13, 2016 Restored again, arguing for "a discussion" and that "Really, when you so called "guardians of AFD" start to read articles and click the sources." Again, note that he did not respond at all to the deletion discussion itself while editing here during that time period.
  13. January 13, 2016 on the talk page. When responding to a question about how to order the names, responds with attacks and then adds a section arguing about "the 'rules' of AFD getting von Staphni deleted.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This is another longevity-based ARE request. This editor here is focused solely on List of German supercentenarians going back to November 2013. English may not be the editor's first language but that's not the issue here. As an aside, I've also notified the editor about the non-compliant signature (lacking an link to the user or talk page) but that hasn't been corrected either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the filing of this request, GreatGreen has continued arguing at the German talk page demanding that all pages linked to an article also be notified about its deletion which someone else took and was resounded rejected at DRV. Then it's another round of "The reasons for deletion were not nutritious and well-thought." (again, by someone who has never participated in an AFD and seemingly will never actual participate in these). Finally attacks Legacypac for "Another useless answer". Could someone close that discussion and inform GreatGreen that that talk page is not DRV and direct the editor there. We shouldn't have to be arguing this on an irrelevant page there. Also, Spartaz this is one-sided because everything from the ARBCOM case a decade ago until now has been one-sided, it wasn't a dispute with two equally warring sides. It was always a dispute of one group with a particular view and the rest of the encyclopedia against them. I asked to reinstate discretionary sanctions precisely because we kept having to go to ANI to respond to demands by them to topic ban us from their nonsense and it would then boomerang in them being topic banned (with sock puppetry then following). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
If you talking about "we" you think of yourself and your aims of owning the power about the topic. You want me to get angry by you provocations but you won't. You want be to be banned by any sentence that could assume this.

So you wrote many times about the fact I would work on my personal pet project but thinking about the way you treat members and the list/articles show you do not accept anything pro. You just accept all the things against SC topic. Maybe you should overcome the fact that you are not the top of all editors opinion. You are looking for help by any small argument without getting into a discussion that is based on objectives. You are ignoring the thing, worrying about the way I argue. It might be mixed because you are leaping from on to another point because you don't want to give any response to my questions and arguments.GreatGreen (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning GreatGreen[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 GreatGreen[edit]

This is discusting. Your behaviour shows you want to kick out everyone writing on this articles. You did it with so many others and they gave up on the topic because you are as self-called "guardian" the only and best one to know what to involve and what not. I will write later what my opinion of this all is and why it is a scandal somebody like you opens such themes. That is everything I have to write here for now.GreatGreen 17:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC) I just want to give keywords for the next paragraphs: 1. Firstly what harresment to underline I am not an English native. Sorry for that! Really but I want to underline too so many arguments Ricky gave by German articles are caused because it seems to be he/she is not able to read them - a translator doesn't work that good. 2. Where are discussions? I only see my arguments get ignored over and over. And because of ignorance this guy started the topic ban. The same way was treated Waenceslaus and Ollie, two people working really good on the topic and these writes are correspondents of the GRG so I am really confused how somebody having no real idea of the topic can crash down those who are working on this topic for many years in a really good way. 3. If you want to wish than check my arguments. These are all arguments that are objective based on sources. Reading the rules on sources by wiki I didn't find reasons to claim they would not be reliable. 4. Ricky complained many times about I would try to change only the German list. And I mentioned it many times: I want to give an example how arguments could become an article for all. It is the easiest for me to look for information in this topic because I am German native. 5. Why is somebody involved like Legacypac anymore who's arguments were really stupid like German emigrants would not be German, people to be born in German Empire would not be German. That shows these people are looking for any fly in the ointmen to say this and this would be wrong - but what isn't. 6. Wiki rules itself get ignored by those one's who claim I would ignore (this also involves all the other cases) 7. The point of "verification" have the be named everywhere. Ricky gives the opinion that only verified SCs could have been 110. This is wrong. It is right that GRG-verified cases are true, BUT it doesn't mean unverified cases are wrong and should be ignored. At minium this has to be involved in any article and list, but Ricky does not want to. 8. A longer time ago it was mentioned the GRG and the articles in wikipedia would be commercial. This is not true, it is an institution working scientifical and to a company selling products or anything. The trappy thing is that the "haters" claimed this a few times. GreatGreen (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish for an agreement but Ricky and his little helpers (I could also imagine he using different accounts) shows he is the one who don't want to wish. If he would be interested in an agreement he would start too. But what he did is to start a topic ban what makes me think of manipulation again. And it is also wrong I only work on the article of German Supercentenarians. This is wrong. He is looking for arguments to nounce me a pigheaded fellow, but I am not. His agreement would be only that I accept everything and that's it.GreatGreen (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes you see how Ricky is mixing the problems... it was not my intension to give the problem of signature. I just didn't know about this and with help I corrected. GreatGreen (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by 107.72.99.57 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Please use your account to post

Another attempt at censorship by Ricky here. He's been defeated on the last one so the lesson here is let the scientific consensus win not the rabid deletionists who don't care to understand the science of longevity tracking. -- 107.72.99.57 (talk · contribs) 18:59, January 14, 2016 .

Statement by 183.182.115.81 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Only edit by this IP

I agree with everything GreatGreen explained and I hope he will be able to improve German supercentenarians pages in future with the same good quality as well as he did in the past. Thank you so much, GreatGreen. --183.182.115.81 (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement from The Blade of the Northern Lights[edit]

I want to echo what Ricky says above. The IPs above are a great demonstration of how toxic this whole area has become and why disruption in this topic needs swift topic bans. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning GreatGreen[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm seeing battleground mentality, refusal to edit according to our inclusion standard/consensus of an AFD and edit warring. While I'm a bit concerned that one side of the dispute seems to be getting the brunt of the enforcement action, this seems a pretty clear issue here and I'd be minded to impose a topic ban should there be further support for this outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I asked GreatGreen if they would accept the advice and change their ways. Please check their talk page and see how they respond. Resolution by agreement is better than by sanction. But if there's no agreement, I think a sanction is inevitable. Jehochman Talk 23:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Their response only seems to cover the problems with their signature. Spartaz Humbug! 05:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
      • There seems no progress on a non enforced outcome. Therefore moving to a topic ban Spartaz Humbug! 10:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Dicklyon and Darkfrog24[edit]

Darkfrog24 indefinitely topic banned from quotation marks and quotation styles, this may be appealed in 6 months. Dicklyon is encouraged (without prejudice to a new AE action) to voluntarily hold themselves to the same restriction. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2016 (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 Dicklyon and Darkfrog24[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Users against whom enforcement is requested 
Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Darkfrog24 (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/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Too many diffs to count. Simply look at the edit history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support. Edit-warring has been going on between these two users for more than a week, filling that edit history with nothing but reverts. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register, where a similar situation has arisen.

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

Back on 18 December, a user requested clarification on the MoS talk page about the quotation style used by Wikipedia. This discussion started out collegial, but has blown up into a protracted dispute between two users across many pages. Darkfrog24 and Dicklyon have been edit-warring constantly on the two MoS subpages linked above for more than a week, after discussion at the main page resulted in a stalemate. I haven't even bothered to provide diffs, because the edit history of those two pages consist only of reverts made by either user. WP:3RR has long since passed. Both users are aware of the MoS DS, and this type of behaviour should not be allowed to continue. I would suggest that some action is taken against both parties to the dispute, as other editors who participated in the civil discussion at WT:MOS had no trouble avoiding this type of edit-warring, which is exactly what the MoS case remedies (see remedy 1.2) were meant to stop. Both parties are veterans of MoS disputes. How long does this type of thing have to go on in little watched pages before someone does something about it? RGloucester 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum – I strongly reject any accusations of being a "provocateur". I was involved in the discussion at the MoS talk page before Mr Lyon was even capable of commenting there, and had been following it as such. Whilst I ceased my participation as I saw that the discussion was becoming fertile ground for conflict, I also saw this continued edit-warring and pointless bickering occurring across multiple pages, with no one to stop it. The two editors in question here are both aware of remedy 1.2, which I mentioned above, which establishes a process whereby changes should occur after consensus is gained on the talk page, not by a process of edits and reversion. I don't understand how I can be at fault for bringing to light behaviour that is directly contrary to the remedies established in the arbitration case. If no one cares about this disruption in little known pages in the project space, fine. That doesn't mean that editors should be able to get away with disruptive behaviour of this sort, which is likely to spill back into more well-known pages eventually. As far as my personal reading on the matter, I tend to agree with SmC and Mr Lyon on the topic matter of this dispute. That doesn't excuse the nature of what is going on, here, again. If no administrative action is taken here, this dispute will continue repeat itself. This is not the first time it has blown up. There are cycles, and until someone stops that cycle, this disruption will continue. This has been the problem with AE for as long as I've been familiar with it. Parties in a dispute, on whatever side, are well aware of the nature of the "boomerang", and will band together against any sort of sanction for any party, because they know both sides are at fault. However, once the dispute is gone from AE and some time has passed, edit-warring begins again. Stop the cycle. RGloucester 19:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite what Darkfrog24 suggests below, it seems that the dispute has merely moved to a page in the article space. I would suggest a three month topic ban from quotation styles, as suggested by JzG below. The evidence provided by SmC makes the need for this even more compelling. I tend to agree with him that Mr Lyon's behaviour has been less problematic here, and that Darkfrog24 has an apparently long history of involvement in this issue that I had not been aware of. RGloucester 18:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, Liz, and EdJohnston: You administrators might want to take note of the massive bit of canvassing Darkfrog24 has just done, asking for "a hand" and a "character witness". He received a warning from Liz, but denies that he "canvassed". This is getting beyond the pale, pure WP:GAMING and WP:WIKILAWYERing. RGloucester 02:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Dicklyon and Darkfrog24[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 Dicklyon[edit]

Neither of us has editted Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register for nearly a week. We have confined our edit war to a stupid subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support) that nobody cares about; not clear why RGloucester thought that to be worth stalking and complaining about. Anyway, as long as the Dark Frog keeps saying that the MOS requires British style, I keep reverting, to the version that acknowledges that the style our MOS recommends, "logical style", is called "British style" by some sources. And I keep adding more sources of "support" for the MOS, as that's what the page says it's about.

