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



Blocked for one year by unanimous consent of uninvolved administrators. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note after moratorium: review reopened. I suggested recently that this review remain on hold till after the Thanksgiving weekend,[1] but now SageRad has opened it, as indeed I invited him to on his page. He has removed all his month-old posts and added a new statement, also according to my suggestions, so that's fine. The review can now go ahead and hopefully reach closure, and not run into the sands. I agree strongly with Dennis below, before the break, that we must avoid a situation where "SageRad [says] he is leaving Wikipedia forever, then come[s] back in a month or two and we have the same problem."[2] (Let me emphasize that I don't have any notion that SageRad would do that in a manipulative way. But it's the kind of thing that happens when feelings run high.)

Anyway, it seems a good idea to keep the interrupted previous discussion on the page, since it remains highly relevant, but also to have the month-long divide visible. I've tried to achieve this by a new header for new community discussion (moving Sage's new statement to it), and another one for new uninvolved admin discussion (known as "Result concerning SageRad"). Please feel free to change my changes if you can think of a better system (archive templates?).Bishonen | talk 16:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC). (I'll have to do this in installments, since I keep getting edit conflicts.) Bishonen | talk 16:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC).

Adding: Well, the new header for community discussion didn't work, bad idea. (The new header for admin result discussion seems to work as intended.) I've removed it and instead marked all new community sections after the break with Comments after resumption of case in November 2016. My dream is that people will continue to mark any new sections in this way, but if not, I'll try to go in and do it. (Of course there's no need to mark additions to sections that have already been so marked — for instance, this request does not affect you, User:SageRad). I hope that's clear, and sorry for my inefficient clerking. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC).

Request concerning SageRad[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
SageRad (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/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions : discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
Note, trimmed and extra content placed on subpage here per Bish here. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

SageRad is on a campaign against skepticism and for giving more credence to altmed, and this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, civil as it may be, has been consistently disruptive on fringey medical and CAM topics like fad diets. The key issues are BLUDGEONing discussion with soapbox-y rants against "skepticism" and for "Truth " -- a consistent behavior of using talk pages as forums, talking about "meta-issues", etc, instead of focused discussion on crafting content based on sources per policy and guidelines. He also misrepresents sources in the course of his arguments. In all of that, he fails to yield to consensus and accuses other editors of lacking "integrity". His presence on these topics is a time sink.

What spurs this filing, is that SageRad has continued this campaign -- really WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior -- against the perceived skeptic takeover, in article space this fall.
  • On Sept 10, opened a section at Talk:Michael Gregerfocusing on his "skeptic" issue here, generally OFFTOPIC soapboxing disrupting already difficult discussions with Greger fans objecting to any critical discussion of Greger. Made 39 comments mostly all on this "skeptic" stuff.
  • On Sept 11 at the Scientific skepticism pursuing his campaign there, making 6 edits to Talk exemplified by this
  • On Sept 16 at Talk:John A. McDougall, an article about another diet advocate where we have consistent trouble from "fans", making 9 edits to Talk, again arguing against the fad diet attribution and writing the following (this which misrepresented the source as I showed him here. He went on to invoke Godwin's Law here.
  • On Sept 25 he joined a discussion at Talk:Detoxification (alternative medicine) in a section entitled "Truth of Toxins" where he helpfully brought a new ref but then misrepresented it here and again here arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets (the conclusion presented in the source is the opposite as pointed out to him here. He also brought more of his anti-Skeptic campaigning in diff (already cited dif).
  • Most recently at misophonia which has been a struggle to keep neutral in the face of a lot of advocacy, SageRad has again been abusing the talk page like this and fighting perceived skeptic agenda - (dif, and refusing to engage refs summarized twice (here and later here.

I dread that this is heading into another slog like the Paleo diet discussed above and I have no desire to do that again.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 29 May 2015 block for violating BLP at David Gorski (see relevance above)
  2. topic banned per GMO arbcom case in December 2015
  3. blocked via AE for 5 days for violating TBAN in July 2016
  4. blocked for one 1 month via DS for violating TBAN in August 2016
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
If you look at SageRad's contribs, this anti-skeptic pro-altmed editing is pretty much all they do here (with the exception of some Race & Intelligence work and some scattered editing on basic biology). In all these cases he is making difficult editing situations worse by adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are. Am suggesting a TBAN from anything related to health, as it is articles about health/alt med where he has mostly brought his SOAPBOXing and disruptive, time-wasting behavior. I would suggest alt med more narrowly but I don't want to get into endless border disputes. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • link updated per SageRad's request. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Bishonen, I will do no more adjusting. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen, while i think restricting SageRad from soapboxing would help, the deeper problem of not dealing with sources and even misrepresenting them, and relentlessly advocating for his preferred content, is not going to be addressed by that. The disruption from SageRad's first edits here have been in the field of health which is why I requested what I did. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Tryptofish; while i see how you could suggest that this is at base an interpersonal dispute, SageRad's editing has focused on health from his first days here and there is one consistent arc of behavior that I described in my OP. Yes, that means he and I have clashed since he arrived, since my editing is also focused on health. So yes there is an element of interpersonal dispute, but in my view, it arises from my having to deal with SageRad's problematic behavior on health topics for all this time. I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way. The problems are actual, not perceived by me. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your reply. When I filed this I was concerned it might get framed as an interpersonal dispute. I cannot deny that we have been at loggerheads since he arrived; I don't want that to obscure the facts of SageRad's consistent pattern of POV editing and his behavior pursuing that POV, since he arrived here. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Tryptofish I know you nodded at the problem with SageRad's behavior with your suggestion about some limit on his talk postings. However, I contest your description of this as "Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another." and the mention of RfCs as a possible solution. This is not a DR thing. SageRad has demonstrated a consistent set of problems with regard to POV on content about health and behavior trying to get that content into WP. It is not going to be resolved by treating it merely as a series of good faith content disputes that can be resolved with RfCs. That is why I posted here. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • and now i am going to shut the heck up, unless I am asked something. :) i am arguing too hard. I am long term frustrated. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually one more thing. The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here and I am very comfortable putting that history on the table. Here is his talk page before he purged it at the start of this year; that is where key interactions between SageRad and me took place. I invite anybody who wants to cast this as equivalent to review that from the top down. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • fwiw, i have no objection at all to the month pause in conjunction with SageRad taking a break Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments after resumption of case in November 2016

  • User:Wnt In WP:TPG (a guideline) the section about what to do, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices_for_all_talk_pages_used_for_collaboration, emphasizes concision, and the last bullet of the section on behavior that is unacceptable links to WP:SOAPBOX, which is indeed a behavioral policy. A whole slew of essays about people who are "not here" discuss bludgeoning talk pages, including WP:Civil POV pushing, WP:NOTHERE, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:STICK and yes WP:BLUDGEON note that going on and on, and not yielding to consensus, to push any agenda are unacceptable behaviors in the community. It all goes back to WP:SOAPBOX. -- Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yep that was a mistake on my part with regard to SashiRoll. I removed it right after I did it, before they posted here. dif. I mistakenly thought they were carrying disagreements from Singapore to here. My bad. Jytdog (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • User:SageRad, this is obvious to every one else here, but let me point this out to you. You have written several times that He claims that i never back off when shown to be wrong. (diff in edit note and content; diff, etc. and have written a ton trying to refute that. But the quote from me in the first diff doesn't say that, and i have not written anything like that here. Even here you are misrepresenting things. And then you go on and on about that... even here you are bludgeoning the heck out of this page. Look at how much you have written. Also, you were given very good advice on your talk page about how to proceed here at AE, which you have ignored. Not taking in feedback/advice, misrepresenting, bludgeoning. It is all right here. And you cannot see that but keep asking what you have been doing wrong, and keep framing this as anything to do with your particular POV. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • as this drags on it gets diffused/confused, as drama board discussions tend to do. User: Bob K31416 doesn't understand his/her own edits nor mine, and how they fit into the content dispute, which they explicitly said they were getting involved with below. I explained what is going on at the article talk page in this section. I don't expect admins to waste time on this as it outside the issue of SageRad's behavior, but in case you want to.... Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning SageRad[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 SageRad[edit]

New statement after resumption of case in November 2016: I am WP:HERE as my editing makes clear to anyone who takes the time to look. I edit articles well, according to policies. I have written observations about patterns i see in Wikipedia in places where that is appropriate.

This is an onerous and disruptive request made by Jytdog and if anything, should boomerang back at him for wasting everyone's time with drama and disrupting my ability to edit for a month now.

I request Jytdog to reduce the length of his statement to 500 words and 20 diffs which is a guideline stated on this page for good reason. It keeps things less onerous to respond to. Maybe he'll surprise me and be willing to do so. (((Added: he has declined to do so. Oh well, sorry to readers for length of this case.))) (((Further added: I do not consider linking a sub-page to be actually limited to the 500 words/20 diffs as it's still material presented. Might as well not bother.)))

I care about Wikipedia, but i'm pretty disgusted at this point with this case. A total waste of time. Talk about time-sink.

I respect good dialog, and there is such a thing as good dialog with integrity. It's recognizable when it's present and when it's absent.

We must have good dialog on article talk pages to discuss content.

Different people have different points of view. That's welcome here. Out of this difference comes beauty, when it works. What doesn't work is to pillory other editors like Jytdog is doing here, and which is part of the pattern to which i spoke.

Do you want there to be things that cannot be spoken within Wikipedia, under threat of attacks like this one? If so then let's be clear. You want to restrict the realm of discourse so things you don't want to hear cannot be spoken. That's the way of fascism. That's not the ideal of this place.

This is not a "democracy" but it's also not a locked-down ideological place. People must be able to discuss things without fear of being attacked viciously by actions like this one.

Jytdog's 1,500 word complaint is a character attack and misrepresents me greatly, and misrepresents many things.

There are a couple things that i can learn, though...

  • Be more brief. Not my strong point. Keep it short.
  • Don't speak to patterns that i see in article talk pages regarding editor motivations (even if they're screamingly apparent). Keep it to the content strictly.

I can do these things better. When i edit an article, i can keep all dialog to the sources and the content, and not impute non-ideal motivations to other editors, even through suggestions.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone would do that? Because most people who are attacking me here do that constantly. But ok, i can be the bigger person and do that.

Except on Jimbo's page and other appropriate places, i can and will speak to patterns (not specific editors, and i've never named any specific editors).

So i call on whoever closes this to please put an end to the attempt to silence people who speak to patterns on forums like Jimbo's page. If speech like this is chilled then you get a closed ideological system. That's not good.

So much of Jytdog's long rant uses words like "bludgeon" and "battleground" and "soapboxing" -- guess what? I could use the exact same words about him, having observed him for a year. And several others. But i don't take them to AE like this. I'm not that sort. Trying to shut someone down because you don't like what they have said in dialog is a bad thing. I don't like many things Jytdog has said. Some things i do appreciate. But i don't spend my time trying to shut him down, but instead i tolerate that people have different points of view. I wish he'd have more integrity in dialog when it comes down to specific conflicts, but so it goes.

Jytdog's rant is really a pile of fallacious insinuation.

  • I don't say i know "The Truth" as he says. That's a lie. I often say there are multiple points of view and that's more than ok. That's expected and a beauty of how Wikipedia works -- when it works.
  • I'm not on a "campaign" -- what a slander word. I have a point of view that i speak, like anyone else.
  • I don't "bludgeon" -- i speak to the topic at hand when i have something to add.
  • I do see patterns and speak to them in forums where it's appropriate. Occasionally have touched on that in content talk pages, where it's not appropriate -- sorry for this. I'll not do that anymore ever.
  • "Battleground behavior" -- not really. There are controversies about many topics, and i often will enter those, going to sources, and sometimes finding and fixing problems in logic of articles or NPOV problems. That's good -- that is what Wikipedia is all about.
  • "IDHT" -- no. I hear others. Often others are the ones with their fingers stuck in their ears. Really, go to the details. Read the talk page at Misophonia where it seems Jytdog was the one with "IDHT" in neon on his forehead. Seriously not engaging in dialog cooperatively, more obstructionist.
  • I am not on any campaign about "fad diets" or any other "fringe" topics. I'm on a campaign for good sourcing only. If WP:MEDRS sources show some nuance that should be reflected. Nothing more. Jytdog's slanderous words are just that.

So yeah, this whole rant of Jytdog's is a bunch of slanderous misrepresentations. It's a lawyer's work. I'm not a lawyer. I'll trust others to see through the Wikilawyering and see what's going on. He doesn't like me or my point of view and thought he had enough "stuff" to throw it on a wall and see what sticks.

Well, i'm not perfect. Take any specific thing, bring it to a forum, and i will be more than happy to discuss it, and to recognize how i can be a better editor. Really, i want to learn more, and be a better editor and better person all the time.

But do it right -- do it about a specific thing, not some mega-bomb of insinuations. He's the one on a campaign. He's the one with behavioral problems. He's the one who want to shut me up because he doesn't like my point of view.

I've been generally civil. I always want to get back to the sources and the content, to improve articles. Only in spaces where it's what people do have i spoke about larger patterns in Wikipedia, and it got discussed, and i'm thankful. (After some admin banned me for a month the first time, then i brought it up again and it was a long fruitful conversation.)

Also, whoever reviews this, don't believe the hype of a small group of editors who consistently attack people like me, making comments here. It's like flies attracted by smell to a pile of rotting fruit... they are here by attraction, self-selection.

So, in brief, i'm here. I'm an editor. Any limitation on my editing would be a bad decision here and would enable vague attacks against editors who dissent too often from a "mainstream" viewpoint -- and Wikipedia is not meant to be a "mainstream" encyclopedia. It's meant to be a verifiable encyclopedia. A solid encyclopedia. A neutral point of view encyclopedia. There is no party line here except good sourcing and neutral representation of those sources.

If you want me to be more careful about not ever imputing motives to other editors in content discussions, then yes, i'll do that -- and i'll add that those who would rather see me gone forever should to the same but probably won't, and are ten times worse than me in this regard. But whatever, i'll be the bigger person and do that.

And i'll be more brief.

Treat me with respect and i'll do the same.

I don't expect that to happen here, but whatever. Leave me alone unless you have something productive to say. I've got other things to do.

SageRad (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I do not wish to be blocked. I wish to pretty much retire, but not to be blocked. To be blocked would be a huge emotional blow that i would not forget easily. It would not be "merciful" as Mjolinarpants tries to portray it. That is not a good reason to block someone. I don't need or want that. No sympathy blocks please.

Tryptofish, when i speak here in defense, and i say things to counter the many many many accusations by Jytdog, you then make this out to be a problem? What is going on with you? This is a defense and so when Jytdog in his accusation that i speak about "The Truth" and it's a lie then i say "I don't say i know "The Truth" as he says. That's a lie." --- And no, i do not do those things again here in this statement. You're really twisting things. Notice that i did say there's one aspect that i've done wrong occasionally -- speaking about motivations on content talk pages -- and would cease that altogether. So there's one thing i say i've done wrong, ok. And then i write counter to the charges made. You cannot interpret me defending myself here as another "crime"... what a Kafka-esque situation. SageRad (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


Am i doing the right thing adding here? Assuming it's alright.

  • The Paleo diet stuff was way back in January and i'm a learning being. Secondly, among the copious text you can find a handful of diffs that in isolation of context seem a bit jarring. Keep that in perspective.
  • My intention with Paleo diet was for the article be become more NPOV by representing the sources on the diet accurately and with due weight. The fact of it taking a lot of words is not evidence of wrongdoing by me. It matters what was said and why. I saw a certain group -- and this is inescapable because they show up on these topics in a place with thousands of editors -- seriously pushing for a particularly negative presentation of the topic despite a more mixed reception by reliable sources. So it was not NPOV. Why so many words? Because i care what is right according to the sources and policies of Wikipedia. You cannot assume it's me who is the problem when there are many exchanges in a dialog. I tend to want complete dialog, to leave nothing hanging, and to be clinically accurate about sources and policies. What's wrong with that? I dislike dialog that is evasive or insulting or otherwise not as direct and good-faith as possible. So, 11 months ago i wrote many comments on a talk page of Paleo diet to see about fixing an NPOV problem that i saw in the article (which had been seriously changed recently in this direction). So... what's my crime there? 11 months ago... discussion NPOV issues... and you blame me for this?
  • I have said i can cease to even make the occasional insinuation of non-ideal motivations on content talk pages -- but then let us agree that everyone must do the same and this must be applied with equity. Those on the so-called "other side" must also cease onerous and frequent comments about other editors. Why do we not see these being reprimanded? Why is no editor ever blocked for continuously casting rather nasty aspersions to editors when out "fringe-hunting"*? Let's see it stop everywhere. I will do my part. But the hypocrisy is astounding. People who so frequently lambaste other editors with all kinds of characterizations of motivation then want me blocked for a year because of occasionally saying things of a similar nature when i see it? And i do promise to even cease ever implying anything regarding motivations on content talk pages.
  • I do not have an "anti-skeptic agenda". My only agenda is for NPOV. Only if a particular ideological agenda is threatening to NPOV content then i say "I see a pattern here that seems problematic" and this is what i have done. I see a dogmatic set of beliefs that do fit largely with those of the "Skeptic" movement (which is not wholly skeptical in a most ideal sense) and i've said this simply. Anyone can see if they think this fits reality or is off-base. Glad we had the discusson on Jimbo's talk page (finally, after a couple blocks initially). It's a fair question and it's not a "campaign". (Once, i questioned whether "skeptic" is a fair title for an author, but that's a content question related to this topic. Still, not a campaign.)
  • I am not on some campaign about "altmed" or any such thing as Jytdog claims. That's nonsense. I've edited on a wide range of things, some of which are controversial. I like to find edges -- the borders between the known and unknown -- and see that define them correctly. That's one of my attractions and interests. It's not about "alternative medicine" and most things in that category i couldn't give a hoot about.
  • I absolutely never have "followed Jytdog around" as alleged somewhere in this case. Like American Express he just seems to be "everywhere you want to be" as a super-prolific editor with a clear interest set. If anything, it seems that he is interested in alt-med in a sense. Admirable as long as he sticks to sources with integrity.

So. I continue to maintain largely innocence and to call this a lawyerish "takedown attempt" by someone whose ideology or point of view is different from mine. That should not stand. This is not a place where one person gets to take down another because of different point of view. You don't get to remove people because what they say is "inconvenient" or a "time sink" to you. Believe me, Jytdog is extremely inconvenient to me and a huge time-sink to me, but i am not trying to get rid of him. I actually appreciate his point of view very much despite frustrations with other aspects of his editing style. There is no "house POV". Dialog is where things get worked out. You don't get to purge people who see the world a bit differently from you.

SageRad (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  • One final note. I used the term "fringe-hunting" in a derogatory way above. There is so much good to "fringe-hunting" when done in a good way. All points of view must be in tension to produce the best content. There is too much "fringe pushing" and i am grateful to those who do the work of trimming the unsupported aspects. Jytdog's voice here in Wikipedia is valuable. I wish he'd be more civil and less "BATTLEGROUND", and i wish i would always be the same. But our voices in a good tension are what Wikipedia needs to refine the edges between what is known and what is not known to science (and other disciplines). I've done my own "fringe-hunting" at Race and intelligence and there is much further to go to keep discussion to sources and content. I am thankful to editors of all points of view, when they state their concerns in a thoughtful and civil way. Looking for NPOV content in all directions is good work to be done. "Fringe-hunting" is a service if done in a good way supported by reliable sources, and watching out for excesses of "fringe-hunting" pushing the pendulum too far in the other direction is likewise good work to be done. Wikipedia needs both Jytdog and myself, and many others, in a friendly tension to produce and refine excellent content.