If people would prefer to see us stop this, I would be happy to see a ban of any term, hopefully indef, on either of us editing this page. I'd go further and propose it for deletion at MfD, as it's just the DF's place to collect anti-MOS info, trying to set up WP:LQ to be an ENGVAR issue, which it is not. The sources are all clear on this style correlating more with region (American/Canada vs the rest of the world), as opposed to any tie to dialect. The sources I've been adding make it clear that many, or most as one source admits, Americans prefer the logical style; I acknowledge that the dark frog does not. Note that the page is essentially empty except for the one section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style/External_support#Punctuation_inside_or_outside which was filled in by the DF as part of her campaign against LQ. It is inappropriate for her to be doing this (and yes, I admit it's inappropriate for me to be edit warring, too, but I honestly didn't think anyone would notice or care about this venue).

The closest thing to an accusation of lying was in my edit summary phrase "that's your lie" in this edit. I regret that I expressed it thus. I could have said "that's your interpretation"; anyway, no reason she should be including a controversial interpret of a source that way.

As for the so-called 3RR accusation, I don't think we've seen 3 or more edit cycles in any day. Methinks this is just RGloucester resurrecting his grudge. I have done my best to not interact with him, but he makes it hard now. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that below DF claims to have shown "sources that explicitly state that the practice required by Wikipedia's MoS is British". This is twisted. These sources do not mention "the practice required by Wikipedia's MoS"; this is her over-interpretation and misrepresentation; reading more closely often shows that what they call British is actually not quite the same as the logical style that our MOS advocates. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

(Following comment is a response to Newyorkbrad. It was moved by RGloucester.)

I already said I'd be up for any mutual restriction there. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
In closing...

Concerning DarkFrog24's statement "I do plan to continue the support-but-don't-initiate pattern.", this pattern is the problem; so is calling it "support". A recent incarnation of this anti-LQ pattern is seen here:

"We have pretty much zero reason to require British/logical style in American English articles."

This was even after another editor had already explained that it's not an ENGVAR issue, and the discussion had no obvious call for being stirred up. It was the start of her pumping up that section to over 100 edits, mostly from her. If every time an editor asks a question about WP:LQ, DF24 jumps in with the pattern of pumping up discontent, partly by complaining that the MOS "requires British", then these disruptions around the MOS will continue. This should stop; after 7 years it has only served to pump up the noise level. LQ has been OK with WP since before DF24 came to fix it. Time to drop all that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: If the arbs feel that is important to topic-ban me, too, then I would abide by that. But my offer of voluntary mutual restriction was turned down. I'm pretty sure that was no evidence that I was the problem here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

And DF's latest offer to abide by a "voluntary" restriction, if someone will just explain what she's doing wrong and what she must not do any more, is bullshit, just designed to get me to take half the heat for her stubbornness. I tried to make this easy. She insists on making it hard. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Darkfrog24[edit]

This complaint is an overreaction. As the edits themselves show, this isn't a straight revert-and-revert situation. Dicklyon and I are triangulating our way toward a version that we can both live with.[23] [24] [25] We've both been compromising and giving way to the other here and there. He stopped removing the Chicago Manual of Style from the page after I took it to the talk page and gave a good reason why he should do so (see first paragraph at this link [26]). I didn't remove the ABA reference even though I don't think it's necessary. There are a few points on which I think he's flat-out wrong and I'm confident he feels the same way, but this is a work in progress, not a stalemate.

A few factual corrections to RG's report: There haven't been accusations of lying "back and forth." Dicklyon accused me of lying. To my knowledge, I've never said anything indicating that he doesn't believe what he says. However, this measure is still an overreaction. I went to his user talk page and asked him to stop. He agreed that "lie" was taking it too far, and he hasn't done it again. It's already been dealt with.

I concur with Dicklyon regarding 3RR. I don't usually count, but I don't think either of us violated 3RR. I thought I might have been close once, so I self-reverted just in case. I also deliberately slowed it down starting a few days ago, and it feels like he might've done so too. Dicklyon did mark two substantive edits as "minor," but that might have been an accident. Again, I just went to his user page (same thread as above) and asked him to be more careful. It's already been dealt with.

If RG or anyone feels that the text of MOS:SUPPORTS does not reflect consensus, then the answer is to bring in more people either with an RfC, at a noticeboard, or less formally. I took the issue to the NPOV noticeboard for that reason.

Correction to Dicklyon: I am not collecting anti-MOS info at MOS:SUPPORTS. I hate the British-only rule and would love to see it changed to allow American punctuation in American English articles, but I was the first one to add sources to MOS:SUPPORTS proving that it is indeed correct British English[27] and I didn't add any quotes that specifically said that it isn't correct American English, even though most of the sources cited there do contain that information.[28] Another correction: No Americans do not prefer logical style (better known as British style). Mainstream style guides almost universally require American style. For sources indicating this, see MOS:SUPPORTS and its talk page.

Response to SmC: I would love to apply neutrality rules to WP:SUPPORTS.[29]

In summary, Dicklyon and I are dealing with this just fine on our own. Neither of us should be banned in any way. The appropriate thing for other editors to do is to come to the talk page and give their two cents.

EDIT: If I'm going to respond to SMcCandlish's accusations, I'm going to need more space. Suffice it to say that most of what he's saying isn't true. It's not that he's lying, but he sees what he wants to see. For example, no Wikipedia has not been "criticized in the British press for nationalistic inaccuracy." The writer mentions Wikipedia but all he says is that he thinks one of the examples in one of the articles is wrong.[30] Please read for yourself and take all of SmC's other comments with a corresponding grain of salt. EDIT: SmC's response illustrates my point. Click the link and look at what Marsh actually wrote. Then come back here and look at what SmC concluded about it. Observe how much stretching it takes to get from A to B, and assume that he did that with his other points as well. Again, he's not lying—he just fails to see that his conclusions are interpretation plus wishful thinking and not fact. I've shown him a dozen sources that explicitly state that the practice required by Wikipedia's MoS is British. I'm not the one in denial.
Response to Dicklyon's comment: If anyone wants to see the sources that show that this practice is British, I will gladly supply them.

(Following comment is a response to Newyorkbrad. It was moved by RGloucester.)

I don't think it's necessary. It's a productive process and we're discussing things on multiple talk pages. RG is blowing things out of proportion again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(Following comment is a response to Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s second contribution.)

Well you'd have to ask Dicklyon to make sure we're on the same page, but I think we got the job done. The only editing I've done there in the past day or so has been to format some refs. So I'd say it's moot. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(Response to RG)

If RG or anyone wants to make this about me, then we'll need more room, for them to make specific complaints and for me to respond. For now, I'll say that all my actions are within Wikipedia's rules. I'm allowed to cite sources and bring in new ones. I'm allowed to challenge and remove unsourced and improperly sourced material. I'm allowed to say "this rule is rotten and we should change it," so long as I don't disregard said rule before it is changed. I'm allowed to disagree with people on talk pages. When someone else says "this editor is wrong," I'm allowed to show up with Chicago MoS or Oxford and say, "actually, that editor's right, and these sources say so." Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(Response to EdJohnston)

See response to Tony1. I'm reasonably content with the text that Dicklyon and I worked out for MOS:SUPPORTS. As far as I'm concerned this matter has run its course. If you want to talk about anything else, I'll need more space to respond. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
EdJohnston, if you want to accuse me of something else, you must be specific about what it is that you think I've done wrong so that I can respond. I haven't started a challenge of WP:LQ in years. When someone else does, I support them, but it's not like I'm the one who keeps bringing it up. It's been challenged at least once a year going back to long before I joined Wikipedia. [31] [32][33] [34] MOS:REGISTER lists literally dozens of challenges to this rule, and it does not include all of them.
When someone comes to the MoS saying "Hey, isn't this wrong?" I say "Yes and here are some sources," but when someone comes to the MoS saying, "How do I use this in the article space?" I say "Here's how." I want this rule changed but in the meantime I am not undermining the MoS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
If this is a serious accusation, then I need some specifics and confirmation that I'm allowed to go past the 500 word limit, which I passed a while back. Here's the short version. Talk pages: I decided a while ago not to create a new challenge to WP:LQ unless I had something new to say that I reasonably believed might change consensus, like a new source, but that I would support challenges raised by other editors. The last time I brought up WP:LQ myself was to suggest that we fix a misplaced comma in one of the examples. This is a plan, not a promise, but I do plan to continue the support-but-don't-initiate pattern. Article space: I've removed unsourced and poorly sourced material per WP:V and WP:NPOV. I have not opposed content that I do not like so long as it can be sourced. I believe these comments sum it up well: [35] [36] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 (talkcontribs)


I am quite taken aback by SMcCandlish's post this morning and I am not sure where to begin.

Let's start with an example:

What SmC says about me: try to turn MOS's own FAQ into a rallying point for "challenging MOS" to get "satisfaction":

Kind of makes me sound like some crazy Don Quixote who thinks he's a knight, huh? But here's what I actually said: Please exercise judgement if you are considering challenging this part of the MoS. Consider reviewing previous discussions first to see if your concerns have already been addressed to your satisfaction.

That should give you a good idea.

some more responses
First, I have to say that SmC has some significant problems with AGF, and not just with me.[37] He claimed straw man tactics where the rest of us saw a non-issue. For example, a few days ago, another editor wanted to revert some of SmC's changes to the MoS. I said this: [38] Sounds solid to me, Chris. I'd say remove it for now. If SmC has a good reason for making this change, we should all hear him out. Then SmC responds with this[39]: I already gave the reasons, both in the text of the material and the in the edit summary. You auto-opposing whatever I support here and supporting what I oppose is tiresome, not helpful to the project, and always seems to be predicated on a demand to provide that which has already been provided. I went to his talk page to try to explain what I really meant. Here's how he reacted: [40] Whenever I guess SmC's meaning wrong, he accuses me of lying.[41][42] When he guesses mine wrong, nothing. I'm not the one making assumptions about other people's motives.

SMcCandlish's issues with me have drawn the attention of other editors: [43]

I did not accuse the MoS regulars of being liars. I said they'd neglected to mention something.

He says I make claims based on belief and OR. I do not. They are based on sources. For example, SmC has repeatedly taken issue with the fact that I refer to British punctuation as "British." But this is what it is called by sources on both sides of the Atlantic: Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed (The 15th does as well, but I only have that on paper) Scientific Style and Format Oxford Dictionaries Garner's Modern American Usage I can supply more if needed. This isn't a matter of "some sources conflate them." The flip side: I do not tell SmC that he can't call American style by his preferred term "typesetters," on talk pages, only that he needs to provide at least one source if he wants to do so in the article space.

He says I attempted to "recruit" @Garagepunk66:. Here's what I actually said to GP.[44] What did I tell him to do? The same thing the others were telling him to do: Look at MoS:REGISTER to see previous disputes. After that, GP decided not to run an RfC. I'll also add that that GP said he felt "out-gunned a million-to-one and that other editors were viewing me as crazy" and thanked me for what I posted there. My take on the matter is that anyone who gets involved in WP:LQ should know what they're getting into. They will be targeted in some way.

He says that there is no evidence to support the idea that British and American punctuation are British and American, respectively. There are literally dozens of sources that say "in American English, do this but in British English do that." I've already cited Chicago and Oxford, but there are many more. During a 2013 challenge of WP:LQ initiated by AmericanDad, I started a sub-thread meant to line up the sources on this issue to see if they really did differ along national lines, and other editors and myself brought in just under thirty.

Through all of SmC's posts, do you know what you don't see? You don't see me going into articles that use British punctuation and changing it to American. I was brought up on AN/I for doing that when I was a new editor, even though the articles were already using mixtures of British and American style, even though I was making other edits (and yes, I changed some to just British too). I've kept my word.

I hope this is enough to give everyone an idea of how much salt to add to SmC's words before taking them. I can, if necessary, go through his page line by line if anyone thinks that would be necessary or helpful. I request a heads-up before further action is taken. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

SmC is accusing me of campaigning against WP:LQ. I want this rule changed but I want it changed in accordance with the procedures that Wikipedia has put in place for that purpose. Let's look at this from the positive side: I was first to post sources supporting this rule at MOS:SUPPORTS. You've seen the content that I've added to the FAQ, urging caution. When people come to the MoS asking how to use British style, I tell them. So long as this rule is here, we should get it right.
As for the article space, within the past few months alone, I caught and repaired a multi-year error [45], kept links up to date [46], and removed longstanding content that turned out to have been sourced unreliably [47]. Everything I've done in the articles has been consistent with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. SmC prefers to call them "my views," but they're really the views of almost every reliable source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I'm currently in conversation with LaserB about this matter. From over here, you and EdJ asked me to do something but didn't say what it was you wanted me to do. I'm trying to find out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Newyorkbad, I happen to feel similarly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC) As for RG, I asked at AN what the etiquette was on this matter and didn't get an answer. BTW, please take his view of "canvassing" with some salt.[48] "Pure of heart as a lily" indeed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I do have something to add. If I can't change your minds about a topic ban, consider drawing a distinction between infospace and the article space. Pages that are subject to WP:NPOV and WP:V, in which editors have to cite sources to add or retain text and are discouraged from adding their opinions, have generally seen my involvement as an gain. I happen to see the MoS that way too, but I think there's enough of a difference that those who don't agree in one case might agree in the other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

SmcCandlish, I've added that link that you pointed out was missing. As for questioning my faith, you have repeatedly called me a liar. You get so offended whenever I guess your meaning wrong but you're perfectly willing to take my words out of context and dress them up to make them look like something they're not, and it's pretty clear that you are doing it on purpose. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: The last RfC that I started myself was a few years ago. I deliberately haven't started more because I figured that would make things worse. People are already complaining that I talk about this too much even when I limit things to threads that other people have started. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I think that a distinction should be drawn between the MOS and the article space. I don't think I did anything wrong in either place (if I did, I wouldn't have done it in the first place) but I think you'll find a difference on pages that are subject to WP:V and WP:NPOV. The discussions are shorter, for one thing, because the rules are clearer.
I'm currently in discussion with Laser Brain about the voluntary matter that Ed J suggested. I also asked Ed J about it, but he did not answer my questions and LB did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: @JzG/help:(Guy) @KillerChihuahua: @Laser brain: @Liz: @Newyorkbrad: @Thryduulf: Per discussions on Laserbrain and KC's user talk pages, since the objection here is not what I am saying but that I am saying it too much, a 1RR situation seems like the appropriate response. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like it on the record that I am willing to do a voluntary restriction. I just want to work out exactly what it would be ahead of time. To do that, I'm going to need some feedback on what the admins think is acceptable. If I think something is wrong, I don't do it in the first place, so I need to know what you guys think, and I'm not going to be able to guess. For example, if KillerC hadn't suggested it, I would not have thought that 1RR would be on the table. I would like some concrete suggestions or at least more insight into how you view this matter. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Dicklyon:, the above had nothing to do with you. The truth is, I still don't think either one of us did anything that merits this level of response (though right this minute I'm thinking you could stand to take another look at AGF) but the admins clearly don't see things that way and I'm willing to make a change despite my own feelings on the matter. I just don't want to agree to something without knowing what it is first or guess at other people's thought processes. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1[edit]

I agree with the comment below that this is lame; but not that sanctions are appropriate here. Both involved users are valuable participants on MOS and other WP pages. They should simply agree to cool off and undertake to avoid cross-editing.

RGloucester is a well-known provocateur, and I believe started the thread here out of pure mischief. Regard his first post at the talkpage in question, then the starting of this thread at AE just 23 minutes later, before any futher activity on either the article page or talkpage there. Note also his statement that the page in question "has no standing within the MoS, no community consensus backs it, it is essentially a user essay, and should probably be put in the user space." It is, then, heavily ironic that he should seek to cause maximum disruption by using the apparent "DS" status of that page to start a thread here. It is disingenuous and not in the spirit of calming ruffled waters. Tony (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

So, are both parties willing to give that sub-page a rest for a few weeks, as suggested below? This thread is getting old. Tony (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish[edit]

TL;DR version: This sums up the problem perfectly: This is a "hate"-based personal WP:BATTLEGROUND matter for one editor, who will never, ever drop the stick of their belief that logical quotaion "is British" and "is wrong" for Americans, no matter how often this is disproved by citation to sources showing American publishers and style guides using logical quotation, and British style guides defining various conflicting styles, none of which are actually logical quotation, just superficially similar. All Darkfrog24 ever brings to the table is relentless equating of LQ with British to every audience available (based on nothing but the failure of some American sources to bother to distinguish them), making a bogus ENGVAR case so that Darkfrog24 can do whatever Darkfrog24 wants. This campaign against MOS consensus has been going on for 6.5 years and needs to be ended, with a topic ban. Dick Lyon reverting anti-consensus, polemic PoV and OR in the page in question (before it gets MfDed, which I plan to take care of as soon as possible – it's a WP:NOTHERE problem to have a page devoted to externally sourcing internal documentation instead of sourcing encyclopedia articles) is not comparable to Darkfrog24 editwarring to re-insert their PoV, OR and anti-consensus polemic.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Shortened (again). 02:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

General response: Ultimately, it simply does not matter whose sourcing regarding off-WP quotation-mark usage is correct (if anyone's) – except in mainspace at Quotation marks in English (which also at present mostly just reflects DF24's views). Being an article, it can be dispute-moderated by the usual ways.

It's an impermissible behavioral problem to spend years pushing a point of view about the matter, tendentiously against consensus, across both projectspace and mainspace. WP has an internal consensus to use LQ for actual reasons, and it doesn't matter which external sources agree with us (though plenty do, [examples elided]).

RGloucester is correct that the editwarring would resume (and not just at that page) after a while, but it would be by DF24 against anyone who disagrees, as the slow-editwar history of MOS:FAQ demonstrates, as does the related pattern of OR-based PoV pushing at the other MOS-related pages, the article in question, and the related Wiktionary articles. Our actual content is being warped to support a personal agenda, and we've been publicly criticized for the nationalistic inaccuracy in the British press.

Direct quote, since Darkfrog24 denies it:
From The Guardian: "Wikipedia, which claims to bat for Britain on this subject, gives the following misleading advice: [quotes the WP article's errors equating logical with British quotation.] Not so. The Guardian would follow the so-called American practice, and I think many British publications would agree with us." [49].
The denialism expressed by DF24 above is symptomatic of the issue with this editor. You see, sources simply do not say what they say if DF24 doesn't want to hear it. It's just a form of OR.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC) Updated with direct quote, 01:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC); shortened, 11:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

R to Slimvirgin's comments: 'Three people (with whom I often disagree) post more than I like on another page' isn't an AE rationale for sanctioning multiple parties. The length of the discussions is entirely traceable to the ICANTHEARYOU pattern of the one editor being considered for a topic ban. There is nothing difficult or complicated about 'don't change the punctuation in quoted material'; it is the simplest possible quotation style devisable – just copy and paste – and certainly simpler than the various "British" (not North American) styles (which are often "fiddly"). DF24's 6.5-year campaign to confuse LQ with "British" is the one and only reason for any confusion about how to use LQ, a problem about to be rectified. WP's use of LQ for over 10 years, despite slow-editwar activism and multiple RfCs against it, clearly indicates the consensus for it is stable. Besides, anyone can start another RfC whenever they like. The claim of low compliance was recently disproved by both my and DF24's own statistical analyses [50], and the bulk of the partial-compliance cases are instances of confusion of simple LQ with mutually conflicting British styles. The rest of SV's commentary is non sequitur, and not responsive to the AE request. This page doesn't exist for re-argument against the LQ consensus (and it's all already been addressed many times before, incl. why this is not an ENGVAR matter, how WP always cites a source when directly quoting (that's the source to which LQ would be applied), why "both styles" is a false dichotomy since there are about a dozen styles, etc., etc.).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Evidence: Since there's now discussion here of resolving this with a topic ban, I have gathered in one page much of the evidence I've been working on [Post-closure fix: Moved evidence to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188, because I cannot retain an evidence list like that indefinitely in user space, but it's part of this AE case, so should be preserved.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)] for an RFARB case to examine Darkfrog24's editing behavior patterns with regard to style matters at MoS pages and in mainspace. Looks like no such time- and effort-wasting case may be necessary. Whether a remedy that only extends to quotation marks will do much good seems dubious to me, as the editor's tendentiousness covers the breadth of the WP:ARBATC "broadly construed" topical space, including in articles.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Darkfrog24's diff of me noting that the rationales DF24 demands were already provided (sound familiar?) does not support in any way DF24's claim "SmC has some significant problems with AGF, and not just with me", for which it was supposed to be evidentiary. So, that makes it an unsupported aspersion-casting, per WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded, like the others I diffed already. I suggested a broader-than-quotation-marks topic ban for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Shortened, 00:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1 states that Darkfrog has not editwarred about this matter in the text of the guideline itself, but my diff page already shows otherwise, just as recently as 09-2015.
Dirtlawyer1's other points actually all relate to DF24's behavior pattern, not external facts:

My diffs skip almost everything from 2009 to 2015, and late 2015 to 2016; I'll be happy[? not really the right word] to diff additional evidence that this is a long-term pattern by DF24 at Wikipedia:Manual of Style itself, if necessary (may need 24 hours or so). Dirtlawyer1 correctly observes that various, mostly American, editors would like to make quotation style and various others be ENGVAR matters. But they are not, for good reasons. ENGVAR was created to forestall disputes like color vs. colour, or people rewriting entire articles to be in Australian instead of Canadian English for no reason, and other matters where WP has no intrinsic reason to prefer one stylistic point over another. This is not the case with LQ, and WP:AE is not the place to "re-legislate" consensus on that matter. Yet another RfC can do that if necessary. A very narrow TB is being considered for DF24 because of the enormously disruptive pattern of sustained activism on this topic, not because of an opinion held by the editor. It's a behavioral matter. And the primary reason that some American editors confuse LQ with "British style" and become irritated seems to be because DF24 has spent so much time and energy sowing this very confusion, agent provocateur style, at MOS itself, at WT:MOS, at MOS:FAQ, at the Quotation marks in English article, at MOS:SUPPORTS, even at Wiktionary. On all other matters – those without a dedicated activist – WP editors adjust with little if any conflict to whatever consensus settles on at MOS (as we would expect; who is not already aware that different publications have house styles, and that we use them when we write for them?), with only rare exceptions like en dashes, date auto-linking, and capitalization of common names of species. British/Commonwealth editors are under no such illusion that LQ is "British". LQ is a style that does not have a national tie (no matter how hard anyone tries to manufacture one), and is used here because it's accurate and simple (no style could be simpler than "don't change the quote"). Consensus may well swing against it some day, but not because someone will fight forever to force it to do so.

PS: The diffs already provided clearly demonstrate that it simply isn't the case that DF24 gears up this fight only once a year. It's ongoing and continual, migrating from page to page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Re: Darkfrog24's self-proposed 1RR restriction: That would do nothing to alleviate any of these problems.
Because:
"[S]ince the objection here is not what I am saying but that I am saying it too much" is not a correct summary of the situation. The objections are multiple, and are to the will-never-give-up behavior pattern, the use of ICANTHEARYOU techniques to thwart resolution, RfC disruption, OR and PoV-pushing in related mainspace articles (i.e. what the editor is saying as well as how being pursued), a long-term pattern of CIVILPOV and slow-editwar OWN across all available venues in which to pursue the agenda, and WP:SANCTIONGAMING use of CYA wording to disguise incivility and a continual stream of unsupported aspersion-casting (both as to other editors' good faith and as to their mentalities), including today at AE while under scrutiny. DF24's direct actual revertwarring has been comparatively minimal (though I diffed cases of it both at MOS itself and the Quotation marks in English article), so a 1RR proposal is essentially off-topic, and license to filibuster interminably. Another mentioned idea, of a limit to one quotation-marks-related edit per day, is a recipe for disaster in a situation like this, giving an official stamp of approval to tendentiously pursuing the same matter every single day for life. Another, of limiting the TB to only talk pages, makes no sense, since the editor must use talk pages to seek consensus for the edits they'd be making to the non-talk pages. A TB limited to some other specific namespace will have no useful effect in a case of pursuit of the same singleminded goal in multiple namespaces. A conventional, indef, broadly-construed TB is needed here, with the normal WP:STANDARDOFFER opportunity after a year (or however long). The editor shows no understanding of why any of their behavior patterns are problematic, and is simply seeking a way to continue pushing the same viewpoint indefinitely, just not "saying it too much" on any given day or page. This is covered at WP:GAMING.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin[edit]

Darkfrog asked me to comment. The issue at WT:MOS is that it feels as though no one can get a word in, and this seems to be because Dicklyon, Darkfrog and SMcCandlish are highly active there. It's arguably unfair to topic ban only one. I would suggest asking all three to limit the number (and, above all, length) of their posts about any topic there, and to ask Darkfrog not to initiate any discussion of LQ.

It would be helpful to open a well-written RfC about LQ, but as things stand it's likely to be filibustered away. So we persist with a complex, minority punctuation style without knowing whether it has real consensus.

LQ is a complicated style to get right. Almost no one does on Wikipedia, in part because it's fiddly, and in part because you often need access to the original source. Newspaper copy editors don't get it right either. It's particularly difficult with LQ, I would say impossible, for new editors to glean the rule by copying what others have done, whereas it's easy to copy typesetters' style – where punctuation is placed inside quotation marks – and that should be a major factor for us. In my view we should allow both styles, along the lines of STYLEVAR, ENGVAR, CITEVAR and DATEVAR (either strong national ties or first major contributor).

These are the issues that are frustrating Darkfrog. But while I have every sympathy, it's sometimes important to accept that one is raising something ineffectually and that continuing in the same way risks becoming disruptive. SarahSV (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Garagepunk66[edit]

Perhaps the best thing to do before instating any kind of ban on an editor perceived as tendentious would be for he or she to make a formal pledge to stay off of this particular topic for "x" amount of time (say for at least a year). From speaking to both Darkfrog24 and SMcCandlish, I can attest that they are both dedicated and conscientious editors, but that they have a very intense disagreement on this issue. I am trying to be neutral, and (surprisingly) I have a friendly rapport with both. Though I expressed the concern that the quotation policy could use some slight modifications (i.e. exceptions in certain prescribed circumstances), I have accepted that the issue has been hotly debated and is very contentious--and that it will get nowhere at this time. So, I have chosen not to further pursue the topic. But, I realize that Darkfrog24 feels that the issue still needs to be challenged. I am not against the idea that the debate could be revisited at a much later time (after all, any policy can be re-evaluated at a later time), but that maybe we have to wait a good long while. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dirtlawyer1[edit]

I was not going to participate in this discussion, but I felt the need to speak up as two or three administrators have started to push for a topic ban. The one-sided claims against Darkfrog24 are both exaggerated and unfair. I want to be clear that I take no sides on the silly little edit war between Darkfrog24 and Dicklyon over a mostly meaningless essay; one participant above correctly described this teapot tempest as "lame," and frankly it would have been better ignored by everyone including Darkfrog24, Dicklyon and especially Rich Gloucester.

Darkfrog24 is a long-term and highly productive contributor, who is respected for her usually measured, logical and well-researched comments on a wide variety of MOS-related issues. And the same could be said of both Dicklyon and SMcCandlish (the other chief antagonist on matters of so-called "logical quotation"). This is an issue which divides MOS talk participants about 55/45 in favor of the existing MOS:LQ guideline, and it leaves a strong, if not overwhelming majority of American editors angry and frustrated that MOS forces them to use a convention that they perceive as both unnatural and incorrect from the viewpoint of standard American majority practice. Many American editors believe passionately that Wikipedia articles about American topics written in American English should use the quotation practice which is the overwhelmingly standard practice of 300 million Americans, and Darkfrog has periodically advocated on MOS talk pages for a change in quotation practice to permit American editors to use the majority American practice pursuant to WP:ENGVAR. Dicklyon and SMcCandlish have both advocated equally forcefully to maintain the existing guideline for the mandatory and uniform use of "logical quotation" for all Wikipedia articles, regardless of ENGVAR. Both sides have valid points, but I have often said that MOS works best when it tracks the majority style practices of the real world. In this case it does not track majority practice (at least not for American English), and as a result previously uninvolved American editors show up at MOS talk pages to angrily complain about what they perceive is the imposition of "British punctuation" on articles written in American English.

As far as I can tell, Darkfrog has done absolutely nothing wrong other than periodically raise the issue on MOS talk pages; she has not edit-warred over the wording of the actual guideline, nor has she rewritten Wikipedia article space content in contravention of the existing MOS:LQ guideline. All she has done is advocate for the application of ENGVAR to quotation punctuation -- a position that many of her fellow editors believe is quite right and reasonable. I strongly urge the participating administrators to step back and accept the fact that Darkfrog represents most American editors when this issue is raised, and acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with "blowing off steam" on this topic once a year. Consensus can change, and Darkfrog is giving voice to many of her fellow editors who agree with her and not the existing MOS:LQ guideline. Selectively muzzling Darkfrog with a topic ban comes dangerously close to punishing someone for a having a very widely held point-of-view. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Izno[edit]

I was notified of this WP:AE at my talk page by DF24.

Having observed WT:MOS for a while now, it is clear to me that DF24 either needs to drop the stick or start an RFC on WP:LQ. As DF24 has not done the latter in the apparent lengthy frame of time in which DF24 has campaigned against LQ, that leads me to believe that an RFC won't be started in the near or far-term by DF24, making the discussion there more-or-less tendentious (and quite wearying, from my point of view).

A topic ban from punctuation in the context of quotation seems appropriate, at least in the MOS space. I am unsure of a topic ban from punctuation in the context of quotation (or, "quotation marks", I suppose) in all space, is necessary. If such a topic ban were passed, I would be careful to word it such that DF24 may add any new punctuation of quotation in any form he or she desires. --Izno (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: You have talked more at length in the past year (singular) than a single RFC to confirm or remove WP:LQ would have allowed for, so I don't buy the reasoning/excuse (though I won't suggest you didn't in good faith believe it to be so). I won't comment here further on any points. --Izno (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Dicklyon and Darkfrog24[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Staggeringly lame. Both should be banned from that and related pages for at least three months. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Concur with JzG. It appears the editors have dug into position here, and are not even pretending to try to find consensus or see the other editor's view. KillerChihuahua 22:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The two comments above were left before the involved editors posted their statements.