SageRad (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I must give all that i can, for i do not wish to be banned. I wish to see justice prevail here.

Jytdog claims above and here:

as for SageRad's claim that all he wants to do is represent refs accurately, I presented several diffs (of the many times he has done it) of SageRad misrepresenting refs in pursuit of his agenda and not backing off that, even when shown it. The claim is part of the self-delusion.

I can show diffs of myself seeing that i'm wrong and acknowledging that, thereby disproving Jytdog's claim and accompanying personal attack ("self-delusion"). If i show that his claim is wrong and that the attack is unjustified, it must erode his case against me. If i can show that he actually shows the exact behavior of which he accuses me, then it further erodes his case and even argues for a boomerang result.

Here is a discussion in which i am citing solid MEDRS sources with the very simple point that they call misophonia a "condition" and therefore so should the article. Simple. Yet Jytdog refuses to accede this, and instead goes into an argument about nosology here and then here i point out that he is incorrect' in his nosology argument and that he's also doing WP:OR and WP:SYN as well as contradicting the most recent MEDRS sources on this very simple question... and still he has not acceded this point nor produced better arguments or sources to support his position. He is doing exactly what he's accused me of here. Stubbornly sticking to a point that he seems to want to control the article even when it's not supported by sources, and pushing SYN and OR.

Now to prove Jytdog's claim about my behavior wrong. He claims that i never back off when shown to be wrong. Well, here is Jytdog's reversion of my edit to Polychlorinated biphenyl. I saw that he is actually correct, and went investigating review articles on the subject. Then i wrote on his talk page here to say:

Jytdog, i hope you will not mind me posting here to say that i agree with your edit where you corrected my edit. I was mistaken to think that this source satisfies the WP:MEDRS requirement of being a secondary source (review article). I will be more careful in the future regarding this.

And so i have lived by these words. I've never made that mistake again, and i admitted when i was wrong.

He replied "great, thanks" showing that he saw what i wrote. Therefore for him to say that i never admit to being wrong is either a memory failure or misrepresentation.

Please take this into consideration when evaluating his interpretive claims about me. He's wrong here and he's also wrong in many other regards. I am not perfect but i'm not the evil agenda pusher that he paints me. I'm a good editor and i admit when i am wrong.

In short, please take such accusations with a grain of salt. Given 20 hours and enough resources i could show most of what Jytdog says to be either wrong or exaggerated or interpretive polemic. Anyway, i had to counter this wild claim and now i must go to work. Please use a sober and calm mind and invest enough time if you wish to judge this case. It's quite important and is not to be taken lightly. It affects me greatly as well as Wikipedia in general.

SageRad (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


Someone posted this supportive anonymous statement which was swiftly removed by Bishonen who is the one proposing that I be blocked for a year. The statement is quite good and true as by my estimation, and why should something be removed? Please see the dynamic going on, many layers of suppression and chilling of speech. SageRad (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: the above, Bishonen, why would someone post while logged out? Maybe the atmosphere here is a Reign of Terror. Maybe people fear to speak what they see, because they get drawn and quartered like you're doing to me here. Seriously, you all really don't seem to get the way you're being and how it's so oppressive. People are afraid to defend others because they're afraid that there will be reprisals against them. This is a place of intense persecution of some people, and the line is not purely about their behavior. It's more about their alignment. This is an atmosphere of political purging. The denial here is thick and sickening. I used the word McCarthyism about 50 times because it feels very accurate.

I've edited with pretty good practices. I've been much more civil than some others who are on the persecution side of this thing. The hypocrisy is astounding. I continue to be unable to believe the level of nasty stuff that is allowed here, and yet to call it crap is anathema. This place is captured. I name that problem and that's why these people don't want me here. You can say goodbye to any shred of credibility that this is a place where integrity matters.


@Dennis Brown: -- when you say that after reviewing my talk page, you see nothing's changed, and therefore think a block is good -- please specify what you mean. What about my talk page and what do you think it shows about me? I'd really like to know what people see in me. What's the deep dark evil you see or the behavioral problems.

State a concise case. What did i do wrong? In simple terms, what did i do wrong that justifies excluding me from Wikipedia? SageRad (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


Above, i showed that a claim by Jytdog in his screed was absolutely and provably incorrect. He said that i never admit to being wrong, and i showed where i clearly admitted to him that i was wrong and said thank you to him for pointing it out.

Here, i have another point in his screed that is provably wrong. Please pay attention. This is how he's distorted things in nearly every point. It's too tiring to go through it all, and he is relying on the appearance of a bulk of accusations to make it seem that "SageRad must be bad because there's just so much here!" Well, think again.

He wrote:

"* On Sept 25 he joined a discussion at Talk:Detoxification (alternative medicine) in a section entitled "Truth of Toxins" where he helpfully brought a new ref but then misrepresented it here and again here arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets (the conclusion presented in the source is the opposite as pointed out to him here."

But i didn't misrepresent the article! You can go and read the dialog! For one thing, i quoted the entire abstract of the article and then i summarized it as "There is little clinical evidence to support the use of these diets. That's true. That is lack of crucial evidence. However, there is some evidence that certain foods have detoxification properties. This is an area that needs more research, according to the above review article." After i cited the MEDRS source (recent review article in relevant discipline), another editor wrote "If you want to make a medical claim for us to assess, or make arguments based upon such claims, point out the MEDRS sources. The entire idea of "detoxification" in the context here is pseudoscience. FRINGE (and the associated ArbCom decisions) place a very high bar on presenting pseudoscience as something else." Then i replied, "That which I quoted is a MEDRS source." Then Jytdog wrote, "you have starkly mischaracterized the conclusion of the source," and quoted from the source. But i didn't misrepresent the source. I said other things that the source said, accurately. There was no contradiction. I replied with "I didn't misrepresent the ref. I quoted the entire abstract." The Jytdog, instead of pursuing this or acknowledging it, replied with "Please read and follow the guidance in WP:NOABSTRACT." And yes, i know WP:NOABSTRACT which says not to rely only upon the abstract of articles. Fine. But i didn't misrepresent the source. He and i sort of talked past each other.

But further, he said of me, "arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets" but this is not what i said. I was simply pointing out that the sources do have some nuance to them. I didn't change the article or argue for anything specific. It was, to me, a reasonable discussion on a talk page. And now he wants to use it as fodder to ban me?

And that's one single example of how Jytdog misrepresents what happened. I didn't misrepresent the source and i also didn't use it to add anything to the article. I commented on the talk page to show that the 100% demonization of the concept was going too far. That is all.

If you go into 95% of his accusations, you will see that they are mostly misrepresenting dialogs and my character. SageRad (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I see the suggestion by Count Iblis about a 0RR limit. I find this interesting, though i'd point out that i have hardly ever even gone to 1RR in my editing. I do strongly prefer dialog on the talk page. If you see the example above about the "Detoxification" article, i didn't even edit the article at all. I know that there is so much work to do in studying the sources, before even considering to edit an article. Also there is usually a need to get clear with other editors why an edit is useful. So a 0RR would really not change my editing much. Please, i hope you weren't under an impression that i edit war much... i don't. I think i am a good editor. I seek good dialog. Thank you for your suggestion. It might be fine, not onerous, because i don't revert things ideally. Ideally people discuss and come to some consensus -- as long as everyone is truly WP:HERE. Most of the real work is in the discussion on talk pages, anyway. The meeting of minds, the converging of points of view. SageRad (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Count Iblis, i fully agree with your comment. I do think that making only a few, high-quality talk page posts would improve my editing. I worry that one talk page comment per week is too few, but perhaps two or three talk page edits per week would suffice. And being more precise / avoiding hyperbole / focusing on content strictly would improve my editing. I am learning. I have learned a lot, and i have much more to learn. Thank you. SageRad (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


One more case in which i admitted that i was wrong, contrary to Jytdog's claim that i never admit when i am wrong:

Here is a diff in which i urge everyone to slow down and return to good sourcing. And here is a comment in which i actually did admit to Jytdog that the sources do seem to categorize the Whole30 diet as a "fad diet" and i did not oppose its categorization as such. I looked to the sources and saw that you were correct, and admitted it.

Like i said, i am attracted to edges. I like to discern what is known and what is not known. Sometimes this leads to cutting "fringe" and sometimes this leads to rolling back some cutting that may have gone too far, when there actually is good sourcing to support some content that's been cut. SageRad (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, response to [3] No, it is not "obvious to everyone else here" -- that's your delusion / gaslighting phrase. That is evidence of your behavioral problem -- your domineering and distorting speech. Sorry but you're not God. I take good feedback, but i don't grovel and beg against my principles. I edit well, and you wish to assassinate me. You're more the one who cannot admit to ever being wrong, even when evidence stares you in the face. And you are the one attacking me and trying to get me banned, so keep that in perspective. Now blaming me for defending myself and trying to gaslight the conversation. People ought to take note of that if anything. SageRad (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

IF i were to propose a condition for myself, i would say "SageRad may not speak of motivations of other editors on article talk pages." I might also propose some kind of interaction limit between Jytdog and myself -- bidirectional. Something like "SageRad and Jytdog must be exceptionally careful to speak without aspersions and to keep all discussion strictly to content and never make insinuations about the others' motivations or otherwise insult the other." SageRad (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

THOSE who discuss how to circumscribe "the topics SageRad is disrupting" are accepting the arguments of Jytdog that i am disrupting. However, i've shown several of his arguments to be false and to misrepresent what's happened, so bring that into your thinking.

There are no grounds to assume that i'm guilty just Jytdog says so, and a few of his friends say "yeah yeah!"

Think for yourself, look into the case deeply. You'll see more than is apparent if you only hear those who shout the loudest. SageRad (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


@Soham321: asked me to demonstrate that i am capable of self-criticism. Yes, i am, most certainly. If you read the whole of the above (i know it's a lot, i'm sorry) you will see that i say several times that i can improve, and i want to.

I would make fewer comments on talk pages. I would never impute motivations of other editors in any specific content disputes.

I would go into more esoteric topics and not walk this "edge" of what's known and not known, which is interesting because of the controversy but also fraught with tension.

I truly enjoy working with Wikipedia, as it's fun, it's a thinker's diversion by which i have learned so much.

I would get my sourcing right before adding an edit instead of making an edit with less than the best sourcing and then having to find better sourcing to defend it.

I would not go so close to the edge. I would stick to less controversial and cutting-edge topics.

I would not go looking for controversy, or looking for the "edges" of fringe versus not-fringe.

I would not concern myself at all with the so-called "Skeptic" movement even though i retain my reckoning of what it is, i would not care anymore what they all do. I would unwatch the "Fringe" noticeboard. I would be satisfied with what i've already said on Jimbo's talk page. Others can discuss it in the future. Enough for me. I've found out what i wanted to, and said my piece.

I'd go editing Locust and Experimental evolution and Shays' Rebellion and such things that are not so controversial for whatever reasons.

Thanks for asking, Soham321.


I would like to point out that i strictly observed the one-month voluntary break, Bishonen and perhaps i could get credit for that. I lived by my word. Also, note that your assumption that i would have had 20 hours if i'd waited to the 28th is not correct. I have other things i must do in life and the case hanging over me was onerous so i wrote a quick thing. Your assumptions and reasoning need to be checked. Pretty much all your judgments suffer from the same one-sided viewpoint and lack of understanding.

If this has "gone on long enough" then why not drop the request? Why would the bias be toward blocking me?

I am not a burden to Wikipedia when i'm not under fire in this way. I'm only writing to this extent because the trial is purporting to judge me, and with so many bad assumptions and misrepresentations, one wants to protect one's reputation and ability to edit in the future.

Like i said, i want to go off into the night gently. I respected the one-month voluntary wikibreak to the extent to you, Bishonen, had to email me to bring me back. I can do that again. I want to be the hell out of here, but this case is onerous and i'm being judged ridiculously. Let this go drop the charges, let this end.

What's going on here is ridiculous.... and a huge time-sink for me... but this doesn't mean that simply blocking me for a year is right. It would be very, very wrong. Jytdog's assertions are all so very interpretive and fuzzy, and based on essays and soft concepts, and i have shown him to be wrong on many counts.

I'm not a perfect person but i'm not a bad person. I'm a good editor. I know the policies and i desire to follow them. So i've apparently ruffled feathers by the combination of being pretty sure about some sourcing when it's extremely simple and another person is opposing it vehemently (like misophonia which really seemed to trigger Jytdog but look at the evidence yourself, please).... and by speaking about trend observations on Jimbo's talk page. Those two things seemed to make me Public Enemy Number One despite not breaking any policies.

You must see past this and how it's a political persecution, not a proper punishment or blocking to "protect Wikipedia" -- it only protects certain interests on Wikipedia, certain interpretations. SageRad (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, i see your note. If everything is dropped here, no block or ban, we would not end up here in a month, unless another editor has stored up a year's worth of grudges to air in this way. Please, it's not me who has done this. Jytdog has apparently been building up frustrations for a year and saving the diffs, etc. My editing these days is sparse, and is at the very most as you may see at misophonia which is a condition i have and which is quite interesting scientifically. Or adding an excellent source to locust. Or helping the talk page dialog at Race and intelligence to get people to clarify their positions and sources. I have a family and work, and other than this horribly time-sinking case, i would rather be off Wikipedia save for a few times a month to while away some hours with some scientific pastime, reading journal articles and improving articles in subtle and non-controversial ways. If you buy into the assumption that i've been horribly harmful to Wikipedia because Jytdog says so, it's up to you but i would ask you to please look into some of these things, and also to mind that so much of it's from a year ago... and i have learned and mellowed since then. Except for this case because it irks me to be under judgment and microscope of others in this way, but may this please end soon! Please consider that dropping this request would not result in the "same thing" coming up in a month unless someone brings another onerous case (and shouldn't those who do that be challenged instead of obeyed?) SageRad (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Capeo, in response to this the logic is not good. I do not have the time to do this and it's disruptive to my life but i will not stand by and let something roll me away without a fight. Your logic is flawed. It is a huge drain upon me that this is occurring and unfair. And your claim about the misophonia article is mistaken. It's two MEDRS sources and both refer simply to misophonia as a "condition" (as shown in this diff) and there is no complication except what Jytdog is trying to introduce through OR with nosology and even that argument is flawed because an idiopathic condition is still called a condition. You are incorrect there. Please check the facts of the matter. Please redact what is incorrect and note to that effect. This is too important to get wrong. Integrity matters, and integrity means representing things accurately. The record is absolutely available and incontrovertible what i am saying and what Jytdog is saying there. Misophonia is a condition and this is the simplest litmus test regarding integrity possible to evaluate that dialog correctly. SageRad (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Black Kite, if the shoe fits. SageRad (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, i do mean well. Thank you. I do not have access to "The Truth" but only to reliable sources. I've never claimed to have "The Truth" on my side. I have admitted to being wrong. I am introspective. I am not perfect and i will say that again. I'm not railing. I don't take disagreements personally. I take this personally because this is an action to block me, and i don't wish to be blocked. Please understand this. Please also dig into this case. You'll see that some of the things Jytdog has alleged are not true, which is verifiable through diffs i've linked above. That must count for something? Please understand the position i am in. SageRad (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


In response to the comment by Capeo -- what "consensus"? Read the entire misophonia talk page. It is mainly Jytdog and myself in actual dialog with Samara-x occasionally chiming in, often critical of Jytdog. Jytdog very often left open questions asked of him unanswered. Another editor (CFCF) did re-revert an edit in the same direction as Jytdog but when i pinged them and invited them to discuss here they never discussed anything. You say Your response was to ignore consensus, harp on a single word without examining what the sources in question actually conclude... But as i read the talk page, there was no "consensus" as you wrote in your comment. Seriously, there was only myself an Jytdog in dialog, disagreeing. How can there be "consensus" there? I also didn't "harp" on a single word. It's about getting the article right. The word is a symbol of the concepts and i certainly did read the whole Cavanna & Seri paper, i engaged with it. I think i was quite polite and thorough, despite my sensitization to Jytdog prior to that dialog. You've misrepresented things in your comment. That's how this place goes... the drumbeat is sounding and i'm to be killed. Oh well. But you cannot do it with deceptions and distortions. Just kill me because you WANT TO and because i'm "inconvenient" for you... it's not a righteous thing. If you do it while misrepresenting the story, painting me as a bad person, then it gives you an excuse. Go ahead, block me. But don't pretend it's because i'm a bad person. Just do it because you can... because you want to. Just use the raw power and block me because of raw power. That's all it is. And i will use the word INTEGRITY because it matters. I think you misrepresented what happened at misophonia. How could there possibly be a "consensus" that i went against when it was only Jytdog and myself in dialog there at the talk page, and when i didn't force my preferred wording into the article -- as you can see from the edit history? You might be right about the correct interpretation of the sources, but you weren't there at the talk page, and Jytdog left questions with his logic and claims unaddressed there and clipped the article greatly -- against the wishes of others. So, while your content-related comments may be correct or not, you weren't there at the talk page to discuss this at the time, and your behavioral claims about me are not correct as far as i can tell from the talk page dialog. I was very willing to figure this out with Jytdog there on the talk page, and i'd gone to the NPOV board to encourage him to use the talk page well and explain his edits. These things could have been resolved well, but he brought it here as if i am the problem here. I wish you would distinguish your view on whether misophonia is a "condition" from your assessment of my behavior at the misophonia article. Also, adding a "POV" tag is not a bad or hostile thing. It's a tool used when there's a POV question that's not been resolved, as a warning to readers and a call to other editors to work on it. There was a POV dispute and this seemed appropriate. Why do you make it seem wrong how i edited there? Please explain better why my editing there was wrong, if you would? SageRad (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG[edit]

SageRad has taken it upon himself to be arbiter of "integrity" on Wikipedia. The recent discussions on Jimbotalk showed that Sage rejects conflicting opinion as invalid, and considers that intergrity is measured by consonance with his ideology. On his user page he links to a website promoting an "ethical skeptic" agenda, which promotes Brian Martin (conspiracy theorist and supervisor of Judith Wilyman's substandard and anti-vaccine PhD) and the website where Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin and others rant against pesky science for not accepting their beliefs. He has adopted the rhetoric of Rome Viharo, who was banned for sockpuppetry while promoting Sheldrake and woo-meister Deepak Chopra (where he also had a COI, IIRC). Sage has used the name of Viharo's website, Wikipedia, we have a problem, as the title of at least one o his threads: [4].

One could put this down to the aftermath of ARBGMO, but long before that he was inserting accusations of censorship against David Gorski based on Gorski's banning him from commenting for trolling. The skeptic community is generally skeptical about anti-GMO rhetoric, and this seems to have set Sage against organised skepticism pretty much from the outset.

All this would be fine if Sage were capable of understanding the difference between his opinion and objective fact. He consistently demonstrates that he is not.