  • Would both editors agree to stay off that subpage for at least a few weeks? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "stalking"? "Handling this just fine"? Stand by Guy's first suggestion. Howsoever, certainly in any event voluntary distance is preferable to sanctions imposed from outside. I'd support either. KillerChihuahua 19:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If a voluntary agreement to disengage cannot be reached, or if that agreement doesn't end this matter, I think a topic ban from the subject of quotation marks, that would apply in all namespaces, would be justified, probably for both parties. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It does appear that Darkfrog24 continues to advocate fiercely against MOS:LQ. We should take whatever action appears sufficient to damp down the furor. If that means topic bans for two parties from quotation marks, that is one way to do it. Darkfrog24's comments above appear diplomatic at first glance, but basically they want to be able to continue the advocacy indefinitely and don't see any problem with it. An agreement by both parties to desist would be sufficient, if it were offered. Dicklyon has said he would accept any mutual restriction, so I think it is now up to Darkfrog24 to make a voluntary offer sufficient to forestall a ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Darkfrog24 has now responded here. This doesn't address the problem, in my opinion. It looks like they are planning to keep on beating the dead horse forever on the topic of logical quotes. A topic ban of at least Darkfrog24 from the topic of quotation marks now appears necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree the responses from Darkfrog24 don't evidence understanding of the issue, so I think we do need to impose a topic ban from quotation marks. As for Dicklyon, I am wondering about a suspended topic ban that can be activated by any uninvolved admin if they are involved in any disruption in the topic area in the next 3 (6?) months. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I concur that a topic ban for Darkfrog24 from quotation marks both in project space and article space would be the healthiest solution here. This is clearly an area of extraordinary interest to Darkfrog24, and I don't see any sign of the campaign stopping. --Laser brain (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: I think a topic ban from just quotation marks is all that can really be supported based on this AE section. Hopefully it will send a significant message that they need to stop, but if it does not then either they will be blocked for breach of the topic ban or the disruption will move elsewhere. If the latter happens, then the topic ban can be expanded. If that also fails (and I hope it never gets to that point), then it's more likely that arbcom will take the case with clear evidence that community DR hasn't worked (although I hope it does). Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks to me that there is a rough consensus for a topic ban from quotation marks here. If nobody objects or has further comments about the scope (e.g disagreeing with my comments immediately above) then I'll enact it in a day or so. Pinging @Newyorkbrad: and @KillerChihuahua: to see if they have comments. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Only on Wikipedia could someone be "topic-banned from quotation marks". For how long are you proposing it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this is the least onerous sanction I have come across on AE. I wouldn't make it indefinite but then I often underestimate the ferocity of debate over MOS issues. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm agreeable to topic ban, voluntary or otherwise. As voluntary doesn't appear at all likely, let us make it otherwise. Indef, appeal after one year? KillerChihuahua 00:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking this does need to be indefinite (not meaning infinite) as SMcCandlish and others note this has been going on for years already. I was thinking of allowing an appeal after 6 months, but if others prefer 12 I'm not going to object to that. Wording is of course important, and we need to be clear that this is not a ban on using quotation marks, but from discussions about them. So I propose the following:
Darkfrog24 is indefinitely topic banned from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted. They may use quotes and quotation marks, and edit pages that include them, subject to normal editing rules (e.g. regarding edit warring). This ban may be appealed no sooner than 6 months after it is placed.
Any comments or suggestions? Hopefully it goes without saying that any disruption in other areas will at the very least mean that appeals will not be granted any times soon and will quite likely result in it being broadened. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That wording seems OK to me. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the discussions in histories throughout, as well as ongoing on Laser brain's and my talk pages, I would prefer a year. I'm not inclined to disagree if others feel six months will be sufficient. My concern is that Darkfrog24 appears to me to be trying to find out what he needs to do in order to keep trying to "win" this argument. This is WP:BG and I don't see it being easy to get past. There's a fundamental difference between getting enough time off of something you feel strongly about and personalize so that you can refocus, learn to work with others, moderate your approach, etc - and doing your time so you can get back in the fight. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 17:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @KillerChihuahua: If this were a finite topic ban you would have completely convinced me that it should be 12 months. As it's just when appeals are allowed, which will not be successful without a change in attitude, I'm going to leave this open a little while longer to see if there are other opinions about the length. If there aren't then I'll place it for 12 months. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dicklyon: You have indicated you would abide by a mutual restriction, if you hold yourself to the same restriction proposed above as a voluntary topic ban I don't think there would be any appetite for further action at this time. Is that something you are happy to do? Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I am fine with the wording, and the six month time-to-appeal. --Laser brain (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm imposing the topic ban on Darkfrog24 as proposed above, it will be an indefinite topic ban with an appeal allowed after 6 months. I encourage Dicklyon to hold themselves to the same restriction, but I'm not formally topic banning them at this point. However, Dickylon should note that this is without prejudice to a new AE action against them if anyone wishes. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

BjörnBergman[edit]

BjörnBergman is subject to 1RR on Longevity broadly construed. This sanction is valid for a period of 6 months from today Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 21 January 2016 (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 BjörnBergman[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 23:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
BjörnBergman (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 
  1. [51] Inserts a line about Zhou Youguang turning 110 today, which is fine, until you see his next edits where presumably this edit becomes "unverified". Zhou is a particularly famous person that invented Pinyin, a system credited with increasing Chinese literacy dramatically and making it possible for English etc speakers to pronounce Chinese words.
  2. [52] Undid revision 700167425 by Ricky81682 Remove Zhou Youguang. He is not yet verified. This is a lost of VERIFIED supercentenarians.
  3. [53] Another article - Zhou Youguang is unverified. This list includes VERIFIED supercentenarians.
  4. [54] Undid revision 700171497 by Legacypac (talk) Why should Zhou be included if he is unaccepted by GRG???)
  5. [55] reverts a notification that I reverted his edit with (Revert spam)
  6. [56] reverts User:Ricky81682's cleanup of the lead to preserve the GRG special focus.
  7. [57] reverts another attempt to dialog with him calling my message spam
  8. [58] files a ANi vandalism report against me on longevity.

And in all this fails to engage on their own or any article talkpage they are editing.

  1. [59] reverts oldest people edits without explanation. (added Jan 17 Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC))
  2. [60] (Undid revision 700313889 by Legacypac (talk) Stop adding Zhou Youguang! He is no validated supercentenarian!)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Jan 16 which they immediately blanked [61] also the DS are mentioned on all the main Longevity talk pages. I recognize that it appears they were not notified on their user page about the DS until just before I filed the report, so if Admins feel that the talk page notices are not enough to cover a topic ban, perhaps appropriate guidance can be given at least.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
The refusal to follow WP policy in favor of GRG being the only source of any verified longevity claim, discarding all other sources, make this user problematic in this topic area. We are dealing with pure craziness in this topic like this [62] so it is important to bring editors into policy or remove them from the topic area. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Response to BabbaQ: No one can put his disregard for policy in his head but himself. I've not looked at his edits outside this topic area as that is of no concern to this matter. The edits are not all against me either. Now we have IPs attacking these articles saying the same stuff as him. See edit history of Zhou Youguang for example. Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
As an adjunct to this report I've filed a 3RR report [63] since the editor has gone beyond 3RR on Oldest people since this report was filed. I chose to do that because it is easier to see 3RR in standard formatting at the 3RR board, but have cross linked here and there. Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • GreatGreen is topic banned two sections up [64] and should not be commenting here.Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC))
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[65] (since reverted [66])


Discussion concerning BjörnBergman[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 BjörnBergman[edit]

Statement by BabbaQ[edit]

  • Seems like BjörnBergman has gone for the old "baiting" trick. If you consider the overall edits between the two users it is clear to me that BjörnBergman should not even have been reported in the first place. At best this situation should have taken to admins incidents noticeboard or similar. And calling another users edits " pure craziness" as stated above by Legacypac about other users seems to be just the kind of baiting used to start this discussion in the first place. I would suggest that both BjörnBergman and Legacypac should take a cooling-off period and stay out of each others ways. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by GreatGreen[edit]

  • There is no need but the problem is these are your own "rules" - if you only accept that SCs being verified can be only 110+ in reality in every list you also have to accept this here. It is one of your own contradicting rules.GreatGreen (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by clpo13[edit]

BjörnBergman has reverted on WOP articles multiple times, citing the lack of GRG verification ([67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]). However, they've only participated in the discussion at Talk:Oldest people once ([73]). That discussion, however, was in relation to their unilateral redirection of various pages, such as List of the verified oldest people ([74], [75]), List of oldest living people ([76], [77]), and List of the verified oldest women ([78], [79]). Now, I'm sure there's something to be said about reorganizing these disparate lists, but BjörnBergman did it without discussion and reverted (multiple times) when challenged. The aforementioned talk page comment ([80]) shows that they apparently don't understand why their actions were reverted. Combined with the lack of discussion regarding Zhou Youguang and his inclusion on Oldest people and related pages, I'm forced to concluded that this editor should stay away from longevity articles until they can demonstrate a collaborative mindset to editing this topic. clpo13(talk) 00:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish (uninvolved except to comment in talk about GRG and undue weight)[edit]

I was passing by and took a look at Zhou Youguang. What I see is Bergman adding an age update, then later an anon begins editwarring with comments like "Birth date not verified by the GRG, no truth to it" and deleting all the birth information [81]. There's no demonstration of a connection between these edits. Previous edits (even disputes) elsewhere involving Bergman and a potential WP:UNDUE weight being given to the Gerontology Research Group (which, no, is not the only possible reliable source for birth date information for old people) doesn't automatically mean every edit relating to them in their favor is by Bergman. If there's a suspicion of sock puppetry, try WP:SPS first and get evidence.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning BjörnBergman[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is concerning. I'd like to hear from BjörnBergman before making up my mind but at first sight edit warring around an insistence that GRG is the only valid source for claims of longevity is problematic and evidence of a battleground mentality. It is not behaviour that we should encourage in an area subject to arbitration enforcement. Hopefully, the user will be open to a wider perspective on this. Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • BjörnBergman has edited since my comment but not chosen to engage with this report or make any undertakings to work within our existing system. On that basis, it leaves us little choice but to impose some form of sanction. I am imposing a 1RR sanction as the disruption appears to be around edit warring rather than anything else. Spartaz Humbug! 18:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

TFBCT1[edit]