Sage is intelligent and articulate, but he lacks the ability to accept that any conclusion differing from his own might be grounded in truth. The diffs above clearly show this. The biggest problem is that any topic ban would have to include all areas subject to skeptical activism, and I don't honestly think he edits anything much else. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I am not sure this actually is a case of editors who can't stand each other. I can't speak for Jytdog, but I do not dislike Sage at all. That's part of the problem: I feel very conflicted. I like him but his constant m:MPOV is vexing. In my opinion, if he could accept the possibility of any valid conclusion other than his own, he would be a valued contributor. He has the time and intelligence to read sources, after all. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@SageRad: You ask "What do others want to ask me or have me respond to?" Really? You can ask that still, after the recent discussions at Jimbotalk? I'd say that [5] and [6] contain a pretty complete answer to exactly that question. Your problem is as I state above: you seem unwilling or unable to accept that any conclusion other than yours could possibly be valid, and you clearly consider that anybody who states a conclusion other than yours is ill-informed, stupid, corrupt or some combination of the three. [7] followed by [8] set the tone, and I reckon the whole reason we are here is that if you took a straw poll of those who have spent time trying to work on articles alongside you, most of us would be of the opinion that left to your own devices you would make those edits again right now. It would be lovely to be proved wrong, but I have never seen any evidence of you even acknowledging that these are matters where reasonable people may differ, let alone being open to changing your mind. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Bishonen: Fine with that, Sage has a new baby I think - I can still remember the effects of infant-induced sleep deprivation even two decades later. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: @Bishonen: Your six month review is fine as long as the topic areas don't include those under current dispute. I would not consider six months at Wikibooks productively writing anti-GMO material to be evidence of rehabilitation, and I don't think you would either. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • JerryRussell, no this is not an extended content dispute. And Jytdog is absolutely right: the definition of mainstream is that which has predominant support among the relevant scientific community. We have mainstream views on everything, because that is what WP:NPOV means. The status of WP:MAINSTREAM is irrelevant: the definition of mainstream, along with the canonical policy WP:NPOV, means that Wikipedia is, de facto and by design, a mainstream encyclopaedia. WP:FRINGE also has consensus, and if you think this is an accident you can see Jimbo's take at Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

I don't have anything particularly global to add, although I agree with Bishonen's concern that there is a genuine time-sink going on.

Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another. See also: User talk:SageRad#Talk:Misophonia. It's not as simple as white-hats and black-hats.

Instead of editors getting sucked into tl;dr arguments where nobody persuades anyone else, have content RfCs been adequately explored as a way of moving past logjams? (Example RfC question: "Below are some sources that say that misphonia is a genuine disorder, and some sources that say that it is not. Taking the sources together, should this page present it as a genuine disorder?")

I've been trying to think of a possible DS restriction on SageRad that might be practical to design. Perhaps a word limit for talk page comments about AltMed pages? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I did not say it was interpersonal at its base. It isn't. But it is, partly ("some"). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Guy: I agree with you that Sage has a lot of potential as an editor, and I was referring more to Jytdog than to you, but despite the replies from Jytdog and from you, I still think that my statement is accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: I IAR put back (collapsed) the version of Sage's statement that he had reverted, and I think that it is a better statement than his original one. @Sage: you are permitted to add to your original statement, so you can always add new stuff (well, there's a word limit that is not being followed at the moment) as long as you don't delete the old stuff; you can also strike through anything you wrote. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43[edit]

I've been seeing problems with SageRad continue to brew on my watchlist after their GMO sanctions. Just in the context of their previous sanctions from GMOs, part of the reasoning why they were topic banned was the exact same behavior we're still seeing here. When people start to complain about how a topic is being antagonized by SageRad's continued soapboxing, they're often met with SageRad's "What, who me?" responses when told to knock it off just like we are seeing in their response to this AE. Basically, disruption in fringe and health topics followed by playing the victim when they're behavior on article pages is called out. Add in the obvious battleground behavior, and we're back to where we were with SageRad before the GMO ArbCom case. That's especially apparent with their "othering" (i.e., "bullies") of editors that try to curtail the disruption SageRad causes in topics where they engage in advocacy or soapboxing about their personal ideals. It's becoming apparent SageRad just won't listen even after their sanctions. Same behavior as GMOs, just different topics now.

At the end of the day, I don't have strong convictions about specific action against SageRad since I don't have to deal with them in my topic areas anymore (mainspace at least), but it's apparent they just moved their behavior issues outside their topic ban. I do feel for editors that still end up putting up with this behavior pretty regularly though. Here area a few ideas for sanctions to impose on SageRad that should at least stop the disruption and maybe turn them around:

1. One-way interaction ban when dealing with Jytdog. I don't have super strong support for this as it's really just a band-aid, but the continued battleground behavior is obvious while Jytdog has been acting at least relatively reasonable (though obviously frustrated) in the face of this string of continued behavior. I'm usually open to less complicated two-way bans, but I think we can agree SageRad's behavior is the core issue here to work on first.

2. Expanding topic bans as JzG mentioned. Probably the most concrete topic ban would be a broadly construed ban on any topic related to health (including environmental contamination for clarity). A topic ban on any WP:FRINGE topic could be a secondary consideration, but that's harder to define for avoiding wikilawyering. Word limits might have been a consideration back when SageRad was newer to Wikipedia, but the issue here seems to be they just can't let go in these topics.

3. Long-term block. SageRad has used tons of rope already still showing behavior (regardless of what they actually say) that they are not WP:HERE and are instead using Wikipedia more for soapboxing and hyperbole. Maybe that can change if they are handed a topic ban that gets them out of this activism mindset and into topics where they can act like a normal editor. I think we have to acknowledge though that if this all continues, the WP:ROPE is going leading to this last option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeing The Wordsmith's and Dennis Brown's comments on on applicable DS for a topic ban, this ArbCom case explicitly imposes DS on "all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". In terms of DS, there would be no issue with a WP:FRINGE topic ban option, and the case could be made under that for a medical topic ban because that's where the fringe issues occur. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016:

It looks like SageRad hasn't shown any improvement over their break. There already was a pretty clear admin consensus that a block was needed (after multiple blocks already), and SageRad was given a whole month after that to organize a response. They pretty much squandered that and went back to soapboxing, going way over the word limit to near 5,000 words (after complaining about other editors that actually did scale back to 500 words), and still engaging in obvious battleground mentality, especially with the Jytdog this and Jytdog that comments. That's especially after they are trying to bargain their sanctions about speaking to editor motivations and avoiding Jytdog only to immediately turn around and start taking potshots in their next edits (i.e,Jytdog is not God). Not to mention mention restoring and endorsing an IP edit here that casts WP:ASPERSIONS about me too (we'd need to hand out interaction bans left and right to tamp this behavior down). This shows a complete personal disregard for the disruption SageRad is causing.

It's very clear by their continued actions (regardless of what they say) that SageRad is not WP:HERE by their primary actions here being kicking up battleground drama. Things like 0RR or editing restrictions could have been useful in the past, but Sage lost the ability for that much rope many blocks and sanctions ago. It's clear that nothing is going to fix Sage's battleground mentality across the board. They just keep digging their hole deeper here, so this really should be a strong candidate for a block with all that in mind, especially when such an editor continues behavior they know they are going to be sanctioned for. The recently proposed editing restrictions will just end us up right here again due to SageRad's editing mentality apparent in their actions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Skyring[edit]

After a tangential mention in discussion below, a tangential comment. SageRad has his own strong views, is well-informed, intelligent, and productive. There's a place for him here. But when he encounters opposition, rather than discuss the points of opposition in the context on improving the article(s), he takes it personal and tries to convert other editors to his views, which he considers to be the rational factual objective plain truth, and everybody else is a deluded fool or a tool of big business or something, and ultimately Wikipedia is fatally flawed because of this evil and that evil.

Well, it's not. It works, it's a valuable reference, it's an internet marvel. SageRad should get offa his soapbox, work with those who have contrary opinions, and for the love of ghod, stop filling pages with long rambling rants! SageRad, we love you, we want you, it's just your behaviour needs a bit of a tweak. Okay? --Pete (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Alexbrn[edit]

As an editor who has had a role in the current Chemophobia article I was surprised to see, on 20 October, postings by SageRad on both the article's Talk page and at WP:FT/N report a "POV issue" because "This article presents 'chemophobia' as if it's a psychological phenomenon ..."

On re-reading the article I saw (as did a number of other editors) that this is simply not the case: the article says precisely the opposite. This has been pointed out but since then no retraction, explanation or further comment has been made. On top of SageRad's editing history this looks far from being constructive activity. What is going on?

Because of SageRad's problematic stance towards skepticism I don't think a TBAN on health content is quite right - a TBAN needs to cover (probably in addition) any topic covered by the WP:FRINGE guidance - broadly construed - though I fear this will not succeed because SageRad seems to have a novel view of what is, and is not, fringe that is out-of-sync with the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID[edit]

@Wordsmith, discretionary sanctions are authorised for a number of areas SageRad has been problematic in. So realistically you could apply any sanction you wanted (provided you felt it had merit). The real issue is that SageRad is not topic-bound in his disruption. He has an anti-skeptic agenda which manifests in disruptive editing wherever skepticism is evident. He is not pro-fringe as it was, just anti-evidence-based science. His editing MO is to show up at an article, declare bias, argue with people until he finally gets they dont agree with him, then rants about how everything is unfair.

The problem is fringe and skepticism cover a huge range of topics. From pseudoscience, lifestyle, history, medical etc. Normally a targetted topic ban would suffice, but to limit SageRad's disruption would require a 0/1 revert restriction AND some sort of enforced character limit on discussions. And even *then* that would really only just keep disruption to a minimum, it wouldnt prevent anything as SageRad has a worldview that is incompatible with how Wikipedia populates article content. Alexbrn has laid out the most recent example. Jzg and a couple of others say SageRad is clearly intelligent etc, but I disagree. SageRad has repeatedly failed to grasp basic wikipedia concepts & policies, and as Alexbrn's example shows above, clearly has an issue in reading comprehension. There is a CIR issue here. This may be because he skim-reads and fails to grasp what is actually said - Jytdog has listed a number of examples where SageRad cherry-picks/looks at brief abstracts/summaries instead of reading and understanding what material actually says.

But this disruption is not limited to Wikipedia, this is just his latest venue for pushing his POV/Agenda. He came here (and was subsequently sanctioned) after getting into conflict with Gorski. He previously linked to his rants/comments offsite - and even a basic internet search shows his attack-dog mentality when criticised (just in case anyone thinks to accuse me of outing, SageRad has previously linked to his offsite comments himself, then deleted them when it was pointed out they showed his bias). If you are unable to actually implement a workable sanction, this will need to go to ANI or Arbcom for a site ban discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Annnnd we reached the hysterical McCarthy accusations again (this is an ongoing theme, if you take a look at SageRad's talkpage history, specificially their interactions with MjolnirPants). Essentially this illustrates the problem - where multiple people disagree with SageRad, its everyone else that is the problem. Keep in mind, this is multiple editors in multiple topics over an extended period of time (since SageRad came to wikipedia). This is simply a case of 'this person is not suited for wikipedia'. Failure to agree with others is generally fine. People are not required to agree all the time. Failure to agree plus disruption plus personal attacks, plus agenda pushing plus inability to accept consensus is not ok. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
'cool down blocks' imply there is something to cool down from. Or that SageRad is acting out currently. This is not the case. SageRad's current behaviour is completely normal for him. Both during his entire tenure at Wikipedia, and his off-site activities. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments after resumption of case in November 2016:

Just popped in from my holiday to address Wordsmith: any topic ban by necessity would need to be so broad as to be unworkable. "Things Sagerad decided today he thinks are biased" would about cover it. Likewise unless you are going to interaction ban him from most of the contributors to the fringe, RS and NPOV noticeboards, again fairly pointless. The point of restrictions on an editor is to minimise disruption to the editing process of the encyclopedia - at this point the simplest and effective way is *at least* a one year block until they learn to play with others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Plea by DrChrissy[edit]

I am not here to comment on the merits or otherwise of this case, rather, I am here to make observations on Sage's behaviour and a plea for a moritorium. Sage's most recent behaviour on this noticeboard and at other places is very uncharacteristic for him. He is making unfocussed edits and flailing around in the multiple threads regarding his behaviour. He has even resorted to swearing which I don't think I have ever seen him do before. His baby is a new baby, I think only 6 weeks old or so, and I think is his first. To make this brief, I believe Sage may be experiencing some sort of melt-down. A moritorium would show compassion and allow Sage to either calm down and/or make decisions in a more rational way which Arbcom would be more able to deal with. DrChrissy (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]

Unfortunately, I see two problems here. The first has to do with the subject editor, User:SageRad, who has been editing aggressively since May 2015 with a strong point of view on medical and agricultural topics. The second has to do with the history between the subject editor and the filing editor, User:Jytdog. Jytdog has long been editing aggressively in accordance with Wikipedia policy to try to ensure that medical and scientific articles follow Wikipedia medical reliable source guidelines. Jytdog is almost always right with regard to policy, and has made enemies in Wikipedia, and SageRad is one of them, and SageRad has been aggressively attacking Jytdog since he began editing Wikipedia in May 2015. (SageRad made a few scattered edits before then.) Jytdog is absolutely correct in writing:

Actually, one more thing.  The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here.

Jytdog is completely correct in writing:

I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way. 

I first became familiar with SageRad when he showed up at the dispute resolution noticeboard hounding Jytdog and claiming mistakenly to be a DRN volunteer. SageRad has been going after Jytdog at least since June 2015.

It is impossible to reason with SageRad to advise him that his behavior is disruptive. SageRad has, since May 2015, seen all efforts to advise him to modify his behavior as "McCarthyism" and "bullying". SageRad was topic-banned by the ArbCom from the topic area of genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals. (In case anyone argues that there was a kangaroo court proceeding, he wasn’t just banned by one kangaroo under discretionary sanctions. He was banned by the community-elected panel of kangaroos, except that we are not kangaroos because we are great apes.) He has recently been blocked twice, first for five days, then for one month. It isn’t clear why SageRad is so determined to change Wikipedia when he has apparently decided that Wikipedia is such an ugly corrupt place, but that is SageRad.

If any editor other than Jytdog had been the one filing this request, I would suggest that SageRad be Site-Banned. As it is, Jytdog is the wrong editor to be filing this request, because Jytdog is right, but it looks too much like (almost justified) revenge. I suggest that SageRad be blocked for another month, and that Jytdog be asked to let other editors deal with SageRad after he is unblocked this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo[edit]

I was trying to avoid commenting here because I've butted heads enough with Sage that it just feels like piling on. That said, what the admins here are seeing as a meltdown is actually pretty par for the course. Outbursts claiming McCarthyism (such as here [11] against Guy or here [12] against... everyone I guess) are fairly normal with Sage, though the Stalinism claim is a new one to me. This has been an ongoing issue when it comes to such hyperbolic claims against other users or WP in general. Capeo (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a further note to admins, it seems unlikely SageRad will accept a voluntary editing restriction after saying they wouldn't accept an enforced one. I highly doubt it will work and will just serve to incite more drama. Perhaps I'm wrong, and SageRad will be fine with it, but I don't think you're going to get the response you're hoping for. Capeo (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Because SageRad keeps insisting that folks look at the Misophonia talk page I did. As well as the article, its history, its sources and the current research. The article was a mess earlier in the year with extraordinary levels of advocate editing. To the degree that editors were adding things to the article, openly in edit summaries no less, to favor particular researchers. The majority of editors on the talk page over the last couple years I looked at also say they have Misophonia. It was brought back to some semblance of balance by Jytdog and others back in February. It quickly spiraled back to being a mess in the interceding months. Looking at the current research "a proposed condition" is exactly the proper way to characterize Misophonia according to the preponderance of RS. There is no diagnostic criteria for it. It's not listed in any diagnostic text. It's near invariably associated with other conditions such as OCD (primarily), anxiety disorders, Autism spectrum or Tourette's Syndrome. SageRad's selective use of a sentence from the Cavanna abstract is not engaging with the actual sources or even the abstract in question, or even Cavanna's actual paper. Even in the abstract itself, it's admitted "At the present stage, competing paradigms see misophonia as a physiological state potentially inducible in any subject, an idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders), or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder."

Cavanna and the one study he cites that agrees with him (that aren't his own) is the only person I can find that presently suggests it might be a primary condition. Even then he admits, in regard to the current definition of Misophonia, "This definition challenges the subsequently proposed views that misophonia is a discrete/idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders)8 or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder, at least in a proportion of cases.4 If confirmed by future systematic studies in large populations, the presence of high rates of comorbidity would go against the argument that misophonia should be labeled as a primary diagnosis. In fact, it would suggest that it is a symptom manifestation of other underlying or comorbid diagnoses and should more appropriately be labeled as a symptom, rather than as a stand-alone diagnosis. Either way, the addition of misophonia to nosographic classification systems of psychiatric disorders, such as the DSM, would require careful consideration." 8 is the study I mentioned. 4 is a short paper by Cavanna. Long story short: Jytdog's wording is correct and it appears SageRad is ignoring the caveats the source in question, which he provided, which isn't even close to the totality of sources in question. Capeo (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]

I'm not going to post my usual, fifteen paragraph explanation of every nuance of my own thoughts about this. I'm just going to say two things.

  1. I actually do 'like' SageRad in that I get the impression I could have a few beers with him, work alongside him, or have a friendly relationship with him as my next door neighbor. I would likely befriend him if I knew him IRL.
  2. I absolutely, wholeheartedly, 100% without reservation support a permanent site ban. His views are immutable, and they are utterly incompatible with Wikipedia. He constantly expresses angst and frustration at his participation here. This is one of those rare cases where a permanent site ban would (eventually) make everyone happier, including Sage. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: After the break, I just want to express my support for the proposal by Bishonen below. SageRad, I would much rather you spend time with your family than spend time fruitlessly banging your head against the wall here. Like I said above, my main reason for supporting this is because I see it as being best for you as well as WP. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @SageRad: What we want and what is best for us is often not the same thing. For example, I want everyone I argue with here to bow to my superior intellect and post glowing praise about how intelligent and eloquent I am, to be responded to by the few who have met me in real life, adding how devastatingly handsome, well-endowed and skilled in the sack I am. But I think we can all agree that would result in me becoming pretty much the exact opposite of all those things. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @SageRad: In consideration of the way you have often reacted to humor, I have written a much more serious response here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (Roxy the dog)[edit]

I'm going to tender for the WP:ROPE supply contract with wikipedia. Must be racing up in value. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis[edit]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: In general Jytdog is doing an excellent job keeping Wikipedia clear of quack edits and pseudo-scientific arguments. SageRad has shown problematic behavior in this respect. The case of articles like the one about Michael Greger are, however, a special case where the consensus is wrong. We have to keep in mind here that unlike in case of a topic like climate change where the scientific community has been able to keep unreasonable skeptics from polluting the science with false arguments, in case of nutrition the science has been compromised, see e.g. what this article says about Dr. Alderman's conduct. What has happened as a result of this polarization within the scientific community, were frankly some scientists are getting away with conduct that would be considered to be scientific fraud if this were going on in another field, is that the dangers of a bad diet will not be highlighted as much as it should. So, while we all know that smoking is bad because it raised the chance of getting lung cancer by a factor of ten, few people know that the same i true w.r.t. not eating enough fibers and the chance of getting colon cancer. This this then why people like Greger, Klapper etc. speak out, attract huge audiences but people looking at Wikipedia only see the watered down consensus view where the truth seems to be deeply buried.

Then because the Wikipedia community has failed to deal with this problem (which amounts to giving scientific articles written by people like Dr. Alderman a lot less weight than the people who have done proper scientific research), advocate editors who may well have the wrong sort of agenda on most other topics, step into this subject and are then able to raise arguments that get some traction. That then leads to the article in question getting locked because it's then not only SageRad anymore that you could eliminate to fix the problem.

Apart from this issue, there of course do also exist other articles about genuine fad diets that may be edited in unacceptable ways by their supporters. But I think it is very important for us to make sure the real problems that do exist within the science of nutrition are dealt with here in a better way, as that will allow us to deal with problem editors much better. Count Iblis (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest a 0RR restriction for SageRad and a one edit per week per article limit (including talk pages, so it's one edit to the article and one talk page edit per week). If you can only make one edit that you cannot revert, then this is a waste of time unless you know that your edit will stick. If it is not seen to be good enough and reverted, you can use the talk page to explain what you wanted to do, but you can only have one attempt at making your point, so unless you can write down something that your fellow editors will consider to be good arguments, it will be futile.

Giving people just one attempt to get it right, make whatever they've done a waste of time if it's not right, can work wonders. When I was at university, a professor told us on the first day that we had to study hard because there was only going to be one make-up exam, after that we would have to wait until next year. Also he had the habit of not raising his voice at the start of lectures if the students were not yet quiet. It is amazing how quickly a class full of loud students would become quiet simply due to the professor being inaudible and the fact that it would be a problem if you don't pass the exam. Count Iblis (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: I agree what edit warring isn't the issue, but I do think that limiting the amount of edits you'll end up focusing more on the core of your argument. By moving away from talk page conversations to a more formal presentation of your point of view where you write something there as if it were a journal article, you'll automatically tend to stay away from invoking things like "Stalinism". After all, if the other editors cannot accept what they are reading, they'll not take on board your arguments and you don't get to argue with whatever they have to say. The best you can do is to make your arguments as acceptable as possible, which means staying away from hyperboles, basing it on peer reviewed articles as much as possible. Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JerryRussell[edit]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: This is an extended content dispute. And in my opinion, Jytdog is in the wrong. The problem is described at this diff: 1 where Jytdog argues that Wikipedia is a "mainstream" encyclopedia. It is not: WP:MAINSTREAM is a failed proposal. The appropriate policy is, that Wikipedia is not censored!! All of the so-called battleground behavior that is described above is a result of Jytdog and his allies attempting to push "mainstream" views to the exclusion of other views which are also supported by reliable sources. JerryRussell (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@JzG:, do you dispute my statement that WP:MAINSTREAM was a failed proposal that failed to achieve consensus because many editors opposed it? What about WP:SPOV, also a failed proposal, right? Of course I agree that Wikipedia completely describes the "mainstream" view, identifies it as such, and gives it pride of place per WP:NPOV. But, Wiki also represents so-called "fringe" views neutrally.
@Bishonen:, in your new statement and call for a block, you mention SageRad's criticism of Jytdog here, as further evidence that SageRad needs to be blocked. But since SageRad is asking for a boomerang, isn't this the one venue where such criticism gets a safe harbor? Or am I mistaken?
@Tryptofish:, your comment he is taking a sort of Thomas More role, and there's only one way that can end is very apropos. For one thing, it plays into the blood metaphor -- which I think is over-the-top, but SageRad started it. More importantly, Thomas More met his end under King Henry VIII, one of the most notorious tyrants of history. Is that our model for running Wikipedia?
You mentioned that SageRad should have listed his accomplishments here, rather than at his user page. Well, we can fix this. Here's what he said:
Have i "ruined" the article on the Paleo diet? How about Misophonia? How about the dozen or more articles i've created? How about adding sources on Locust? How about improving Field-effect transistor? How about working out issues on Race and intelligence? How about helping work out conflicts at James Watson? Really. I have done much good work and i do not deserve this. Especially as i have stated that i am totally willing to not speak to anyone's potential motivations on any article talk page. That's the crux here, isn't it? Isn't that the one thing i really did wrong on occasion? And isn't that something done so so so often by others when it's the "other direction" in terms of point of view? In the "dominant viewpoint" that's been crystallizing on Wikipedia? I would really appreciate (honestly) a simple and direct from-the-heart answer to this.

Pages created:

Complaints are coming in from the admins below, that this case is becoming a time sink, therefore it's necessary to issue the block and get it over with. Wouldn't it be equally just as easy to end the time sink with a "not guilty" finding? And that would have the advantage of taking the wind out of SageRad's "McCarthyite" charges.
I just noticed that user:Jytdog has a COI statement at his user page. He says he works for a small startup pharmaceutical company. He promises not to edit articles directly related to his company or its products, or anything to do with acute neurological disorders. He says that should draw a fence around his COI. But, does it really? Obviously, as a person who works in the industry, he must have other friends who also work in the industry. According to WP:COI, one should avoid editing in areas related to one's friends. Could Jytdog's industry connections have anything to do with the very powerful POV displayed in Jytdog's conflict with SageRad?
And, why aren't the admins asking any of these questions? JerryRussell (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC) tweaked at Bishonen's request, see my talk page JerryRussell (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement 2 by Tryptofish[edit]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: When I see an editor who is in a protracted dispute but who seems to me to have it in them to be a good and productive editor, I try to find a way for them to become such a good editor. Here, I have failed, and I feel very bad about it, because I like Sage and I really do believe that he has it in him if he wants. Yesterday, I tried hard at his user talk to give him useful advice, and I see that today, he has thanked me and said that he followed about half of my advice. You are welcome, truly. But I guess you followed the wrong half. In his new statement here, he has a bullet list of things he says he does correctly ("I don't say..."). Unfortunately, he does most of those very things wrong right here in his new statement. On his user talk page, he listed articles where he has made good contributions, and I wish he had done that here instead. In any case, Sage genuinely believes in what he says here, and he is incorrect. I guess he is taking a sort of Thomas More role, and there's only one way that can end. Bishonen's proposed solution is as good as anything that I can think of. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I've read the comments that were pinged to me, and I really cannot think of anything more that I can say here. I also want to note that some editors have made new comments, but have put them in the pre-break section. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I've read the more recent comments by admins, about whether there could be an alternative to a block that would allow Sage to continue to make content contributions, something like a civility restriction, and I wish I had a good idea about how to make that work. But I think the problem would be that, per what Sage has been saying here, it's a sure-thing that he will say something that would send us back here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by olive[edit]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: I am traveling and on a borrowed computer with internet that may quit anytime, so these are quick observations rather than a statement.

*Dennis Brown Per your comment on the recent discussion on Sage Red's talk page. Sage Red is understandably upset. Why during an AE that Jytdog opened is Jytdog on Sage Red's talk page reprimanding Sage Red. If I assume good faith, that Jytdog was trying to help, this is at best poorly judged and shows an ongoing propensity to push editors too far. How far did Jytdog push his agenda on article talk pages and why aren't we asking that question? I don't see that this is a one sided problem. A fair resolution might be an interaction ban. Is it fair to judge Sager Red on that page during this time?

  • I see a listing here of articles Sage Red has contributed to in a substantial way. Why is he being removed from these articles as would happen with a site ban? A site ban says, you have not contributed in a way that is valued. Is his behavior on these article sanctionable? If not, and I don't see sanctionable behavior, we should be able to discriminate between potentially problematic articles and others, with a sanction that also discriminates. I am not suggesting a sanction of any kind, to be clear, beyond an interaction ban.
  • Frankly, I looked at the last article Sage Red was involved in and was surprised when an AE was filed. I saw a discussion about sources; I saw two editors, not one, who felt strongly about the way sources should be used. Neither was automatically right.
  • Sage Red has said he will be brief in his comments in the future. I'd also suggest that no editor should be determining how much another editor needs to explain a position. I've worked with editors who are so brief as to be impossible to understand. One is not better than the other. I wonder if time sink means impatience with another's viewpoint. This is a collaborative project which means non one controls articles or talk pages and no one controls a discussion. When they do its called ownership. Attempts to "control" are bound to create problems in a discussion like frustration.
  • I believe, and especially given my own experiences, that we have at best a somewhat skewed version of what went on in these discussion and at worst the wrong end of the stick completely.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC))
    • This is the most enlightened comment I've seen throughout this AE: Credit Count Iblis remarks here

Giving people just one attempt to get it right, make whatever they've done a waste of time if it's not right, can work wonders....


@SageRad: I agree what edit warring isn't the issue, but I do think that limiting the amount of edits you'll end up focusing more on the core of your argument. By moving away from talk page conversations to a more formal presentation of your point of view where you write something there as if it were a journal article, you'll automatically tend to stay away from invoking things like "Stalinism". After all, if the other editors cannot accept what they are reading, they'll not take on board your arguments and you don't get to argue with whatever they have to say. The best you can do is to make your arguments as acceptable as possible, which means staying away from hyperboles, basing it on peer reviewed articles as much as possible. Count Iblis (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What many may not understand here is how it feels to be accused as SageRed was or is, how it feels to be to told you should have listened by the person or people who have been in conflict with you, or the desperation one feels when misunderstood. Instead of a steam roller remedy could we implement something more specific to the perceived problems which will preserve an editor's abilities while helping them integrate into a culture that is very specific to Wikipedia. I have also been in conflict with Jytdog and I can tell you he is not always right nor is his manner always easy to deal with. As we should with Sage Red, we protect Jytdog for what he does right. I'd like to see us try a more humane, enlightened approach to disputes making it possible to hold on to editors with talent and abilities, and as in Jytdog's case commitment, rather than toss away what is not replaceable.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

    • As always the limitations of arbitrations AE and AN, AN/I notice boards is that it is truly impossible to have a sense of a situation unless one has been involved and following closely. Sometimes the decisions almost accidentally hit the mark and are accurate; more often though the experienced editor can produce diffs that paint a picture that with out context and the experience of being in that situation cannot be disproved. I am not going to question Jytdog's motives here; I don't know what they are. Nor am I going to question Sage Red's, but what I would like to see this community move towards is the knowledge that we don't ever really know the whole story, that our particular views may be slanted, that we don't have body language and voice to judge truthfulness. What we can do is see that editors are valuable and that we can, once the light shines on a problem situation, who ever created it, design remedies that act as guides to the boundaries the community has developed and give the editors and I say editors a chance to learn to function within those boundaries. I think this system is archaic. Can't we be more enlightened with how we treat people, with how we deal with problems , with understanding the limitations of a computer screen and a few diffs.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC))

Statement by SashiRolls[edit]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016:

  • I will testify that I have read the 6 diffs adduced to the Scientific Skepticism page and don't see anything untoward in them whatsoever. Nor do I see a serious problem with any other diff I have looked at (in misophonia and in detoxification)
  • I will say that I think SageRad's contributions seem impressive.
  • I will mention that I've interacted with Jytdog on Talk:Singapore and found him preemptive and unpleasant in calling an RfC "putrid". While I completely agree with his conclusion that the OP's gallup poll should not be included in the lead, I think he could be less combative in stating his POV.
  • I will admit that when I read @Tryptofish: calling SageRad Thomas More, my first thought was for Utopia or WP:NOTNOTHERE and not for SageRad's head. I think all might do well to re-read WP:NOTNOTHERE incidentally.
  • I will keep quiet about all that I am meant to keep quiet about, except to say that I think the arguments made by JerryRussell above about WP:MAINSTREAM being a failed proposal are important ones. While you are all discussing in a scientific domain, where some seem to think there is a verifiable and replicable truth, imagine how much trickier it becomes in parts of Wikipedia where it is a question of less verifiable sciences... voodoo economics, sociology and the like.
  • I will moan that I have suffered much worse attacks from editors than what I see any evidence above that SageRad has been guilty of. In fact, perhaps because of where I've clicked in the Smörgåsbord of diffs above, I've yet to see an attack.
  • I will note that I find the suggestion that SageRad be forced to leave for his own good decidedly paternalistic (which does not mean to say it is necessarily untrue).
  • I will close by asking you to be clement. AE should not be The Terror. SashiRolls (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

After posting:

  • I will be threatened by Jytdog as follows for making this statement (the "this" in the following citation from my talk page refers here): "this was unwise. Your battleground behavior will be obvious to admins at the AE, and if you keep editing promotionally on Singapore and that becomes an issue we need to bring to ANI, that diff will become a key piece of evidence for your being WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)"
  • For the record, I have been on "the anti-promo team" if I've been on any team at all at that page and have done as much as anyone there to ensure a pleasant editing environment. I have also been thanked by several editors for my work trying to restablish NPOV on that page.
  • Is this how AE works? Ignore the users, allow those who bully them to carry on... business as usual? User:SashiRolls this morning, before work & coffee timestamp

After work:

  • Sorry Jytdog. That just kind of broke the Monday morning routine into "panic", wondering what I'd done and if there really was a cabal and everything. I need a Wiki-break. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


  • Wouldn't it be simplest just to reassure us that the charges aren't true Bishonen, rather than sending us to study someone's talk page? That's a lot of folks who seem "wp:involved" and a lot of us who are just gazing on with wonder. Remember our discussion about transparency? Smear s(m)ells, light is better. SashiRolls (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Final comment concerning experiments and new users

  • I would like to thank Bob K31416 for testing the waters over at misophonia, because it makes clear how a new user tends to be "broken into" a page. My own experience with Jytdog, above, also speaks to this issue of how new "unknown" users are treated. While I am not criticizing either Jytdog or Roxy the Dog, I do think it is telling that both reacted without trying to understand what Bob K31416 or I were getting at, but instead both seem to have chosen to either ABF and/or invoke their power as holders of a certain preestablished consensus (what SageRad has called House POV). I will not belabor the point by comparing this at length to my own experience, though I would note that one actor below (Tryptofish) has been active in both cases (and was incidentally the first commenter on the GMO RfC, and if I've understood correctly, the author of the winning formulation). The ways in which this RfC has been used are unhealthy, though admittedly coming from an environment (José Bové land) in which the opposite conclusions are the media consensus, it is an interesting change of POV. While I know that the specifics of this case are not directly related to GMO, I do know that I was brought to AE for allegedly violating the same RfC on GMO. This was rejected as a "red herring" relatively quickly in my own case, and by observing my topic ban (despite later developments showing that I was not the problem on the page in question) I have started enjoying Wikipedia more, since I no longer deal with aggressive character attacks (perhaps because I'm starting to be known a little bit and have learned when not to push -- which, actually, quite often is when it's time to hit "save" for a change that page "owners" would dislike.) What happens on pages like the presidential candidates' pages or pages related to GMOs is completely unlike the sorts of behaviour that are tolerated on other pages (cf. Sciences Po where a user seems to be blocking all forward progress with impunity...) Please do not execute SageRad. Best wishes to all involved for a happy December. SashiRolls (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Skyring[edit]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: I see SageRad's articlespace contributions as generally valid, and he's willing to discuss his edits. WP depends on contributions from many different viewpoints, and we need editors to find good sources and include their material. Whether he's anti-skeptic, pro-GMO or whatever, it's unimportant. Our way of working corrects most distortions.

I don't really see any anti-SageRad crusade going on. On the contrary, some of his strongest articlespace opponents have spoken up for him here and elsewhere.

His behaviour on talkpages and admin noticeboards etc. is the problem. Long screeds accusing others of this and that. A lot of time has gone into dealing with his behaviour.

He has had ample time to reflect, to read the copious amounts of excellent advice sent his way, to gain an understanding of the problem. He has been told the best course forward, but he rejects it. There seems no alternative but increasingly lengthy blocks until his behaviour changes. Wikipedia cannot simply be lenient to those who have had every opportunity to work productively with other editors and turned away. It is not fair on those editors who play by the rules that SageRad continue on. --Pete (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Procedural comment by Wnt[edit]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016: I have not examined this case and have formed no overall opinion at this time, but looking at @Jytdog:'s complaint, the "WP:BLUDGEON" argument alarms me. It is not merely that WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, but the way he proposes applying it virtually guarantees that anyone arguing against an entrenched interest would be subject to sanctions. The WMFlabs xtools were probably never certified for forensic use, and there are some obvious risks in simply counting up bytes, not taking into account that there are large quotes, for example, of proposed article text presumably to satisfy demands that edits be discussed on the talk page. But even if I take those numbers as a given, an editor can be expected to contribute half the edits on a talk page whenever it happens that a few other main participants are disagreeing with him. It should not be a Wikicrime to disagree with two, three, even five other editors on the talk page! I am also not impressed with the claim that he submitted a series of identical edits when, for example, in one such edit he was saying that not all Paleo diet believers are trying to lose weight, and in another he is arguing that an article about a special diet (whatever its merits) ought to be permitted to include a cookbook. (And I'll add that citing a cookbook, or any other source, should not require that the source be "notable". We are not here to condemn the paleo diet, but to let readers have an easy road to understand what people following it eat!) Whatever action you take, please don't take action against him based on this flawed basis that he talks too much - editors are apprised of no such rule when they enter Wikipedia, but rather are at every opportunity urged to go to the talk page, and if they heard of something like this, they would perhaps decide that edit-warring is a safer approach. Wnt (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC) @Jytdog: Your response about SOAPBOXing also seems inappropriate where that series of comments is concerned. In those edits SageRad is concerned there about labelling something a "fad diet", about general bias toward the article subject matter, about whether a cookbook should be cited ... in all of them he is very sharply focused on Wikipedia content. Expressing a strong opinion about how an article should be written is not SOAPBOXing. We know these disputes over content will exist, we know they are annoying to all involved, but we also know that letting them simmer on the talk page is the least worst way to deal with them. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Soham321[edit]

Comments after resumption of case in November 2016:

The Wordsmith writes:

My first preference would be for some sort of I-ban or Civility Parole that restricts casting aspersions and allegations of fascism/Stalinism/etc. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm trying to dig deep into archives to look for a similar case where a restriction fixed the problem, but not immediately coming up with anything.

Wordsmith, using your Admin tools could you please check the archives for the history of this user: She (Atsme) was involved in two ANI discussions in quick succession, in which several Admins and editors were asking that she be blocked (perhaps indeffed). I had participated in those ANI discussions as had DrChrissy who has participated in this discussion also. The reason for why it was being demanded that Atsme be blocked, from what i recall, were similar to the reason being given for blocking SageRad. As per my recollection, it had to do with how she was interacting with other editors, and also the allegation that she was pushing her own agenda, and that she was a disruptive editor. I think she escaped getting indeffed narrowly. I've forgotten details of the case, but perhaps you could take a look at the archives to see if it could help with the present case. Its worth investigating that case because Atsme is now a very prolific WP editor; her WP user page says she currently has rollback rights, auto patrolled rights, and pending changing reviewer rights.