Closed without action following assurances that the user will respect consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 19:11, 22 January 2016 (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 TFBCT1[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 23:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
TFBCT1 (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 
  1. There is a talk page discussion at the oldest living people talk page about whether to include Zhou Youguang as a supercentenarian (there's argument at Zhou's talk page that, since the GRG hasn't verified his age, his birth date should be removed there regardless of the other sources we have). There's a separate discussion below about the lede and the criteria. Rather than communicate in any way, TFBCT1 first rewrote the definition of the page so that it requires GRG approval and then in the Zhou section and not the lede section posted that he had changed the meaning to the oldest people page and QED Zhou doesn't count (first talk page comment since September 2011). I noted that it was a lowball way to win the point and it is disruptive. He was pinged to comment rather than revert but has yet to comment or discuss this any further.
  2. Reverted again to state that "notability and sourcing have nothing to do with longevity research."
  3. Reverted again to mirror the oldest people page (which has much worse problems with edit warring), still no attempt to engage on the talk page.
  4. The editor's history is almost always consistently of nothing more than "updating" longevity tables. Note that these updates change the names and rankings of people include the additional of new people without sources and don't show any changes to the GRG citation which is the source so it's actually more difficult to verify what the actual source is for these changes. See 1, 2, 3 (still allegedly citing the September 2015 version), removing a claim which I presume in limbo (whatever that means), etc., etc.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Notified about sanctions here.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Apologies for another longevity enforcement request but TFBCT1's refusal to engage in any discussion and game-playing to redefine the criteria so that only the GRG's list is counted is par for the course with these proponents. Even if the editor was in good faith supporting the logic that we await approval from another "super source" beyond our regular sourcing requirements so that someone can be added to the tables, their refusal to discuss it in the actual lede discussion in favor of changing the lede and the criteria specifically to exclude a claim (while arguing that we should focus on "longevity research" as opposed to our sourcing requirements) is frustrating. I've started an RFC at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people#RfC:_How_should_we_word_the_lede.3F and I fully expect that none of the GRG proponents will ever comment at the RFC and will just revert and revert to get what they want as they have done for a decade. This disruption is spreading to other biographies until the insane delusion that the only source we can have the moment someone reaches age 110 is the GRG and that everything else must go out the window. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz The edit war has stopped because I and anyone else didn't continue. If you look at the RFC, there's zero support for the version that TFBCT1 put there. Are we just waiting for the RFC to get closed and enacted with someone else and then we'll see if TFBCT1 has changed? Should I just change it now and see if he responds? He's clearly not going to comment on the talk page or justify his version (neither have the other supporters of that theory). What about the complete refusal to communicate beyond the simple "I've changed it to a version that I and I alone support, one that is against all polices here" after years of editing in this topic? Since then, he's continued with his "table updates" moving names around with no changes in sourcing or any explanation at all and also an edit to add a cite needed to Zhou's claim on the Asian supercentenarians (the exact same person who he's removed and fought to remove from the oldest people page). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
In the small chance that TFBCT1 isn't just going to get to continue on, I note that while he's advocated for this "international bodies" requirement for living people to exclude Zhou, he has no issue reporting people's alleged death dates here based on clearly non-reliable sources such as dignitymemorial posts. Clearly he doesn't care at all about actual reliability of sources (or to even dignify us with a response here) but only about keeping out the non-GRG-approved claims. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Diff


Discussion concerning TFBCT1[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 TFBCT1[edit]

I made good faith edits to what I thought were standards that have been in place in the longevity section for over a decade. When things changed through consensus; I stopped my edits. My change to the lead in the List of oldest Living People was nothing more than copying and pasting the lead to the List of the Oldest People. I have been updating the longevity tables daily for over a decade- they need to be done manually. There was no ill will on my part in any respect.TFBCT1 17:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I will no longer revert edits regarding "reliable sources," now that consensus has been reached. I will continue to update table information as I have for over a decade.TFBCT1 22:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by clpo13[edit]

The lack of discussion by TFBCT1 is concerning. They've only made a single talk page comment in over four years ([82], [83]). I pinged them to a discussion on Talk:List of oldest living people regarding the lead of that article, but they haven't chimed in beyond the diff I linked. They have, however, continued to revert to their preferred version of the article. clpo13(talk) 23:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac[edit]

Reverts User:Calton who notes GRG does not set wikipedia standards [84] with "no consensus for this edit as per below."

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning TFBCT1[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Minded to close this in favour of the demand that the edit war on Oldest people stops. I'm inclined to dishing out 1RR restrictions rather than topic bans for this revert war but can be persuaded to desist in exhange for a commitment to start talking. Spartaz Humbug! 19:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The edit summary of this edit by TFBCT1 seems to make Ricky's point, that this editor considers GRG the only adequate source. "Notability and sourcing do not deal with longevity research". By saying this he appears to be contradicting WP:V. How about we propose a topic ban here, and notify the editor. Give him a chance to explain how he will avoid the problem in the future. If he continues with his practice of never responding on talk pages or noticeboards, that will make our decision simpler. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @TFBCT1: Please can you comment on Ed's question about how you intend to edit these articles on an ongoing basis? Spartaz Humbug! 18:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on TFBCT1's response I'm minded to close this with no action. Spartaz Humbug! 15:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mystery Wolff[edit]

Appeal reviewed, including clarification requested at ARCA. Request not granted. NW (Talk) 04:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NOTE: Because of items brought up newly within the Meta Discussion, and discussion on with which group reviews the item, this is moved to the A/R/E board, intact. 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 
Mystery Wolff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=698914028#Mystery_Wolff
Indefinite Topic ban from the subject of Electronic Cigarettes, imposed at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement%2FArchive187&type=revision&diff=699532847&oldid=699532827, logged at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016 -->
Administrator imposing the sanction 
EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
Done here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Your_noticing_of_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

Statement by Mystery Wolff[edit]

EdJohnston is an editor whom I interacted with, and was involved with my editing. He asked that I respond to sockpuppet assertions on the TALK pages, which he ultimately used as part of his justification to ban me indefinitely. He was involved with another AE opened on me that was rescinded, and was the person who suggested as the first measure of any sanction or warning to me that I be topic banned for 6 months.

  1. I was not part of the ARB that created the Discretionary Sanctions, however an involved editor to the ARB requested that an Alert be posted to my Talk page.
  2. Prior to the first AE, and the continuation AE posted above I have not had any sanctions or edit warring notices, or any other formalized process violations.
  3. Other editors who were part of the ARB (CFCF) have been brought into the AE, and been given warnings. However in my Case, EdJohnston asked for a 6 month ban of me, as an involved Admin, and that recommendation skewed and controlled the output of the AE.
  4. The ARB decision provided that : "Enforcement of restrictions Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
  5. EdJohnston sought and got sanctions against me that far outstripped the guides of the ARB. This was the ARB that EdJohnston as an involved Admin, said he was enforcing, however the enforcing is not using the ARB as a template. It reflects that EdJohnston is NOT assuming good faith, NOT avoiding biting genuine newcomers and NOT allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom.
  6. EdJohnston posioned the well, when he assumed me to be a sockpuppet, in TALK, before the first AE, and before he recommended I be banned for 6 times the amount of time provided for by the AE.
  7. This AE in question is highly unusual. It surrounds edits where I warned the editor reverting me to not engage in Edit Warring. My edits were then reverted by a known SPA indentified in the ARB, who was discovered and banned by DeltaQuad.
  8. The AE surrounds a state where the AE was pointing to edits that were already reverted out, and all the pages were operating without issue.
  9. The AE here in question should have been closed with no action taken. My edits were already out, and I was actively using the TALK pages to resolve the issues where it was a dispute of MEDRS quoting within articles.
  10. More editors than not, had already said on TALK they agreed with my edits which were reverted out.
  11. Multiple long term editors of the pages, tag teamed to have me removed. S Marshall has made many personal remarks about my editorship, something he had been previously been warned about. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:S_Marshall#Mystery_Wolff
  12. AlbinoFerret began intimidating me here, before he opened the AE https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz&oldid=698086939#Do_I_need_to_open_a_new_AE_section.3F
  13. I wrote on the Talk page of EdJohnston about his INVOLVED Administorship regarding me and this specific topic here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=698583165#Egregious_use_of_Admin_privileges.2C_and_your_involved_commentary_pretensed_as_.22Uninvolved_input.22
  14. EdJohnston has refused to give me any insight to what actions I was taking that cause him to suggest first, and then him to judge me at the AE. Here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Your_noticing_of_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction
  15. This AE stayed open with me editing, and contributing for days and days, up to the point where EdJohnston came back to something he was involved with, and pushed for an indefinite ban.
  16. No other editors of the pages involved with, MADE ANY REMARKS, on the AE. Again, I was editing properly and using TALK, and my edits were reverted out, and I was not edit warring....YET, EdJohnston pushes for an indefinite ban, premised upon his own actions. It is entirely circular and looks like bias.

Bottomline The AE has most of the information. The AE was created by an editor who wants me to not edit. I should be afford the opportunity to work properly and edit properly without having other editors act as owners of the article. I do not believe I should have been sanctioned at all. I was editing correctly. And I was using the Talk pages. The indefinite ban is overkill, by any measure and reflects the biases and true "involvement" with EdJohnston with this case. He recommendations poisoned the well with the other admins. The ARB he is enforcing does not specify that the first saunction would be a 6 month ban. In fact it says it should not exceed 30 days. I was not part of the original ARB, but its subsequent enforcement to other editors are nothing near what EdJohnston has pushed on me. EdJohnston has refused to point out my edits in a question. Long term sockpuppets were interacting with my edits, with no investigation by EdJohnston to why. His mind was made up
This should be reversed. And at a very minimum the TB should not exceed the bounds of the ARB, and go beyond 30 days. Without keeping to process, Wikipedia becomes a boys club where newbies are pushed out, without the means to appeal with any significance, or to just make the process of appealing be beyond that of anyone wanting to contribute.
This has been tremendously frustrating, I am able to answer questions asked here. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Responding to @Ivanvector:: I do not believe this is cut and dry at all, and that is part of the problem, it takes more investigation to understand the context of what is operating. Specifically, the many edits that I did, that were uncontested and remain in the articles are not being given any weight by your remarks. I also did not "earn a topic ban" previously. Spartaz, stated that it was done in error, and apologized, and rescinded the TB. It was not lifted, it was expunged...yes it is a factor here because the same editor who began that, because I was requesting Full Protection of the article. It is a factor because AlbinoFerret, who opened the first AE went over to Spartaz TALK and started lobbying the closing Admin that another AE should be opened on me, and then ultimately did.
  • I did not refuse help, I did not ignore advice, and the 2nd AE was not for the same behavior as the first. The 2nd AE relates to the pages, where my edits were reverted, they remained out, I continued to edit without any events, and there was an ongoing TALK discussion about the nature of the edits and how they related to WP:MEDRS Doc James said he would review the this AE, that was communicated, however the AE was closed before that could happen. Why it needed to be closed before any other involved editor could speak to the issue is also unknown.
  • The edits in question of the AE, had more support for being in the article than being out of the article by the editors on TALK, saying that I am disruptive, is without any reference. That exact type of broad-stroke without specificity is part of the what I am asking for examination within this appeal.
  • Sanctions are not to be used as constructive criticism. That is not WP policy. There are ample avenues of dispute resolution. My edits were in good faith, and they largely remain in the articles to this day.
  • Whether or not it is your view, my view is people should contribute to where they have subject matter expertise, and that was my choice.
  • When you say that Electronic Cigarettes is "a topic that happens to be one of our most volatile and unstable." That should give you pause, and you should reflect to why that is the case. The nature of the article predates me. I edited well. I was reverted out, by a SOCKPUPPET who was banned. This is what AlbinoFerret noticed on Spartaz's talk page when canvassing that to begin another AE on me. However the AE was created on a different topic after the SOCKPUPPET who was part of the ARB was removed. The first AE was created because I was requesting for a Full Protection with moving in of consensus edits out from talk, by an Admin. That was me trying to solve a long standing issue.
  • This is a complex appeal. Because it its contained in a small amount of time it can be useful as a case study of what processes are going wrong. The Topic Ban of me, only rewarded the very same tactics which you are saying contribute to the unstable article. Again Ivanvector, regardless of your stance, this is not cut and dry. I relates to how MEDRS is used in items that are not are medical for only parts of their content, and relates to primary vs secondary sources, which are complex, and Topic Banning the editor who is attempting to resolve them, only leaves a status quo, which you consider "most volatile and unstable"
  • The nature of a collaborative editing project, requires that rules be in place, and that admins, monitor those rules. It means that editors who are familar with the AE and asking for saunctions should not use those skills to do and end-around of the normal dispute resolution processes.
  • Ultimately Ivanvector, I believe you should look at my edits, the ones still in place, the TALK pages where I was discussing those edits. I asked L235, to place the Discretionary Sanctions warning badge on the page itself, which they did. That is not the actions of someone trying to game or do anything but edit the articles properly. Which my edits were in fact doing.
  • Please look at the AE and the 8 differences, and the my responses, those are not the stuff of a 6 month Topic Ban.
  • Lastly, the ARB did not call out for 6 month topic bans as reasonable. In fact the ARB said a one month TB should not be exceeded. WP needs to stay with process over convenience, as without adherence to the guidelines the process and content will fail. Mystery Wolff (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Spartaz: I followed the template instructions and moved out you Statement, from the section only to be used by the closing Admin. The template and process instructions, said that other comments are to be moved to the correct sections. To your specific question, its contained in several spots including the very AE itself. Did you read my responses to EdJohnston in the AE the appeal is about? To delineate it further it will take time, to find more of the differences in your request, which I will do as soon as time provides me.
Procedural note:In reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement I believe the nature of this appeal is asking for a peer review. As you were involved in this AE, and EdJohnston cited you in his commendation, prior to your responses within the AE...Would I be correct in thinking that this appeal, is to be done by Admins who were not participants in the AE in question? Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Hi, you edited the template bottom section which had text This section is to be edited by the closing administrator only. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above., and changed it to "uninvolved administrators". I used the template that filled the text, and it placed in "closing administrator", I have not been able to replicate the problem with the template, but I suspect it had something to do with the AN board it was changed to. There is a glitch somewhere. I seem to be able to QC test stuff just by my nature...but I wanted to mention why that text was found, and used, and why I moved out text per the instructions. Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Spartaz:
  1. Directly above I explain (as best able) why the text --- was inserted into this appeal. It was done by the template itself.
  2. Yes, I have read [85]. I raised those very same concerns to EdJohnston during this AE here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=698608937#Egregious_use_of_Admin_privileges.2C_and_your_involved_commentary_pretensed_as_.22Uninvolved_input.22} He never responded.
  3. The first AE was struck (rescinded) and was for entirely different items to boot. I was accused of being a Sockpuppet, and it was asserted that I was personalizing on TALK pages. Neither of these are part of the 8 items listed on this AE. During the first AE, I made it clear that my prior interactions with EdJohnston, gave him such a bias, and that bias was manifested in his suggestion of 6 months ban instead of a warning, instead of any number of other options. It was unfair because I was treated as sockpuppet for matters I had nothing to do with.
  4. I am not solely raising EdJohnston's involved status as my rationale to why the topic ban is grossly excessive and improper. I have listed 16 items above. I cite the actual AE and the other links above. It is my believe that the only fair appraisal for an appeal is with Admins who have taken the time to read them. The banhammer is being used as the only tool, and that is not right. Admins need to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom...Explain their enforcement actions; Not issue a grossly disproportionate sanction; nor to enforce discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope.
  5. Spartaz, the nature of this appeal is to have a peer review of the Topic Ban. I asked you a question whether or not you intended to participate in the Appeals process, because you questions to me here are advocacy of a position. I believe the right to appeal an AE decision is the right to have fresh eyes look at the outcome. Much like in law, the appeals process is a different set of judges. Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal though they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist in reaching a determination. I believe you interactions here now go beyond making statements and comments....you are quizzing me and questioning me, and challenging through questions. That is adjudicating, that is not offering a comment. Its a problem. And it is poisoning the process, it does not give me an appeal per process. It is simply not fair, buy the rules of the appeal.
  6. CFCF was part of the ARB, and was sanctioned by it. AlbinoFerret opened an AE on him also, just like the 2 he did to me. Why is it that CFCF gets a warning, and I without any previous history or sanctions, gets a indefinate topic ban? How is this fair? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186#CFCF
  7. In AlbinoFerret's AE on CFCF -- AlexBrn points out this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive880#Proposed_topic_ban_for_AlbinoFerret AlbinoFerret threatened me with BOOMERANGs in the past, and I hate the entire concept because I think its WikiInsider Gaming.....but I should expect that the AlbinoFerret who has opened 3 AEs on Electronic Cigarettes should be at least examined. I would suggest he has taken battlegrounding to a new art form after he volentarily left these articles for 6 months. I would suggest that none of the 8 differences he listed in the AE raise to the leave of Topic Ban. I was reverted out of the article, and taking the discussion to TALK. I was working with the other editors.
  8. Again Spartaz, I have listed out where EdJohnston had me explain why I was not a sockpuppet in the article talk. He also suggested the idea of a Full Protection. He complained that I asked the AE to take that up. He started off with a 6 month ban, which exceeds the ARB. I will ask ARCA for clarification of that.
  9. The appeal needs to have a full examination. It can not just be "oh he is protesting and appealing the TB, I don't have time to read what he is saying....I don't have time to read number 13 in first list. And someone should have read the 8 differences and my 8 responses in the AE itself. Because there are systemic problems certainly larger than myself....I think the entire matter should be pushed into a new formal ARB process. Because banning me indefinitely does not touch the core, and its not proper too. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional Responses by Mystery Wolff[edit]