I'd like to know if DrChrissy also sees parallels between this case and the case involving Atsme. I'd also like to ask Jytdog if he sees parallels between this case and the case involving Atsme, since he was involved in the Atsme case as well. Soham321 (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Black Kite, how about imposing a one year topic ban on Sage for all WP pages he has currently edited till date?
  • SageRad, could you demonstrate to us in a few paragraphs that you are capable of self-criticism? Do not do any finger pointing at others, do not blame or criticize anyone else. Just write a few paragraphs criticizing yourself based on the criticism you have received so far from the other editors and Admins here. Soham321 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DrChrissy[edit]

I am writing here only because I was pinged by Soham321. I'm afraid I can not comment on the details of this case. DrChrissy (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

I interacted with SageRad on a few occasions. I am not sure he does anything bad on purpose (although this is entirely possible), but his comments and behavior are highly counterproductive and lead to significant waste of time by other contributors. Does it warrant a one year block? Well, simply the length of the discussion above shows that the problem probably reached the tipping point, so it possibly does, although I do not have time to check it more carefully. My very best wishes (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement after re-opening by Capeo[edit]

For someone who stated they had neither the time nor inclination to deal with this AE, SageRad has managed thousands of words since on WP. Most with same hyperbolic claims of oppression and victim-hood that some of the Admins here thought was the result of unusual stress. As I said in my statement above, this is SageRad's MO and isn't unusual.Capeo (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I just want to note again, since SageRad has harped on it here and at Jimbo's talk page as some kind of defense, that they were wrong about the misophonia review. Is it MEDRS? Yup. Is a single paper, that admits it is against the majority scientific consensus that misophonia is a symptom of an underlying compulsive disorder, sufficient to state the researcher's opinion in WP's voice? In the lede no less? Nope. Capeo (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

SageRad, I read the papers. I read every source provided and did some of my own research. The overriding consensus is that misophonia is a symptom of OCD and similar disorders. The newest papers are about as equivocal as can be and merely suggest that it may be a standalone condition despite evidence to the contrary. The existing lede expressed the current science well. You tried to make an unequivocal claim in WP's voice. Hence why you were reverted by multiple editors. Your response was to ignore consensus, harp on a single word without examining what the sources in question actually conclude, throw a NPOV tag on the article and claim synth and OR because nobody agreed with you. Also... please stop with the integrity bullshit. As though everyone who disagrees with an edit of yours lacks integrity. Capeo (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

SageRad, when your edit is reverted multiple times by different editors it is clear your edit is against consensus. Slapping a NPOV tag on an article over one edit is pointy at best. Those tags are generally for protracted issues that effect large portions of the article. How should you have proceeded differently? Stop trying to make an edit that was just going to be reverted. Try to come up with a compromise edit that satisfies all parties. Or simply just drop it. Wait for new research that fully solidifies your edit. Science, and science based articles, tend to move slowly as scientific consensus itself does.Capeo (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl[edit]

Regarding the proposal to limit edits on article talk pages: this would essentially throttle discussion by everyone to the same limit, or the restricted editor will not be able to engage fully. Neither of these outcomes would serve to achieve the objective of imposing a limit, compared with a topic ban. isaacl (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway[edit]

No comment on the substance of this complaint, but if the consensus is to block I wish someone would just do it already. Leaving this open is not doing SageRad or anyone else any favors. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Bob K31416[edit]

FWIW, I looked at the Misophonia Talk page regarding SageRad's discussion with Jytdog about the issue of using the term "condition" vs "disorder" in the first sentence of the article, and it looks like there was a considerable miscommunication between the two of them. They both seem to think that "condition" is the correct term but Jytdog seems to be disputing something else and didn't seem to be aware that the term "disorder" was being used incorrectly in the first sentence of the article, which was SageRad's point, and seemed to think that the term "condition" was being used there instead.

I wanted to see for myself what would happen if I tried to change the term from "disorder" to "condition" in the first sentence so I made the following edit [13]. It was reverted with a somewhat reasonable edit summary [14], which I addressed when I made my next edit there [15]. This time it was reverted with an edit summary that I thought was irrational [16]. Considering the situation, I wasn't inclined to spend more time over there so I stopped and just wrote it off as a part of Wikipedia that contains misinformation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: After my message here, Jytdog made the change "disorder" to "condition" in the first sentence of the Misophonia article [17]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

New statement by Robert McClenon[edit]

I see that several of the commenting editors here say that they personally like [User:SageRad]]. I don’t, and perhaps that should get my remarks discounted. However, eighteen months ago I tried to caution User:SageRad, and he characterized my cautions and those of other editors as bullying and even as “punches to the face”. This is an editor who has shown for a very long time that he is unwilling to heed advice. I still don’t know why he wants to edit Wikipedia, given that he has decided that it is such an ugly corrupt place. A month ago I said that if any other editor than User:Jytdog had filed this, I would recommend a Site Ban. A month has lapsed, and SageRad is just as combative as ever. Unfortunately, I think that a full site ban is the only plausible option. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning SageRad[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I hope I'll have time to return to this request — it requires a daunting amount of reading for someone not already familiar with the relevant discussions — but I have a couple of initial points:
A. I don't see a problem with SageRad's posts on Jimbo's page. They're the kind of thing that page is for. But it's another matter to keep "adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are", as Jytdog puts it, to various article talkpages. I agree that is disruptive and time-wasting. To get the flavour, I've read through the Talk:Paleolithic diet/Archive 6, that Jytdog referred to and I see exactly what he means by timesink. (I admit I didn't read quite all of the archive, but a good chunk, maybe half, and it was one of my worst hours on Wikipedia.) SageRad's bandying of phrases like "witch hunt" and his assumptions of bad faith of editors like Johnuniq and User:Skyring are just depressing.[18] ("Thanks sir, who I have encountered before in a rather bullying fashion"... "another editor who has used bullying tactics against me in the past... the gang shows up.") The best thing might be a topic ban from going on about meta-issues on article talkpages, as well as the persistent accusations of people "ganging up" on and "bullying" him as soon as they disagree with him. But formulating such a ban properly and usefully is no doubt impossible. I see JzG too has a problem with what a ban might cover.
B. SageRad's comment "Didn't even read the long diatribe by Jytdog" in his response here is really unpromising. SageRad, I have read the "diatribe" carefully and found it full of interesting stuff and food for thought. Well, I would guess you have read it too by now, but for you to start by blowing off your opponent like that looks just like an unfortunate illustration of what JzG said above about a lack of ability to accept that any conclusion differing from your own might be grounded in truth. I hear what you say about real life busyness, but there's always the option of requesting more time to reply.
Oh, and C, just a PS to Jytdog: updating the link just now was fine, but for goodness sake don't otherwise fiddle with your initial statement any more. Fluidity in that makes it much harder for others to evaluate and respond. If you must make new points, please do so below your main signed and dated filing, with a new sig and datestamp. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC).
Note: @SageRad: I see you ask above how much time you may have, and saying you don't have time to dedicate to finding diffs and being a lawyer. I suggest you put a request above, at the end of your statement, something on the lines of "I'm busy in real life, can I please have a week (or whatever specific time span would fit your circumstances) to supply a responsive and factual statement?" I'm sure the admins would agree to put this on hold for the time you need. However, if what you mean is that you will never have time to make a reasonable defense, or supply any evidential diffs, then we might as well deal with this as speedily as possible. Please let us know. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC).
Continued note: I see @SageRad: says he wants a month. (Please stop adding stuff for a minute, as that's making it rather hard to respond.) Of course that seems a lot. When I wrote my original note, I hadn't seen your latest edits [19][20][21] ("This place is damned.. This place is gone..This place is captured by an ideological crew..." etc), which strongly supports Jytdog's complaint. If you stand by that, we may IMO as well siteban you and be done with it. But if what you need is some cooling-off time and then a new statement, it's fine by me. A month of not editing (since you're busy IRL. and will also be busy writing up a statement here) would work for me. What do other people think of a one-month moratorium, please? We could archive this request temporarily and bring it back on 25 November. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC).
  • Comment I'm still reading through the copious amounts of content presented as evidence. I think there is probably a need for some sort of action here, though I'm not quite sure what the best course is yet. As a point of order, however, I would like to note that this board and its administrators do not have the power to issue a topic ban from "health content"; that would be something to be brought up at one of the conventional noticeboards. The most severe topic ban available to us would be "pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine" or some narrower subset of that. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Reading SageRad's latest postings, I think the assessment that he is in some sort of meltdown is essentially correct. Given that he is also dealing with a newborn child, I think compassion ought to reign here. Provided Sage agrees to take some voluntary time off editing, I would have no problem with putting the request on hold for a month or so. If he returns to editing, it can be resumed with cooler heads all around. Getting some sleep and adjusting to his new family situation might help the behavior problem on its own. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • We are empowered to implement any conventional sanction even though it is here at AE, treating it as a non-Arb issue without moving it to another board. OID raises some interesting points, and I have to admit only going through part of the evidence, yet this looks like one form of WP:Tendentious editing, albeit not a textbook example. He seems to be taking a singular position on a general theme (skepticism) and bludgeoning multiple pages and refusing to listen to consensus, to the point that it is disruptive to other editors that are simply trying to build an encyclopedia. It does seem to be a pattern of behavior that extends beyond a single venue, which has gone well beyond spirited debate and to the point that it is hindering the building of the encyclopedia. Again, WP:TE. I would like to read more and will later today, but this is how it is shaping up in my eyes. Dennis Brown - 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    I'm was about to propose something else, something not as palatable as Bishonen's idea, but would entertain Bish's idea. What I don't want to happen is for SageRad to say he is leaving Wikipedia forever, then come back in a month or two and we have the same problem. I would only accept if we continue this in one month, even if it is in absentia. What I would have proposed is a 6 month block and 12 month ban on pseudoscience/medicine (to include skepticism, which is a stretch), to run concurrently. That would allow a long enough period of time as to prevent disruption for 6 months at least, and perhaps past that knowing the next block is indef. Dennis Brown - 16:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    If I've learned anything in my decade plus experience here, SageRad, it is that people often say things in the heat of the moment they regret. A sanction doesn't require consent by the sanctioned. My first concern is all the other editors that are affected by your behavior. People leave Wikipedia because they get frustrated by people doing things like what you are doing, because they can't edit in a normal fashion and the frustration is too much. That is the purpose of a sanction, not to benefit you, but to benefit them, and by extension, Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 17:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "If you let this happen, you have blood on your hands." Oh dear. If that was a statement made under what we can call extenuating circumstances, it's probably best if this editor stays away from Wikipedia for a while. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Proposal: What I suggested above was that we put this on hold for a month with SageRad voluntarily abstaining from editing during that period, which is apparently The Wordsmith's opinion also. Having watched SR continue to "flail around" (per DrChrissy) makes me a bit dubious about the voluntary part; is he in a state where he can and will comply with a voluntary restriction? A one-month block for recent and ongoing disruption might technically be better. But I don't like to consider it, because people generally take blocks as humiliating. (Not me, I'm proud of mine, but it took me a few years to attain such block zen.) Humiliation is very bad and goes counter to the compassion principle. Therefore, I suggest a one-month moratorium with SageRad taking a wikibreak that has nothing to do with blocks and block logs. (Please briefly indicate if you agree to do that, @SageRad:.) If he edits anywhere in a disruptive way during the moratorium, he will then be blocked, and I advise against editing at all. And we collapse this until 25 November, but it can be re-opened earlier by SR himself, if he feels ready for it. He will be free to remove all his own posts here and start afresh, if desired. And I agree emphatically with Dennis that we must avoid a situation where we close without action, SR leaves, and then returns in a month or two, unsanctioned. We need to protect Wikipedia and other users from the bludgeoning that has been going on. The case should be discussed again in a month at the latest, even if in absentia. Is this acceptable to other admins? Bishonen | talk 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC).
For the record, that's more or less what I was suggesting. I'm not a fan of WP:COOLDOWN blocks when not absolutely necessary, and I'm not convinced this case warrants it. His conduct needs to be dealt with, but letting cooler heads prevail is a much better path for everyone involved. I endorse this proposal. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that. Can't hurt to try as long as we don't forget it. Dennis Brown - 01:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks, all. Sigh... let's focus on the edit summary and first sentence of SageRad's statement here, that he is actually, now, taking a wikibreak, and put this on hold for a month. I hope he means it, because if there should be further ABF harangues in the coming month, I believe he should be blocked. Closing. Bishonen | talk 08:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC).

Post-break discussion of result concerning SageRad by uninvolved admins, from 26 November 2016[edit]

  • I'll kick it off. Most people above seem to agree that the encyclopedia needs to be protected from SageRad's battleground editing, ABF and bludgeoning. I'm distressed that we have so long been squandering the energy and enthusiasm of the many editors who are affected by it, and I don't see much of a change in his new statement, either. (I figured it was hopeless when I saw the mention of flies and a pile of rotting fruit in the new statement, and the new attacks on Jytdog.) But finding the best scope is a problem, since SageRad's wide-ranging anti-skeptic agenda doesn't fit very well into the way our discretionary sanctions are constructed. I've been trying to figure out a tailormade topic ban, as you can see others doing above before the break, and if somebody has an even slightly watertight idea along those lines, I'll support it. But till then, I propose a one-year block. A request for unblock in six month's time should be regarded favorably, provided he has done some constructive editing of other Wikimedia projects in the meantime. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC).
  • @Littleolive oil: you criticize Jytdog for coming to SageRad's page: "SageRad is understandably upset. Why during an AE that Jytdog opened is Jytdog on SageRad's talk page reprimanding SageRad. If I assume good faith, that Jytdog was trying to help, this is at best poorly judged and shows an ongoing propensity to push editors too far." If people are interested in your charges, I hope they check out for themselves how and in what context Jytdog posted on User talk:SageRad. He did so twice, both times to answer pings from SageRad with suggestions and accusations: "Jytdog, what do you say...", "Jytdog: Are you saying..." Would you have liked Jytdog to ignore the pings, Olive, or to withdraw his case so as not to "reprimand"? Who did the pushing? Bishonen | talk 16:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC).
  • @SageRad: re the anonymous post you're complaining I removed from this board, thereby evincing my "many layers of suppression and chilling of speech",[22] you may find the IP's talkpage interesting. I and other users frequently remove trolling IPs from arbitration-related discussions, because people who log out to avoid scrutiny aren't welcome there. (Compare my edit summary.) But if you genuinely believe the IP's post would help your case, please feel free to restore it. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC).
  • @SashiRolls:, re 'sending you to study someone's talk page':[23] Study? study? Look at it for five seconds and you will be enlightened, if you're capable of it. No, I will not dignify "charges" such as "JzG and Bishonen routinely appear on the offsite complaint boards for blocking political opponents" with any denials. It may be perfectly true for all I know; I don't follow Wikipediocracy. It strikes me that I'm myself foolish for responding to stuff on this level from SageRad and SashiRolls. I'm done. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC).
  • After reading the conflict on SageRad's talk page, I see that nothing has changed. I was pinged here as I participated in the previous discussion but that plays no part in my opinion, demonstrated by the fact that I'm maintaining my previous position. As for a solution, I think Bishonen's idea above is satisfactory. If they are that busy in the real world, being here is a distraction and likely leading to the bad behavior here. Regardless, being here is a burden that outweighs the benefits at this time. Dennis Brown - 17:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    • To be perfectly clear now, since I'm not very active, no one is suggesting a sympathy block and I'm not swayed by promises to retire. It is a simple matter of what is best for the English Wikipedia. Without picking apart individual elements, it is my opinion that SageRad has lost perspective, lost clue, and his recent entries only reinforce this belief. Dennis Brown - 02:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:Bishonen's proposal of a one-year block. Discretionary sanctions allow for a block and they would also allow a topic ban, but it seems too difficult to find a ban that addresses the complete set of areas where SageRad has been disruptive. SageRad's new statement of November 28 is over 2,700 words and it greatly exceeds the 500-word limit. I mention this because Jytdog and MjolnirPants have both revised their statements to make them shorter. (User:Jytdog's change was here). EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm hesitant about the one year block, but at the moment I'm not going to explicitly oppose it. SageRad has had positive content contributions, and losing that is obviously undesirable. SageRad's biggest problem is how he interacts with others, which is something that many content contributors (including Jytdog) also struggle with, though not to the same degree. My first preference would be for some sort of I-ban or Civility Parole that restricts casting aspersions and allegations of fascism/Stalinism/etc. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm trying to dig deep into archives to look for a similar case where a restriction fixed the problem, but not immediately coming up with anything. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Count Iblis's suggestion is compelling, though I think two or three talk page edits per week might be more efficient for holding a conversation. @Bishonen, Dennis Brown, and EdJohnston: any thoughts on the idea? The WordsmithTalk to me 15:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
      • @The Wordsmith: as I've already said, I will happily support a suitable topic ban if somebody can come up with one. But not this kind of editing restriction, because Sage's posts after he got a month's moratorium (for the explicit purpose of writing a reasonable defense here) have remained spectacularly unpromising. He said if only he could still have another 20 hours, he could write up an irrefutable defense ("i could do it right... the case would write itself given 20 hours" ellipsis in original), but when I told him he could, he went on to post this defense on AE without waiting very long. Take a look at it: he proposes a boomerang for Jytdog "for wasting everyone's time with drama and disrupting my ability to edit for a month now" [sic]. He promises to be "more careful about not ever imputing motives to other editors in content discussions", states in passing that others should promise the same but probably won't, and are ten times worse than him in this regard. And promises to be more brief. That was on November 26, and he has done little else other than "impute motives" ever since, and not briefly. Count Iblis suggests that getting to make only one edit per week per talkpage might focus Sage's mind and make him automatically tend to stay away from invoking things like "Stalinism". I don't see it. I believe, rather, that any restriction, whether of one edit or three or more per week, would be more likely to push that single edit or those few edits in the direction of really long harangues about Stalinism and the Reign of Terror on Wikipedia, and we'd be back here yet again, and yet a little more exhausted. Miles of WP:ROPE has already been extended and a lot of time has been spent. Again, I'm not insisting on a block, I'll be happy with a workable topic ban — workable in the sense of not generating reams on discussion at every turn as to whether the user has violated it or not. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC). Adding after (edit conflict) with Dennis: essentially, I'm in sympathy with Kingofaces43's recent comment here, especially the question in the edit summary. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC).
      • I still think the only solution is a long break. I can wind on and on about it, but I'm not likely to be persuaded after seeing the way he makes excuses and such. This is more complicated than a behavioral problem. And let me add, this isn't saying anyone else is innocent of anything, I'm simply saying it is in Wikipedia's best interest if SageRad took a long break. As a side note, it probably wouldn't hurt him either. Dennis Brown - 18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
      • After listening to my fellow admins, I've come to the regrettable conclusion that the only way we don't end up back here in a month is to endorse the proposed block. Unless someone has something else substantial to add or wants to conclude things sooner, I'll close this request sometime tomorrow. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I was wondering if a topic from anything covered by WP:ARBPS might be a start, but looking through the list of articles that SageRad has been disruptive on, many (i.e. Paleolithic diet) aren't covered. Unless someone can come up with a cunning idea that could adequately cover SR's range of disruption, unfortunately I have to agree that a long break is the only option. We can't allow such a time-sink to continue indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It's unfortunate, because I do think SageRad means well. Unfortunately, we can only keep giving so many chances to improve. I just don't think Wikipedia and SageRad are a good fit. Wikipedia can be rough and tumble; SageRad seems to take disagreements very personally. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of the most reputable sources; SageRad seems to think that this is a conspiracy to suppress The Truth™ rather than just the normal way editing gets done. Wikipedians tend to prefer discussion of content; SageRad focuses on people. At some point, even with good intentions, we have to prevent disruption. Topic bans aren't doing that, and I don't see a way to formulate a topic ban to do that. And I certainly have doubts about SageRad's judgment, when while this is ongoing, he's railing about how everyone but him is wrong and at fault. So, SageRad—I wish you nothing but the best, and I mean that, but I don't see any alternative to the lengthy block proposed above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Peeta Singh[edit]

Appeal declined. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:33, 5 December 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 
Peeta Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Peeta Singh (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Topic ban from Sikh and Punjabi related articles based on allegedly tendentious editing, pushing a nationalist agenda, and ignoring information about Wikipedia's policies from experienced editors and administrators.
Discussion prior to ban: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Peeta_Singh
Discussion regarding the ban: User_talk:Bishonen#Reason_for_Block.3F
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Peeta Singh[edit]

Since day one, I have been targeted by users: @Apuldram, @Utcursch, @Uanfala, @Sarah Welch, @RegentsPark, @Kautilya3 and @Salma Mahmoud. They have attempted to get me blocked neumorus times because I improve Punjab and Sikh-related articles. After many attempts, they've falsely alleged me of POV-pushing and got me topic banned. In my defence, I would like to emphasis, that i'm not POV-pushing, but only editing information based on reliable sources.

I don't understand how contributing towards improving Wikipedia is being construed. [24] I've followed the rules, improved articles and spent countless hours expanding Wikipedia.

Before I edited the Punjabi language article [25] At present after I edited the article. Was I construed for adding information with reliable sources?

Before I edited the Gurmukhi alphabet article [26] At present after I edited the article. Was I construed for adding information with reliable sources?

Before I edited the Wikipedia:WikiProject Punjab page [27] At present after I edited the article. Was I construed for improving the Wikiproject Punjab page?

Was I construed for creating template such as Template:Punjabi film list and Template:Cinema of Punjab so it improves the standard of the Punjabi cinema article?

Was I construed for following the guidelines and considering Consensus? [28], [29]

They're bullies that challenge almost all my edits on Wikipedia [30], [31]. They have tried getting me blocked since I've began. They've made all sort of false allegations. They've accuse me of WP:NOTHERE but continue to add the term India [32] at any and every article where it's not relevant, even sometimes with irreverent sources [33]? They push the Indo-Aryan theory? [34] Why don't the guidelines apply to them?

Here is the comment of an IP regarding @Uanfala User_talk:Peeta_Singh#Saraiki_dialect_of_Punjabi_Language

Here are the comments of User:Js82 regarding @Ms Sarah Welch [35]

Peeta Singh (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Appeal by Peeta Singh[edit]

Being new here, I've made mistakes and who doesn't? However, seeing my contribution I would like to be allowed to edit Punjab and Sikh-related articles under the supervision of User:Doug Weller or some other admin (except: @Apuldram, @Utcursch, @Uanfala, @Sarah Welch, @RegentsPark, @Kautilya3 and @Salma Mahmoud). They're POV pushing, but i'm being targeted. I might not be as skilled with quoting the guidelines or even as experienced, but I haven't gone against the guideline so much that I should be imposed with an indefinite topic ban.

My proposal is that I be sanctioned to edit Punjab and Sikh related articles but with the condition of asking permission from User:Doug Weller or some other admin before editing every Punjab and Sikh-related article. That way I won't make the mistakes i'm being accused of.

Peeta Singh (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen[edit]

[36]. Bishonen | talk 13:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

Statement by Ms Sarah Welch[edit]

My name appears twice in @Peeta Singh's appeal, but @Peeta Singh and I have not been in any edit disputes in recent weeks. The user has not offered any edit-diffs, therefore I do not understand the grounds for "since day one" allegations. @Peeta Singh is a relatively new account, one with first edit on October 15 2016. The admins and editors mentioned by @Peeta Singh have been rightfully concerned with copyvio, OR, POV-y edits etc. They have been welcoming and helpful, in good faith, despite the disruption by @Peeta Singh. I say disruption, so I must provide some evidence. Here is some:

[1] This was the state of Template:Punjabis before @Peeta Singh's first edit to it. Since then, @Peeta Singh has predominantly edited this template between November 11 to December 2, and edit warred with @Filpro, without a trace of discussion effort on its talk page. @Peeta Singh has re-titled that Template to "Culture of the Panjab" with link to nationalism. This insertion of "Panjab nationalism / Khalistan" POV-y by @Peeta Singh is not isolated or rare. It has been noted with concern by other editors such as here on October 22 2016 by @Apuldram, here on December 2 2016, etc. This pattern of WP:TE has not subsided after those caution and requests, rather continued.

[2] @Peeta Singh alleges "I improve Punjab and Sikh-related articles". But consider Guru Amar Das, an article about the third of ten Gurus of Sikhism. The article is a stub. @Peeta Singh has edited it, but did not attempt to improve content or cite new reliable sources, but edited it with the edit summary "was not India at the time of the Guru". You see this in many edits by this user. Again in the Sikhism article, this editor changed "Indian subcontinent" to "South Asia", without explanation. That edit was reverted by @RegentsPark, but @Peeta Singh edit warred (without citing any reliable source or discussing it on the talk page). Then edit warred some more. In other words, @Peeta Singh's editing history suggest the intent is not content improvement of important articles related to Sikhism or Punjab that are currently a stub, it is persistent removal of relevant encyclopedic content from current articles, removal of any connection of Sikhism with India or Indian subcontinent, and then placement of a certain POV without adequately citing any scholarly reliable sources. This suggests WP:NOTHERE.

[3] See @Utcursch's note to @Peeta Singh on OR, Battleground and more here. I also share @Utcursch's concerns about @Peeta Singh's WP:TE on Gurmukhi script article.

Based on evidence such as the above, and more can be found by wading through the edit history of @Peeta Singh, I support @Bishonen's sanctions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Indeed. Please see this statement by @Salma Mahmoud on @Bishonen's talk page today, on @Peeta Singh, because it is relevant to this AE case. I support uninvolved admins expanding the ban, as @Peeta Singh's edits elsewhere such as this on Wikidata that plugged in Khalistan as an alias for Punjab, on December 1 2016, suggests that the disruption by @Peeta Singh is systematic, has been on-going and has continued through very recently, the CIR and other concerns seem much broader. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by utcursch[edit]

I have not "targeted" the Peeta Singh, and as far as I can tell, neither have others whom he calls "bullies": Apuldram, Uanfala, Ms Sarah Welch, RegentsPark, Kautilya3, Salma Mahmoud. All these users edit a wide range of articles, and presumably happened to notice Peeta Singh's controversial edits on their watch list.

I noticed Peeta Singh's changes to the article Punjabi language and Gurmukhi alphabet, which were on my watchlist. First, some background for the uninitiated: According to a colonial-era theory, some of the Indian "martial races" are of "Scythian" descent, because unlike the other Indian castes, they are supposedly tall, fair, strong etc. Although no longer tenable in mainstream scholarship, this theory remains popular among some people whose ancestors were classified among the "martial races" by the British administrators. For example, some Sikh nationalists claim that Jat/Rajput Sikhs are "Scythian", and therefore, different from other Indians (who are Indo-Aryan, Dravidian etc.) This apparently bolsters their demand that these people need their own independent nation-state.

I'm not sure to what level Peeta Singh believes in these things, but he sure seems obsessed with removing the term "Indian"/"Indo-Aryan" from Punjab-related articles, and in some cases, adding wildly inaccurate claims of their "Scythian" association.

I'm not concerned about anyone's personal feelings about Sikh/Punjabi nationhood, but the user's repetitive addition of erroneous information is what bothered me:

  • Peeta Singh insisted that Punjabi is a "Scytho-Punjabi" language[37]. In addition, he insisted that Punjabi is an official language of Canada. When opposed, he claimed that "there's an hidden agenda to Indianize the article" [38].
  • He claimed that that Gurmukhi was a "Scythian script"[39]. When countered, he came up with with his own original research (he had already been advised to read WP:NOR by 3 different users by this time). He also claimed that the "users of Indian origin" were "deceiving the public".[40]

By the time I posted my first message about WP:RS / WP:NOR on his talk page, Peeta Singh had already received 5+ notices from other users. I've not interacted much with him after our last debate on Punjabi and Gurmukhi articles two weeks back, so I cannot say whether the topic ban is justified or not. But a look at his talk page history suggests that he has received multiple warnings by other users (he recently removed several warnings). A cursory look at his contributions since our last interaction indicates that he has not given up contentious editing:

  • He insists that the Sikh religious symbol Khanda is an emblem of Punjab [44][45] and that it "represents the people of Punjab"[46]. He has also added Khanda to the newly-created templates {{PartofWPPUNJAB}} and {{Punjabi quick links}}, which he has transcluded into several Wikiproject Punjab related pages that have nothing to do with Sikhism.

By the way, the user has already been blocked on Commons for ignoring warnings. utcursch | talk 00:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have previously apologized from my use of the term "Indianize" at User_talk:RegentsPark#Sikhism_articles The incident utcursch has mentioned is from when I had just joined Wikipedia and had no knowledge of the guidelines. I have learnt since and not furthered the "Scytho-Punjabi" and "Scythian script" theory. After this episode I started referencing my content with reliable sources. My agenda has not been to promote the Punjab nation/Khalistan theory but to improve Punjab-related topics. If the term Punjab nation/Khalistan was relevant I added it. [51] Now how is NPOV, pushing POV? If there's a problem with me using the terms Khalistan, Scythian and Punjab nation then topic block me from them.
The Wikipedia guidelines clearly says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."[52] Example Gurpreet Ghuggi (Punjabi politician and actor) or Gippy Grewal (Punjabi actor). Aren't they POV pushing here or don't they have an agenda? Rather than following the guidelines and considering Consensus they reverted my edits numerous times and without a reason. [53], [54], [55], [56], [57] Are the guidelines only for me?
I explained to @Filpro why I added the Khanda [58] and requested @Filpro and @Salma to follow the guidelines and discuss this issue. [59], [60] But it seems they had other plans. [61]
Everyone sees my contribution as POV pushing but why not theirs who act as the Owners of Punjab and Sikh-related content. utcursch, why only target me?

Peeta Singh (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Uanfala[edit]

I was pinged in this discussion but I'm afraid I don't have much to say as my interaction with Peeta Singh has been limited. I'm a bit surprised that they think I've been targeting them – our exchanges have so far been amicable. However, I have had to revert most of their edits to Saraiki dialect and Punjabi language. I can't say there's been any agenda behind them as the issues mostly had to do with being unaware of the subject matter and how it is generally treated on wikipedia (for Punjabi), or with not being careful when checking an online source (for Saraiki). Here Peeta Singh hasn't been disruptive (or at least not nearly as much as half of the users who edit in this area), but they certainly need to spend some time learning how things work before making any bold edits. – Uanfala (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Peeta Singh[edit]

I'm sorry, but Peeta Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s command of the English language is so weak that I don't believe he understands when he improving an article and when he is making it worse. Could somebody please explain to him the meaning of "construed", as I don't believe it exists in the first person passive. Looking at his talk page, it is clear that he has not taken on-board any advice he's been given, even from clearly uninvolved experienced editors such as Doug Weller. His contributions reveal a lack of awareness of Wikipedia policies from simple mistakes like moving 'Punjabi cinema' to 'Punjabi Cinema' to edit-warring his preferred version into an article against two other editors [62], [63] (note the edit summary!). Of most concern, though is his attempts to replace the word "Indian" with "Sikh" and to add |nationality=Sikh to infoboxes. That does indicate an attempt to push a Sikh-nationalist POV, and Wikipedia isn't the place to be doing it. His appeal is riddled with grammatical, spelling and comprehension errors, not to mention his inability to distinguish between Punjabi language and Punjabis in his first question here. If nothing else, surely competence is required? --RexxS (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I followed Ms Sarah Welch's link to Wikidata and was dismayed. I've just spent half an hour sorting out the mess he'd made by confusing Punjab (Q22424) (Indian state), Punjab (Q4478) (province of Pakistan) and Punjab (Q169132), (geographic region divided between Pakistan and India). The problems he caused on Wikidata are not directly relevant to his topic ban here, but they are indicative of the difficulty he has in separating the three concepts and his fixation with Khalistan. --RexxS (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this. It confirms my own experience and the need for the topic ban. Doug Weller talk 05:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Peeta Singh[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Peeta Singh, I believe the ban is justified. You've been warned repeatedly about the Sikh nation idea yet you apparently continue to push it. Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia but you need to demonstrate that you're not here merely to push a POV. Edit articles on other subjects. Demonstrate a broader commitment to the project. Then you will have some standing asking for the ban to be lifted. (Note: Though I'm mentioned in the list of 'targeted by users', to the best of my knowledge the only interactions I've had with Peeta Singh are two warnings I placed on their talk page [64],[65]. Which, unfortunately, they chose to ignore.)--regentspark (comment) 14:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Taken at face value, the actions by Bishonen seem reasonable and within our policies as there clearly was a problem. The appeal itself gives no indication that problematic behavior will stop, nor does it provide a path forward. With these two facts in mind, it is my opinion that the appeal should be declined. I would not oppose stronger sanctions due to CIR and other concerns. Dennis Brown - 20:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Looking at the discussion above and the user contributions, it is obvious that this action is necessary and the appeal declined. If anything, I'm not entirely sure that the sanctions will be sufficient and I echo Dennis Brown's sentiments on stronger sanctions if they can be worked within the purview of AE action. —SpacemanSpiff 07:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


Blocked 48 hours for WP:ARBAP2 ban violation by User:JzG. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Maslowsneeds[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Maslowsneeds (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/American politics 2#Final decision :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Topic banned from post-1932 American politics and people closely related. Topic ban notified here

  1. 10:35, December 5, 2016 Restores a reverted attempt to add mention of a political website Shareblue to an article on fake web sites. Is warned about the explicitly political content of the edit being a violation of his topic ban by two different editors, one an administrator (Sagecandor and Doug Weller)
  2. 23:13, December 5, 2016 Adding "Pravdaesque" to article -- taken from the above edit -- about the same political group Shareblue, AFTER the above warnings about the topic-ban violation
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The editor strenuously denies that the topic ban applies, saying that the issue is either "journalism ethics" or business decisions". The editor also implies that the edit doesn't apply to topic bans because he was restoring an edit, not adding one. [66]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Since the editor's first reaction to any advice or notification is to go on about "being attacked","harassment", "bullying", and "cyberstalking" ([67] [68] [69] [70] [71]), no, I haven't notified him. Feel free to do so.

Notification added to user's talk page at 03:10, 6 December 2016.

Discussion concerning Maslowsneeds[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 Maslowsneeds[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Maslowsneeds[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Appears to be a straight violation of the American Politics topic ban. This diff from December 5 is obviously about politics, since it says that the goal of the Shareblue site was to get Hillary Clinton elected. Even if Maslowsneeds was just restoring material removed by someone else, he is still responsible for whatever he adds. And the thread at User talk:Maslowsneeds#December 2016 is not very reassuring about the editor's intentions for the future. It seems to me that a block is necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • 10:35 12/5 is clearly political, and Ms. Bish chose to warn instead of block. The edit at 23:13, shortly after the warning, sources a NYT article that mentions a political figure in the title and is in the "politics" section. Both are obvious breaches of the topic ban and in line with the issues that prompted the ban. The responses on the editor's talk page are clearly disappointing and point to a significant likelihood of recurrence. Kuru (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 48 hours. The absolute best you can say of it is that Maslowsneeds might have been testing the limits of the ban. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The user has violated the TBAN again. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Bishonen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hidden Tempo[edit]

The appeal is declined. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Appealing user 
Hidden Tempo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
6 month TBAN from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed. Imposed here, logged here.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Hidden Tempo[edit]

Inside this collapse box is the original statement by Hidden Tempo in this appeal. Kept for reference since it is what most people responded to. Beginning after the box is the revised version I asked him to create to meet the 500-word limit. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Regarding the reasoning that I deserve a ban because I called Volunteer Marek's edit "filth" (on my own tak page) this user has been harassing me for over a month, following me from article to article, violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF almost every time.[72][73][74]. I also asked him to stop harassing me [75], which he ignored and continued to reply to my talk page edits and proceeded to continue templating my talk page. I submit that I do not deserve a ban on the grounds that I removed a harassing editor's message from my talk page, or that I used the word "filth" to characterize said harassing message.

Bishonen's second point is that I should be banned because I apparently violated WP:SOAPBOXING (as Volunteer Marek, the harassing editor alleged multiple times) with this edit. However, my edit does not fit any of the requirements outlined in that policy. I have never voiced support for any political candidate or revealed my own political views, and yet have been accused of doing so by Bishonen and Volunteer Marek. In that edit, I provided links to RS for each statement. Was my frustration with the lack of neutrality on the Hillary Clinton talk page apparent? Undoubtedly. Did this fit any of the 5 requirements for WP:SOAP to be violated? Absolutely not. I submit that no violation of this policy took place, and strenuously object to a topic ban on these grounds. Bishonen also claims that my comments are disruptive and "foment strife," but is this not what this project is based upon? Healthy discussion and the melding of a variety of opinions are how articles are improved. I welcome (civil) conflict, and challenging the status quo brings about positive change. Whether or not I am viciously attacked by other editors is out of my hands, and therefore provides no justification for a topic ban.

Bishonen's final reason for my topic ban is that I violated WP:BLP violations with the aforementioned edit: "Plus, you phrased wholesale attacks on Clinton and her family members ("Chelsea Clinton using Foundation funds to pay for her wedding") in a way that's not supported by the sources you linked to." With this accusation, Bishonen submits that my statement(s) (oddly characterized as an "attack" by Bishonen, therefore violating WP:AGF), meets the standards for a BLP violation. In actuality, whether or not an edit is reflected accurately in the source material is entirely subjective, and is in fact the very reason we have talk pages in the first place! While providing insight to another user as to why his edit has been reverted, I used the discussion as an opportunity to provide him with clarity as to why he is unlikely to succeed. I pointed to the pervasive and ingrained {{neutrality}} issues with the Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 pages. The source material ([76] [77]) clearly alleges that Chelsea Clinton used Clinton Foundation funds to pay for her wedding. If Bishonen doesn't agree, that is her right, but a six month topic ban to voice that disagreement is not the proper course of action. I submit that I committed no BLP violations with the edit that she cited on my talk page, and thus should not be subjected to an extraordinarily lengthy TBAN on these grounds.

Lastly, the banning administrator, BIshonen, has admitted to being unable to comprehend "a good deal" of American politics, since she pejoratively describes our political system as "strange."[78]. This self-admitted lack of understanding calls into question her ability to accurately interpret complex American political issues, such as the Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy and other issues I raised that she feels are BLP violations, especially if English is not her native language (note that this is in no way designed to be insulting or an attack, rather a legitimate concern of detecting nuance). For these reasons, I am appealing the 6-month TBAN, and requesting for a modification of this ban (reduction) to a 48-hour TBAN. While I vehemently maintain that I have done nothing wrong, I may benefit from a break from editing this weekend. Thank you for the consideration, and I apologize if I have violated any rules of etiquette or protocol, as this is my first banning and first appeal.