  • @All. I am simply looking for a fair appeals process of the decision by EdJohnston to enact a recommendation he first suggested to indefinitely Topic Ban me. AlbinoFerret has opened up three AE requests on the Electronic Cigarettes, and is no interjecting in the appeal. I do not believe this is proper, it certainly is out of the norm for appeals. Spartaz who was a participant in the AE in question, is now interjecting in the appeal. The process as defined says that a person subject to a TB can either ask the Admin to change the decision, or to ask for an appeal. I believe ARCA needs to clarify both of these items, and that should be done Before, this is closed If necessary this Appeal should be paused to get that information back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment
  • A 3rd discreet and defined question which I have already raised here, which I will ask the ARCA, is that the AE went beyond Arbcom, by 6 times. Specifically the Arbcom stated. "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." EdJohnston needs to use the formed and agreed process, and explain his rationale.
  • As all other avenues of dispute resolution were bypassed by AlbinoFerret, and he canvassed Spartaz TALK page only to have a Sockpuppet from the Arbcom, discovered banned and reverted by @DeltaQuad:. The Arbcom talks about "Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;" which the AE should have examined as part of the evaluation of the Requester AlbinoFerret, which is simarly done with 3RR requests. The AE process fails if that reciprocity check is not completed. I believe it is entirely germane to the appeal to get a determination if Arbcom are intended to displace ALL other avenues of dispute resolution. The AE in question, does not raise edit warring, or point to disruptive TALK. It points only to my edits which were reverted out, and a TALK discussion on the merits of the edits. In other words the AE was opened prematurely, and the Recommendations by EdJohnston is dramatically over what the Arbcom stated [86] ARCA should respond to all of these before closure of this appeal.
  • One of the things that EdJohnston did, was to close out the AE before an involved editor @Doc James: could review. Doc James was a good set of eye to look at this because the entire set of edits were Primary Source and 2ndary sources of MEDRS items. The Talk on the pages that I was conducting was asking for a RFC on MEDRS in not drug categories. This is important. I believe that that effort will sadly be abandoned now, however I was working with @Kingsindian: to set up the RFC.
  • @Spartaz: My appeal states my understanding of Involved. I have responded to you, see: #2 above, where I say YES, link to what I have read. Spartaz, I asked you a process question, will this appeal be determined by the same people who determined the AE outcome, if so that would make this a request for reconsideration, which is different than an appeal. When you say "I am not involved either", I do believe you have a strong view of support for the AE decision, and EdJohnston closing it, and whether he is involved.
  • @SMcCandlish: You are posting in an uninvolved editor section. Within a week of my editing beginning, you asserted I was a sockpuppet and requested to @Lankiveil: that the Alert be posted on my Talk page, and @L235: did the follow-through. That assumption of bad faith was then continued by EdJohnston taking a remarkably similar template and posting it to the TALK page, where I had to publicly explain myself and that I was not a sockpuppet before all the editors in TALK. Its why EdJohnston is involved, and I certainly would expect you to know your position on my editorship. There are sections for involved editors, I am simply trying to have a fair Appeals process. Thank you. I share you concerns that the appeal process is not being discarded without review. EdJohnston has not responded here, he has not responded on this Talk page with any specificity. Rules for Admins and this process require otherwise. I ask you let EdJohnston oblige himself to the agreed process for an appeal. Its is literally why a requirement is that I post to his TALK page and then come back to the the Appeal and show he has been notified.
  • @Roger Davies: The substance of the appeal is several fold. EdJohnston is involved, if you do not agree, there are still the remaining items on the Arbcom stating starting with 30 days, and EdJohnston using some unknown process of starting with 180 days instead. EdJohnston accused me of being a sockpuppet in the Talk pages, and I had to respond if I wanted a level playing field. If you read the above you see the differences. Yes that is out of bounds to process and gives the appearance of involvement at the least. Roger: If you look at the 8 items listed as Diff in the AE I am appealing....I would like to know what you feel justifies what EdJohnston has pushed out of an indefinite ban.
  • @Ricky81682: Ricky, The Appeals template has not even been filled out yet. It is too soon to close it. @EdJohnston:has not replied. Ed represented in the AE he did not interact with me in TALK before the AE. That is not factual. I know it, and he knows it. His recommendation for a indefinite ban is far in excess of the items listed out in the AE. I have asked EdJohnston for specificity and he has refused with only WP anachronism boilerplate, without connection to any part of the AE. And Yes, ARCA needs to clarify some items also. I am existing in a Topic Ban right now. I think you can agree there is no pressure or need to rush a close.
  • @Onel5969: I am Appealing the process and the actual decision, by which I was Topic Banned. Beyond EdJohnston being an involved Administrator. EdJohnson stated after 6 months I can ask for a change of terms. This Appeal is not that is not that. I take major exception to your remark "MW's actions since the ban, in my mind, simply reinforce the correctness of the ban." My actions have been to Appeal the decision. To suggest the act of appeal a decision, is justification for the decision, is circular logic, and its just wrong on a fairness level. Onel5969, I have the right to Appeal, and EdJohnston stated the same. Onel5969, if you read the 8 Diffs in the AE, and my responses, which of those makes for an indefinate topic ban. I have not even ever been brought up for edit-warring to a noticeboard, nor have I edit warred, or have I even been accused of bias. Tossing around that I am disruptive by my mere existence of editing is simply disparagingly wrong. Onel5969, how do you come to indefinite as the term. Please note I have not been sanction prior to this AE. (Spartaz rescinded and apologized and struck out the first AE, which was on different topics.
  • As stated above I need to ask ARCA for clarification on 3 items. I am not editing, there is no time pressure....and EdJohnston has not yet even responded, to the substance of the Appeal, which is not solely based on his prior involvement and assertions upon me in the pages TALK. Please do not close until those 4 items are returned. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
ARCA request for Clarification Opened Here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Editor conduct in e-cigs articles. The are stated generically. The response should help Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston[edit]

  • Other admins have already made the observations that I could have added here. A search of the AE archives would give you any necessary background. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]

As far as EdJohnston, he is not involved. The only edits to the articles were as an uninvolved admin to the talk page and suggested ways that the editors could solve issues (more discussion, RFC, AE, etc). He to my knowledge has never edited any electronic cigarette article, nor voiced any opinions on content on any talk page. Per WP:INVOLVED he is not involved. AlbinoFerret 23:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out WP:ASPERSIONS. So far none of the claims of Mystery Wolff have been proved. Also the 500 word limit has long been passed by him. AlbinoFerret 13:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

Mystery Wolff: You are incorrect in your understanding of what happened regarding the text of the instructions for the bottom section:

  1. You filed this appeal at AN by copying the AE appeal form over there
  2. The AE appeal form has the instructions in the final section "This section is to be edited by the uninvolved administrators only", because that section is where the appeal is decided on AE, by uninvolved admins
  3. I determined that AE appeals handled at AN are decided by a consensus of the uninvolved editors discussing it, and not by a consensus of the uninvolved administrators
  4. Because of this, I changed the wording of the instructions on the final section to be "This section is to be edited by the closing administrator only" (emphasis added), since the previous instruction was no longer applicable
  5. You decided to move your appeal from AN to AE, and did so by copying the text of the AN appeal here
  6. In doing so, you copied the "closing administrator only" text
  7. Since that text is not applicable to AE-based appeals, I changed it back to the normal instruction "This section is to be edited by the uninvolved administrators only".

I hope that clears up the issue for you. BMK (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mystery Wolff[edit]

  • Oppose unblock lifting of sanction - well, I think it's pretty cut-and-dry here. Mystery Wolff already earned a topic ban from e-cigs for this behaviour, was fortunate enough to have had it lifted when several users offered help and advice, refused the help and ignored the advice, and was then topic banned again for the same behaviour. All in the course of not much more than a month. The sanction imposed by EdJohnston is extremely reasonable: MW's inexperienced enthusiasm is clearly disruptive in this topic area, but they very well may become a highly productive editor if they "learn the ropes" in less difficult environments over the next six months. @Mystery Wolff: take the sanction imposed here as constructive criticism. We want you to stick around and help build this wonderful project, but unfortunately you started out in a topic that happens to be one of our most volatile and unstable. Listen to the advice that experienced editors offer you, show that you can participate and collaborate in other topics, and I guarantee that you'll be welcomed back after six months. That's how it goes. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC) thanks William M. Connolley for clarifying my comment Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Procedural note: I responded in this section when this was originally posted at WP:AN. There is some meta-discussion collapsed above regarding who should comment, as ArbCom's procedures give slightly different rules for appeals posted at AE versus those posted at AN (which seems to be a weakness of the process). Mystery Wolff having moved the entire appeal thread to this board seems to render my comment out-of-process; whoever reviews this can decide if my comments may be accepted or not. Ping me if required, please. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
In both modes -- AE-based appeal and AN-based appeal -- this section (i.e. "Discussion among uninvolved editors") exists, so your comment should not be considered "out of process". BMK (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose lifting of sanctions - I'm about as an uninterested an editor in this discussion as you're likely to find, having absolutely no interaction with MW and no involvement on the page in question which prompted their ban. I find nothing wrong with Ed's topic ban. I'm not going to address the voluminous comments made above, other to say that while some good edits may have been made, that does not excuse other bad behavior. Disruptive editing takes away time that editors could be using to make constructive improvements to the site. I also don't have an issue with the length of time regarding eligibility for an appeal. The fact that less than two weeks has passed does not bode well in MW's defense. It also does not bode well in MW's defense he has not taken the suggestion and added a single other edit in different subject matter. While folks on here do have their areas which they enjoy editing in, when someone's editing in a certain area has become problematic, they really do need to attempt to show that they are willing to learn, and willing to work for the good of the project. MW's actions since the ban, in my mind, simply reinforce the correctness of the ban. I would strongly suggest they take Ivanvector's advice above. Onel5969 TT me 19:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
One and only response to your reply. Never said you didn't have the right to appeal. Your lack of good judgement in doing so is simply a continuation of your lack of judgement which led to the ban in the first place. And that's all I'll have to say regarding this topic. If there was a scintilla of hesitation on my part about commenting earlier to keep the sanctions, they are totally gone now. You really need to listen to other editors and take their advice. Onel5969 TT me 12:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Request: @Mystery Wolff:: Can you completely drop the "involved" claims and all other finger-pointing, and concisely get at what the other bases, if any, are for your request? I believe they're all being discarded because of you dwelling on the "involved" claims and trying to make the admin look like a bad guy, instead of addressing a) why you should be un-restricted (i.e., in what ways your behavior will change and your approach has changed), and b) why the restriction wasn't appropriate, if it wasn't, in the first place, aside from the claims no one is buying.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

    Response to your reply: I don't recall accusing you of being a sock puppet. Raising the question is not an accusation. I also don't care if my comment here is moved to the "involved" section. I was not involved in the decision to restrict your edits, and I was asking openly for you to qualify your position to be better understood and thus have a chance of not being rejected out of hand (I've been railroaded/dogpiled here myself, back in the day (by an admin who actually was involved), so I understand what that's like). But go ahead and "moon the jury" if you like. Doesn't seem like a very useful response to me, though.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Request:SMcCandlish, Raising the question, questioning "as if" and accusation in my thesaurus are all synonyms. I am referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=693024964#E-cigs which is the same assertions or if you need, publicly questioning of me in the Talk pages. I absolutely reject your personalization of me mooning anyone...it's false. Please assume good faith upon me, because I am faced with what I regard as a very unfair first sanction, as indefinite Ban. Please look at the 8 differences in the AE which is being appealed. Judge me not on your speculation I am sockpuppet, but rather on the specific edits in question. I would like your feedback on the 8 differences. Mystery Wolff (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Mystery Wolff[edit]

This section is to be edited by the uninvolved administrators only. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm not following the argument that Ed was involved. please can you provide diffs of the exact edits that you think make him involved. Have you read WP:INVOLVED? Spartaz Humbug! 21:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I have restored my comment to the correct location. I am not involved either as I have only dealt with you in an administrative capacity. I repeat my question - have you read WP:INVOLVED? What specific edits of Ed's made him involved according to that policy? Spartaz Humbug! 07:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
      • MysteryWolff. the actions you describe do not make him involved. They are administrative actions and therefore not in the editor role. You did read INVOLVED? Spartaz Humbug! 14:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the involved issue either. I have had no involvement at all in the area, plus two other admins agreed with the proposal. If the only issue is the admin who closed it, I'd close it the same way. Six months is very reasonable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
From the later comments, I find the belief that a topic ban constitutes an actual ban concerning and reflective of the need for such a ban. Mystery Wolff, you would still be able to edit anything that isn't related to the topic. If you literally have no other interest here than that topic and editing to push for that topic the way you want, then maybe this isn't the place for you. I think we can closed this appeal. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
In response to your comment, quit WP:WIKILAWYERing this issue. The template is sufficient to make an analysis and your technical arguments do not help your cause. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that Ed is not involved and I'm not seeing much else of much substance to this appeal.  Roger Davies talk 16:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)