EDIT: Just another note, I would also like to take this opportunity to request an IBAN for myself and Volunteer Marek to help keep talk page discussions copasetic, whatever the result may be of this appeal. Also, in light of Bishonen's apparent distaste for American politics (see above edit), I believe this poses a natural WP:COI problem and adds to the notion that this lengthy TBAN should be either nullified or at least drastically reduced as I previously suggested. Thank you again. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Forgive me, I'm new at this. Do I reply here? I absolutely oppose the inclusion of "Frigidaire" as a nickname of Hillary Clinton. I feel it's undue, as I know a great deal about Hillary Clinton and have never heard this nickname. In addition, I believe the user provided one flimsy source. I've developed a bit of a reputation on the talk pages for being a "Hillary hater" and/or "Trump supporter," but I've always strived for neutrality, regardless of my own personal feelings about the former candidates. I had hoped that never revealing my own political views would help lend credence to my status as an objective editor, but it seems I've failed miserably. To answer your other question, if I could do it again, I would've started a new section regarding these topics, rather than bundled the issues in the "Frigidaire" subsection. I attribute my penchant for long responses to the repeated "soapboxing" allegations, and maybe if I could find a way to trim and/or better compartmentalize my suggestions to improve articles, my responses wouldn't be confused with soapboxing. However, I maintain that the issues I raised were well-backed by the sources that I cited within the response, thereby avoiding any BLP violations. In retrospect, I should have used the phrases "alleged" and "accused of" to make it perfectly clear that I was not convicting anyone of any crimes on the Wikipedia talk pages, but instead stating the facts that the Clinton Foundation was in fact accused of ethics violations. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to respond. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq The Frigidaire nickname wasn't well-sourced, and as I stated in the comment, even if the nickname should be included, it's academic for me. The main problem I have is that there is a Clinton Foundation subsection, but absolutely no mention of the ongoing FBI investigation into the Foundation and (possibly) multiple ethics violations reported on by multiple reliable sources, and likely even admitted by the Clinton campaign itself in the WikiLeaks email that I sourced. I used the analogy that trying to get such a minute detail into the article when there are other monumental issues with the article is like trying to get a stain out of the carpet when the house is on fire. I'm also unsure which source I provided that was partisan. Is Fox News not a reliable source? CNN is very frequently used as a citation on political pages, despite many conflicts of interest (financial and otherwise) with the Clinton campaign that I've discussed previously, but do not particularly want to bring up here as I don't want to be accused of more BLP violations. Hidden Tempo (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Johnuniq @Bishonen @JFG @Soham321 Am I able to reply to @MelanieN's statement here? I would just like to point out that not a single political view was stated by myself in any of those diffs. I never voiced my support for a former candidate, or any opinions concerning, economics, illegal immigration, social issues, healthcare, foreign policy, taxes, energy, entitlement spending, or any other political issues. According to the Wiktionary definition, politics concerns affairs associated with running a "government, organization, or movement." Therefore, voicing my thoughts about the state of American journalism is not a political view, even if I use the words "liberal" or "conservative." Additionally, I am offended at the accusation that I propagated any "conspiracy theory." At the time of that edit, I was unaware that I was required to use sources (even on the talk pages) for every statement that may not be immediately obvious to an outsider. However, after I became aware of this, I began using sources on the talk pages. I am more than willing and eager to share a plethora of sources backing each and every single statement (re: Donna Brazile, John Harwood, Glenn Thrush, Hillary's trustworthiness poll numbers that I referred to as "feeble") etc., thereby more than disproving any misuse of the phrase "conspiracy theory." Lastly, I would like to point out that using the word "mountainous" to describe the number and severity of a presidential candidate's alleged ethical and legal struggles is not a policy violation. This is entirely subjective, and that is the exact reason that I raised these issues on the talk page instead of taking the liberty of adding content directly to the article before reaching consensus. MelanieN may disagree with my opinion, but a disagreement is not a BLP violation or in breach of any other Wikipedia policies that I am aware of, nor is raising the concern of politicians paying people to scrub/protect their Wikipedia pages. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@RexxS I'm sorry you feel that your intelligence was insulted, but that was not my intention at all. I am simply disagreeing with @MelanieN's thesis that I am voicing political views, when in fact I am not (by the Wiktionary definition of "politics"). I also do not agree that my edits are biased. As I discussed with @Bishonen, the reason that my edits may appear to favor Donald Trump and somehow denigrate Hillary Clinton is due to the status of the articles. My opinion is that Donald Trump's article is currently burdened with the "too long" template because every minute negative detail of his campaign has been crammed onto the page. My opinion is that Hillary Clinton's article, in contrast, is very readable (albeit skeletal), but oddly vacant of some of her career-defining moments and events that many would view as negative. Every possible proud moment of her life and positive attribute is thoroughly documented and discussed in detail. Therefore, I do not argue for potentially negative material to be added to Trump's page simply because there is nothing left to add. It's all there. For the same reason, I do not advocate for positive material to be added to Hillary Clinton's pages - every last bit is represented, including UNDUE material. I truly think that's why I have been unfairly accused of having a "pro-Trump/anti-Clinton" bias. But as JFG pointed out, we all have inherent bias as contributors, here.

I take great exception to your statement that I committed a BLP violation by referring to Hillary's trustworthiness poll numbers as "feeble." It's an NBC News poll that found that just 11% of America trusts Hillary Clinton (as of August, 2016). Is 11% not worthy of the word "feeble"? There's no BLP violation there. There just isn't - it's a factual statement, echoed in the source material, which has direct pertinence to the subject matter of the article. That goes for my concern of WP:PAID issues on political articles, as well. I cited Time Magazine as reference, so I fail to see how that qualifies as "step too far." My statement is backed by an extremely reliable source (in a non-partisan article), and qualifies as more than "a shred of evidence." Thanks for reading and I apologize for the lengthy edit. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@RexxS I think we have both made our views on this topic abundantly clear at this point. I would just like to note that I have read WP:BLP several times to better familiarize myself with the criteria for a violation to have occurred. As you said, "unsourced and poorly sourced" material should not be added. Both statements in question were well-sourced, and I never edited the article's subject matter to include the sourced material. Instead, I visited the talk pages in an attempt to reach consensus, and offered a nicely written (in my biased opinion, of course) proposal[79] to say a few words about the Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy. I invited other editors to take part in improving my draft, and was instead met with accusations of POV, tendentious editing, and being "snide." Only @MelanieN was kind enough to offer constructive feedback. Hopefully that exchange provides a better idea of who I am and how I'm treated by a select group of contributors. In any case, as Soham321 stated, I am relatively new to the project, but still cannot reconcile your description of my talk page edits as a "BLP violation" after reading the page multiple times. They don't appear to fit any of the requirements outlined on that project page, but please correct me if I'm wrong with the exact passage (remember, my allegedly "contentious" edits are well-sourced) that makes even mentioning Secretary Clinton's trustworthiness poll numbers a BLP violation, rather than just a normal disagreement of WP:DUE on a talk page.

One more thing - despite the obvious tense nature of a TBAN appeal, I would appreciate it if we could be a bit more civil. I don't think it's very appropriate to threaten and appear to relish the opportunity to block me with language like "I'll see you at ANI" and accuse me of feigning indignation. I believe I've been exceptionally polite throughout this process thus far, and don't believe my prior actions in question should be reason to deny me the same courtesy. Thank you.Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@My very best wishes, what "unsubstantiated complaint" that created "disruption" are you talking about, here? I'm really confused, now. I will acknowledge that we seem to be deviating from the basis of my appeal, though. I was banned for three reasons according to Bishonen (1) referring to Volunteer Marek's harassing message as "filth," 2)violating WP:SOAP, and 3) violating WP:BLP. I believe I have sufficiently refuted all three of these claims against me, so maybe we could get back to the main meat of this TBAN. My proposal for an edit on the talk page of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article is still open, and I would very much like to have my TBAN rescinded soon and rejoin the collaborative effort while it is still active. This would of course be done with the understanding that I must always source any potentially contentious material that I propose (including on the talk pages), adopt a less combative attitude, take the suggestions of @JFG and @Soham321 to heart, and focus on improving articles piecemeal rather than engaging in long diatribes to voice my frustration with my perceived neutrality issues. Many thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to extend my gratitude and appreciation for the insights and contributions of @JFG, @Soham321, @TheTimesAreAChanging, @SashiRolls, and @MelanieN to this appeal. @Bishonen, I think we have all thoroughly addressed all three violations upon which you based your TBAN. I have been blocked, then unblocked hours later after demonstrating that I am much more familiar with WP:BLP, and it seems we are largely in agreement that my edits do not warrant my standing in the corner for an additional 6 months. It also seems that there is a perceived double standard for my edits, as other contributors have launched direct, vicious, and sometimes obscene attacks against living persons without receiving any repercussions whatsoever.[80][81] It appears the general consensus is that I should tone down my language, and ensure that my approach to editing is focused solely on the topic at hand, not the editor, suggestions which I agree with and am ready to abide by. I also think it's obvious that my intentions to edit articles are pure, as the alleged violations occurred during attempts to gain consensus on talk pages, rather than repeatedly making contentious edits to the articles themselves. And as another user pointed out, the word "feeble" was used to describe a percentage, not a living person, making any possible BLP violation a rather small one. I think we also agree that the seriousness of using the word "feeble" was certainly dwarfed by the aforementioned attack on Bernie Sanders as a person, using rather colorful, hyperbolic, and purposefully derogatory language to describe the man. As I have gained the confidence of at least two one admin (@MelanieN and @Boing! said Zebedee) that I am now better equipped to follow BLP policies and play well with others, I request that my topic ban be reduced to 48 hours as I requested previously, and have it lifted immediately as that amount of time has already elapsed. Thanks very much.
P.S. Please also note that I have formally requested an IBAN for @Volunteer Marek due to repeated WP:CIVIL violations and harassment, and may pursue an IBAN for Objective3000 as well, as he continues to disparage me on virtually every talk page edit I make. Note that this user is choosing to do the same thing even on this page, erroneously claiming that my use of the word "feeble" was in reference to a former presidential candidate's health, when I clearly stated (and is obvious to every other user thus far) that I was referring to a poll regarding that candidate's trustworthiness perception. These IBANS will help stop other contributors from attacking me personally and possibly trying to provoke further conflicts, and maintain peace on the talk pages.
EDIT: MelanieN asked that I strike her name from the list of administrators who agree that I've learned my lesson, but I'd like to point out that she did admit that the BLP violations alleged by the banning administrator (Bishonen) are not blockable offenses. My tiffs with other editors are in the past, but I don't believe WP:CIVIL problems were one of the three items listed as a reason for my 6 month ban. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I read the ban notice, @Bishonen. I maintain that I have addressed all of your reasons for the ban, and neatly refuted them all. I tried to reduce them to more digestible well-defined points in an attempt to prevent the appeal from getting bogged down by vague, sort of amorphous complaints about me. Anyway, I think the obvious trend in this appeal is a clear consensus among users that a 6-month TBAN is unwarranted. The two exceptions are one involved user who has attacked me in the past, and another who came to my talk page to try to sweat/grill me about my IBAN request for that user - and then you suddenly rematerialized here shortly afterward to indirectly reference the information gleaned from the aforementioned user's bizarre edit. Unfortunately for me, user consensus doesn't get bans overturned - uninvolved administrators do. And so it seems that in this case, 2 outnumbers 7 (so far). I think there were some great points made by other contributors to this appeal, especially in regards to double standards and which reliable sources Wikipedia trusts. At least I know I'm not crazy.

Journalists and organizations that donate millions of dollars to/secretly meet with/collude in formulating debate questions/provide advance debate questions to one candidate are to be considered respectable, unbiased, non-partisan, highly regarded organizations that are worthy of our boundless trust. That whole "left-wing mainstream media" thing is nothing more than a POV myth. However, if an organization doesn't donate to any candidate or is widely considered the most trusted name in news (in the case of Fox News, as an example), that source is to be considered nothing more than right-wing propaganda/sensationalist/a wing of a political party, and should never be used. If you dare reference one of these sources, you can expect to be shamelessly attacked (along with former candidates themselves) and accused of being a right wing echo chamber, with absolutely no action taken against that user. Wikipedia says that that's just fine, and I can accept that. I won't be pleased if part of the reason for my TBAN being upheld is responding to WP:CIVIL violations with alleged WP:CIVL violations. I'm not fine with that, but again, it's not up to me...or the assortment of editors who also deem that standard to be patently unfair.

BLP Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this edit are the author's own and do not reflect the view of the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikipedia. Any people or organizations referenced are purely hypothetical unless otherwise explicitly stated, and are not meant to bear any similarity to any living persons, companies, or entities.Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've been very busy trying to undo what you've done, here. As an admin, to crush a Wikipedian with a 6-month TBAN may be as simple as changing a few characters in html, but that Wikipedian then must undergo a long, arduous process to even have the ban removal to be considered. Since I firmly believe that I am in the right and you are in the wrong (and your opinion seems to be in the vast minority and have gained little support), I have no problem posting 3,500 words in my defense. Whether or not your relationship with MVBW is "unbecoming" or not is completely unknown to me. I was merely pointing out the serendipitous nature of this user scrounging around for information on talk pages, and then you (as you admit) post your second comment in the discussion a short time later and attempt to use that information against me, tangentially.
I am indeed native speaker of English. I don't see how that's relevant, though. When I said "I attribute my penchant for long responses to the repeated "soapboxing" allegations," it was probably poorly phrased. I was trying to convey that since I often post long replies, many may confuse my replies with "soapboxing." But, as I've shown before, my edits don't meet any of the five requirements for soapboxing to have taken place. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
This is exactly what I've been talking about EdJohnston and Bishonen. My very best wishes is freely permitted to post this kind of attack on living persons and other editors: "Yes, users who support D. Trump tend to be more disruptive. This is nothing new. Users who support fringe theories, extremist groups and non-orthodox politicians tend to be more disruptive." During her fierce campaign for a ban/block against me, she is completely unhindered during her efforts to equate those who supported Trump during the election with those who support "fringe theories, extremist groups..." No diffs of course, this is her just saying whatever pops into her head. She also says those who she believes to have supported the President-elect "tend to be more disruptive" with absolutely no diffs. I found the remark offensive and unsubstantiated, and asked her to go ahead and strike it out, which she refused. And yet, she received no sanctions and nobody ran crying to the ANI board to beg an admin to block her. However, if a user refers to 11% of Americans as a "feeble" percentage as I did, that user is blocked for a BLP violation and practically had to beg to even continue to defend himself in his AE appeal. Is that really the kind of website that Wikipedia strives to be? This is what passes for neutrality, here? Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For the review of @EdJohnston:

My 6-month topic ban by @Bishonen was given for “persistent tendentious editing, soapboxing, and WP:BLP violations on Trump- and Clinton-related pages” [82]. What follows is a description of how I have vastly increased my familiarity with each policy, and how I will ensure that these violations do not reoccur (assuming my appeal to have this TBAN lifted is successful).

Regarding tendentious editing of talk pages, I see how some of my wording and advocacy for certain issues to be included in politics-related articles can be characterized as “tendentious.” I was perceived as having an inherent pro-Trump/anti-Clinton bias, not having a neutral point of view, as well as owning a single purpose account. To prevent these accusations from being leveled in the future, I plan to spend more of my time editing other areas that I also care about improving, such as American football and articles related to film studios and their executives. Also, I will be phrasing my talk page edits more carefully and succinctly, so as not to be viewed as soapboxing. Additionally, I think I will have more success with my proposed edits by staying on the topic itself, rather than straying into other subjects.

I acknowledge that while proposing the inclusion of certain topics (mainly information related to WikiLeaks, and the Clinton Foundation-State Department Controversy), my edits also often included long rants about systemic bias on Wikipedia, based on what I consider the tendency of political pages to lean sharply to the left, as well as the pattern of accepting liberal sources as “reliable,” while eschewing conservative-leaning sources. While I admit that my views regarding this issue are unchanged, I will use alternative avenues to express my concern and approaches to address this trend, instead of the talk pages of the articles themselves.

Regarding the BLP violations, I believe these accusations are the result of my a) often not providing diffs to the source material providing supporting evidence and b) using careless and hyperbolic language when describing living persons. Now that I have a better grasp (as evidenced by my recent block [83], and subsequent unblock by @Boing!_said_Zebedee) [84] of what constitutes a BLP violation, I am confident that my days of violating WP:BLP are over. I believe another reason for my 6-month topic ban was for having WP:CIVIL issues with other editors. To prevent this from happening in the future, I plan to adopt a less combative attitude in my edits, take the suggestions of @JFG, @Soham321, and others to heart, and focus on improving articles piecemeal rather than engaging in long diatribes to voice broad frustrations with perceived neutrality issues. If I feel provoked and/or attacked, I now know my options to prevent escalation, and allow administrators to handle disputes rather than attempt to “fight back” and possibly violate WP: BATTLEGROUND in the process. I would again like to point out that my attempts to improve articles are pure and intended to be collaborative in nature. This is evidenced by the violations occurring exclusively on talk pages, while seeking consensus, and not from my implementation of contentious edits outright. Thank you for the consideration. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Some new information has come to light that I believe needs to be considered here, @EdJohnston and @Peacemaker67, regarding @Bishonen's overall attitude towards blocks/bans as well as her relationship with RexxS, who recently claimed to be a "disinterested editor" during his plea for a stiffer punishment for me[85]. This is also a reply to Soham321, when he pointed again[86] to the fact that Bishonen finds American politics "strange" and "incomprehensible"[87], and thus may not be the best administrator to hand down punishments regarding American politics. In any case, I was told that any follow ups to accusations/questions do not count against the 500 word limit?

The banning administrator, Bishonen, appears to have a very cavalier and lax attitude toward blocks and bans. She has said that a user's handle is enough reason along to block that user [88], freely admitted to being "hard as nails" [89], and has joked about blocks, saying "You think I won't block him if he does it again? Ha, we'll see." [90] while reassuring RexxS that his desired block of another user will be enacted, should Bishonen find it suitable. This is after RexxS joked about another administrator being a "patron saint of blockers."[91]. One of the most disturbing and vile edits from Bishonen comes from when she voices her opinion after another administrator rejected a block. Bishonen has an alternate stance on these punishments (vulgarity redacted for the sake of maintaining decorum): "F**k that, just block, you know?" [92].

RexxS, who again, claims to be a "disinterested editor" in fact has an extraordinarily cozy relationship with my banning editor, Bishonen. Bishonen openly showers praise on RexxS, alluding to the "cleverness of young RexxS" [93], and RexxS enjoys helping Bishonen with her administrator duties, and even helping her mull punishments for his fellow Wikipedians [94],[95]. As an aside, the relationship is fostered when RexxS trashes the "poor writing" of another user, boasting that he is grateful that he "didn't attend a stately[sic] funded university" [96] and going on to say that he is a "contemporary" of British royalty [97]. Finally, in an edit that he summarizes as "Just me being mean," he actually encourages Bishonen to be more liberal with punitive actions, charging that she is "too soft" on people with whom he disagrees, who he derides/attacks as "these POV-warriors" [98]. Yesterday, RexxS made an untrue claim against me, opining that I am "acknowledged as a Trump supporter, not a neutral editor" [99], which he bases off another user's opinion that has been placed into the form of a table[100]. I politely requested that he strike the false characterization of my political views (still unknown, and only theorized, by every user on Wikipedia), which he refused [101] and advised me to "stick [my suggestion] elsewhere."[102]. After again asking him to strike the comment, he again argues for leaving it in, and then offers this as less-than-kind parting note: "unless you've led an unbelievably sheltered existence, you'll know that the sticking suggestion could have been a lot worse." [103]. While I believe that this very poor behavior and violations of WP:CIVIL (and likely other areas) require administrator action/enforcement, I am willing to accept an apology in its place, should he decide to strike both comments as well as all of his edits on my AE appeal, as it has been revealed that he should not have been participating in the appeal due to his undisclosed quite comfortable relationship with Bishonen, and the implications of impartiality that go along with that. In the interest of letting bygones be bygones, and avoiding any WP:BATTLEGROUND problems, I am happy to part ways on this note.

With all due respect to @Bishonen, I believe these diffs more than proves that she has been playing a bit "fast and loose" with her administrative powers and perhaps has wielded these powers against me in the same reckless fashion of which she has treated other editors. In addition, her very close relationship to @RexxS poses additional problems, as he has passionately argued for my ban on this page, requested a block against me on the ANI page (can't find the diff at the moment), and gave himself the disingenuous label of "disinterested," when in fact he works closely with Bishonen to enforce rules across the project and salivates at the thought of her issuing bans/blocks, as they trade pet names for each other [104]. Considering all of these factors, @EdJohnston and @Peacemaker67, I would greatly appreciate a second look at my ban, and would kindly and respectfully ask that you please take into account the above diffs regarding Bishonen's handling of her sanctioning powers, and also disregard any comments from RexxS when making your final decision. @JFG and @TParis, I wouldn't try to drag you into this, but your opinions regarding this revelation would also be much appreciated.

P.S. Peacemaker67, you stated that you would like to "see evidence" of me being "capable of editing neutrally and constructively in a less contentious area." I provided several diffs on your talk page demonstrating this, and I think it's only fair that I post them here as that fact seemed to have been factored into your opinion regarding my appeal.[105], [106],[107],[108],[109],[110],[111],[112],[113]

Statement by Bishonen[edit]

I don't think Hidden Tempo's analysis above does justice to my reasons for banning them. But I've already dialogued with them on these matters, so I suggest reviewers read their user talkpage, especially this section and this, and form their own opinion.

Another thing: I've started to think a narrower scope might have worked, such as "topic banned from all pages related to either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, both broadly construed". I hadn't quite realized how narrowly focused this user has been on promoting Trump and attacking Clinton (IMO) ever since they started editing, and on really very little else in American politics. On the other hand, there might be a risk of the disruption simply moving to other political areas. What do people think? Bishonen | talk 10:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Further notes:
  • I don't for my own part accept Hidden Tempo's suggestion that the six-month AP2 topic ban be shortened to 48 hours, which he thinks is enough because his "tiffs" with other editors are in the past. It's sort of the nature of the beast that sanctions are placed because of the past — the recent past, naturally, as in your case, HT, because we don't care about ancient history — and that it's up to the person who behaved badly a day ago or a week ago to convince the admins that they're now a reformed character. I'm sorry to say you haven't convinced me — for one thing, the word "tiffs" doesn't exactly sound like taking previous problems seriously (now please don't run away with the notion that that word choice is my only objection!). Also, how are the disagreements in the past? I haven't seen you reach out in any way to Volunteer Marek or Objective3000 on this page or elsewhere. Quite the opposite. But then, the review here isn't to be carried out by me. If other admins here like the idea of 48 hours, that'll be fine by me. And, hello? I'm still hoping somebody, anybody, will comment on my tentative suggestion, above, that a narrower ban, such as "topic banned from all pages related to either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, both broadly construed", rather than from AP2, might be enough. Uninvolved admins, where are you?
  • @Hidden Tempo: re your recent statement "I think we have all thoroughly addressed all three violations upon which you based your TBAN",[114]. As I've already said above, I don't think your analysis does justice to the basis for my ban. In the ban notice, I stated that "you have been sanctioned for persistent tendentious editing, soapboxing, and WP:BLP violations on Trump- and Clinton-related pages. Compare the warnings on this page and elsewhere." You haven't engaged with that, but have instead repeatedly insisted that I banned you for two specific edits (together comprising the "three violations" of which you speak), namely this edit summary on your own page and this post on Talk:Hillary Clinton. And you're still insisting on it. I did refer to these two edits on your talkpage, in a note immediately above my topic ban notice, though rather mildly with respect to the "filth" edit summary (I said merely that I was "mystified" by it, as Volunteer Marek's post that you were removing seemed civil enough to me), and I gave the Talk:Hillary Clinton post as an example of the way you've been disrupting political talkpages and fomenting strife. You focus on my mention of these two edits to the exclusion of not only of all the other advice and information I've attempted to give you on your page, but of my actual ban notice as well. Taking off from your own definition of a tiny basis for my ban, rather than from what I said was the basis of my ban, you have spent a lot of ink on this page explaining elaborately why there was in your view nothing wrong with either of the two posts you have chosen to comment on. You call on policies from WP:AGF (which you believe I've violated) to WP:SOAP (which you say your Talk:Hillary Clinton post didn't violate) and throw in WP:COI, in a way that makes me seriously doubt you ever read it. I don't understand why you shrink my ban rationale in that myopic manner. Didn't you read my actual ban notice?
I note your call for an IBAN between yourself and Volunteer Marek. I won't support that, simply because of my poor experience of IBANS. From what I've seen they're a recipe for never-ending acrimonious ANI and AE serials. But other uninvolved admins, who may still weigh in here (sigh), might think differently, and institute an IBAN. I don't think that's likely to happen, but of course I won't object if it does.
I won't comment on your view that my calling American politics "strange" shows I have "distaste" for it which in turn "poses a natural WP:COI problem" and therefore I'm not in a position to be placing bans per the ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions. Well, I won't comment beyond recommending you to click on WP:COI and read it. I'll leave it to the uninvolved admins to take stock of your opinion of my unsuitability for adminning in this area, if they ever do show up. PS, hey, User:EdJohnston just turned up! Thank you! Bishonen | talk 16:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC).
  • Final response to Hidden Tempo: I beg your pardon? You post here some 16—17 times, in a fair bid to talk the hind leg off a donkey with some 3,500 words, and then according to you I suddenly rematerialize, to post my second comment ever in the discussion, which you hint has some sort of unbecoming relationship with something on your talkpage, which I have no intention of researching because I don't care? I've had enough of your sneers, sir, and I'm completely done with trying to explain anything whatever to you. And no, I'm not a native speaker. Are you? What does "I attribute my penchant for long responses to the repeated "soapboxing" allegations" mean? Bishonen | talk 20:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC).
  • EdJohnston has asked me on my page if I want to reconsider the topic ban in view of Hidden Tempo's new and improved appeal text. Please see my reply here. (Summary: I'm dithering a bit but basically coming down on the side of "no".) Bishonen | talk 16:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC).

Statement by JFG[edit]

Having edited quite a bit in contentious political pages, I noticed Hidden Tempo sometimes behaving in not-so-civil ways, but aside from getting impatient, I don't see anything illegitimate in HT's contributions. He makes cogent and reasoned arguments about existing contents or noting lack thereof. He appropriately refrains from making controversial edits to articles without discussing them on talk pages; in fact he seems to be criticized here for posting lengthy arguments on talk pages. He discusses systemic bias in some mainstream sources, while proposing other sources for different viewpoints; what's wrong with that? A 6-month ban is absolutely overkill, perhaps a week would help him cool off and study some of our neutrality and civility policies. The suggested i-ban with VM might help keep things civil too, maybe that would be useful for a couple months. Banning this contributor for 6 months could be construed as censorship, and God knows WP doesn't need more accusations of bias one way or the other. My personal advice to HT: rather than ranting about your perceived imbalance of coverage, do make concrete and small proposals to restore balance one edit at a time. WP:There is no deadline. — JFG talk 11:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is a followup to MelanieN's comments and Hidden Tempo's response. Admitting to one's own POV on talk pages should be encouraged in the spirit of full disclosure and WP:COI. I have zero problem working constructively with editors harboring strong personal opinions on both sides of any political issue: such discussions, when conducted in good faith, tend to result in stronger, precise, neutral and more defensible consensus wording. Melanie: you and I have done this a few times during the campaign season, although I suspect we did not agree politically on which candidate would be the best fit for the country at this time. What irks me are editors who keep crying NPOV at every turn while harboring a transparently obvious POV of their own and forcefully denying it; I much prefer to deal with straightforward opinionated people.

Speaking of opinionated editors, I would like to quote EEng's cogent remark in Doc9871's case above: If we only allowed editors free of bias, we'd have no editors at all, literally. — JFG talk 00:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MelanieN[edit]

Disclaimer: I am WP:INVOLVED at the Clinton and Trump pages, so I am commenting here only as a regular editor who is familiar with HT's work. (I am going to refer to HT as "he" because I have seen him identify himself as a "man" or a "guy" in several posts.) Regarding talk pages, HT claims: "I have never voiced support for any political candidate or revealed my own political views." In fact he reveals his political views all the time. His POV against Clinton, against mainstream media, and against Wikipedia is clearly in evidence.

  • Against Clinton: "mountainous scandals" "HRC feverishly resisted releasing the transcripts"[115] Here's a post in which he (without irony) simultaneously attacks Clinton ("dealt a massive blow to her already feeble trustworthiness numbers") and requests others to "keep our own personal politics out of it, as some of the POV I've seen here by viciously (and at times, defamatory) attacking a presidential candidate and his supporters is downright disgusting and has no place on this page".[116]
  • Against media: "Whether or not the San Francisco-based Wikipedia organization regards a liberal newspaper as 'reputable' is of no consequence to me."[117]" At an AfD for the article Mike Cernovich: "Creating articles based on whatever topics that a bunch of radical left blogs and newspapers deem newsworthy sets a dangerous precedent."[118] On his own talk page, he complains that Wikipedia accepts as sources Slate and Huffington Post - "some of the most disgusting, profane, unapologetically openly left-wing websites…run by the most alarmingly radical liberal bloggers "working" today" - while not allowing Breitbart and the Drudge Report.[119] At an article talk page: "this page and countless others are littered with citations from CNN. CNN is owned by Time Warner, Hillary's 7th largest campaign donor. They were also caught feeding debate questions to the Hillary campaign in order to help her cheat, and fired Donna Brazile for it. We count Washington Post as a "RS," despite the fact that they admitted to hiring a special "Trump Unit" composed of 20 reporters whose sole job it was to dig up dirt on Trump. We use CBS as a reputable source, despite the fact that John Harwood was caught colluding with the Hillary campaign, brainstorming questions to ask the Republican candidates in the primary debates. POLITICO is regularly cited, despite the fact that Glenn Thrush, the editor, was caught sending articles to the Hillary campaign for pre-approval before publishing. Something doesn't add up here."[120] (He later denied this was intended to suggest any "conspiracy theories.")
A particular target is the New York Times, "a far-left wing newspaper".[121] "The overwhelming majority of the American media and populace (as well as various sets of data) agree that the NYT is an avowed liberal newspaper, providing a leftist ideological perspective from the front page to the editorial page."[122] "The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican candidate for POTUS since Eisenhower. Sixty years ago. The headlines throughout the campaign have been ludicrous, and at times disgusting."[123] They also mischaracterized a New York Times's letter to subscribers as "apologizing for dishonest coverage of Trump."[124]
  • Against other Wikipedia editors: "This article has obviously been heavily contaminated by editing from Hillary supporters, and possibly paid operatives from the DNC."[125] "There seems to be a handful of activist editors who are sanitizing all pages related to the DNC and the corruption of Hillary Clinton, and it appears something needs to be done to bar these users from editing and violating WP:POV and WP:DUE until their emotions cool down."[126] "As far as fighting the uber-liberal Wikipedia leadership and highly active DNC representatives combing political articles, working diligently to revise history and scrub news that reflects poorly on Democrats from their pages, I have neither the time nor the resources to take on such a monumental task."[127]
  • Against Wikipedia itself: He repeatedly cites the fact that "Wikipedia is based in San Francisco" as the reason why Wikipedia pages have a "liberal" slant.[128] [129] When it was explained to him that it's the WikiMedia Foundation that is based in SF, and that enwiki content comes from worldwide Wikipedia volunteers and not the WMF, he replied "whether or not I can prove that Wikipedia has bought into the Silicon Valley Facebook/Microsoft/Google/Apple, etc. long and storied tradition of devout liberalism is beside the point."[130]

In my opinion his POV is so strong that he is unable to be neutral. In particular his attitude toward Reliable Sources (that a "liberal" source, which in his opinion includes most of the mainstream media, should not be considered reliable) is completely out of line with Wikipedia's definition (reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). Also, his repeated attacks on the good faith and neutrality of other editors (always generic and collective, never individually targeted as far as I have seen) are a problem. For these reasons his Clinton and Trump talk page contributions are, at best, unhelpful. I apologize for the length of this post, but I think quotes and diffs are helpful in this kind of review.

Additional comment: Since I am involved, I did not intend to recommend outcomes here. But I must disagree with the hints from User:RexxS and User:My very best wishes about a possible block. I can't see that HT has done anything to deserve a block. I also disagree with bringing WP:SPA or WP:BLP into the discussion. To my mind the SPA tag describes a person who from day 1 focuses entirely on one article, often with promotional intent. Many of us focus on one general area of interest to us, especially during our first few hundred edits; that does not make us SPAs. And I don't see any BLP violations in his negative comments about Clinton. Negative comments about aspects of a politician's campaign may be POV, but IMO they do not violate BLP.
BTW I wasn't the one who brought up "conspiracy theories". Another editor, User:Objective3000, commented (a few posts after the HT link that I cited), "This page is taking on the tone of a conspiracy site," to which HT replied "Is it? In what way? I did a quick scan of the talk page and haven't found a single conspiracy theory raised, as of yet." And that was the end of that thread.
Well, now I see that User:Boing! said Zebedee disagrees with me about whether the comments were BLP, and did in fact issue a short block. I guess that's why WP:INVOLVED administrators (like me) do not make this kind of decision. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Hidden Tempo RE: As I have gained the confidence of at least two admins (@MelanieN and @Boing! said Zebedee) : Please don't put words in my mouth. Yes, I did say that I didn't regard your comments about Clinton as a BLP violation or blockable. I also said that your attitude toward what constitutes a Reliable Source is completely out of line with Wikipedia's, that your repeated attacks on the good faith and neutrality of other editors are a problem, and that your talk page edits are, at best, unhelpful. And besides, as I keep pointing out, I am not here as an admin. I'd appreciate your striking me from the sentence I just quoted. --MelanieN (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq[edit]

Taking the hint from the sections above, I have moved my comments from the discussion below, without the pings to ensure they don't provide another notification. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hidden Tempo: I'm wondering about this comment at Talk:Hillary Clinton. Would you write that differently if redoing it? Why or why not? Do you think "Frigidaire" should be listed as a nickname at Hillary Clinton? Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hidden Tempo: Yes, I believe you reply there. I don't think we need to discuss this at length but I will register my surprise that someone who so emphatically opposes "Frigidaire" would post that comment. Re inserting "alleged"—that is not relevant for WP:BLP. No page at Wikipedia can be used to insert dubious claims on the basis that "alleged" was used and a partisan source provided. My comment is generic as I have not examined the claims/sources beyond noting the confrontational tone of the overal comment. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hidden Tempo suggests Bishonen's TBAN is not supported by commentators here. That raises the question of whether an appeal at WP:AE is settled by vote of those commenting or by agreement among uninvolved admins. My reading of appeals is that it is the latter (see the #Result of the appeal by Hidden Tempo section below).

    Uninvolved admins will consider comments made by editors but may take into account any background circumstances. For example, SashiRolls is involved with situations such as this where it is claimed that a pro-Clinton website was very inappropriately added to fake news websites. Also, an editor under a WP:AE topic ban may want such TBANs overturned. Soham321's views may be colored by incidents such as this. There is an active request regarding TheTimesAreAChanging above where Bishonen posted an unfavorable assessment two weeks ago.

    Hidden Tempo suggests that My very best wishes is "permitted to post this kind of attack on living persons and other editors". The section at Statement by My very best wishes is very short; it offers an opinion with no attack on living persons (see WP:BLP for what that means) or other editors (see WP:NPA for that).

    Just above I asked about this comment. HT's response above (search for "Frigidaire") is not compatible with the comment which included 'I promise you that you will never see "Frigidaire" on this page longer than the 3 and a half minutes (max) that it takes somebody refreshing their watchlist every second of every day to notice what you've done, and immediately revert it. You have to pick your battles, and this one is like trying to get a stain out of the carpet when the house is burning down.'

    The pugnacious but flawed manner in which HT is promoting their position shows that the topic ban was appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  • @RexxS: You posted in what is now Soham321's section. Re "breach of WP:BLP": do you mean BLP? A BLP violation involves abuse of an identified living person, not a group of unindentified Wikipedia editors. WP:BLPGROUP doesn't cover a claim of disruption by editors IMHO. A case could be made that WP:NPA applies as it mentions "group of contributors". However, people claim editors are "disruptive" all the time. WP:ASPERSIONS applies, and going on and on with such claims could be sanctioned but a one-off assertion scores very low on the scale of personal attacks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

NB: This comment is in part informed by a similar AE request against myself; unlike Hidden Tempo, I committed a revert that might well merit some sanction (it's much too late to self-revert), but—as with Hidden Tempo—the thread rapidly devolved into scouring my userpage and user talk for political opinions or mildly uncivil rejoinders that could be used to caricature me as some sort of POV warrior, which couldn't be further from the truth—and came from one particular critic whose hands were far from clean. In response to MelanieN, I caution against expanding the definition of "conspiracy theory" to include documented facts such as Brazile's collusion with the Clinton campaign, as well as speculation that CNN's coverage might be skewed by the political donations of its parent company. (Is every Marxist media criticism now considered "conspiracy theory," too?) I checked every diff provided by Bishonen and MelanieN, and it seems they neglected to provide even a single example of Hidden Tempo making a non-neutral edit to any article. Despite this, MelanieN is convinced "his POV is so strong that he is unable to be neutral." Perhaps, but a 6 month topic ban should not be handed out lightly or as a preemptive measure. It would be impractical and impossible to ban everyone with a political opinion from editing in American Politics, and yet having an opinion seems to be the crux of the rationale for sanctioning Hidden Tempo. (If you want to go down the rabbit hole of declaring everything—even sourced, attributed claims from Wikileaks—related to the Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy a WP:BLP violation, one might say that accusing Hidden Tempo of "conspiracy theory" violates WP:NPA. Why not focus on article improvement and consensus building rather than the alphabet soup of Wiki-policies?) Furthermore, if we are serious about countering systemic bias it might even be helpful to have a rare voice of dissent from Wikipedia's predominant liberal thesis. (Or do you know of any Trump-supporting admins?) To be fair, it does seem that Hidden Tempo (still a very inexperienced user) has a problem with tl;dr screeds, but the fact that the vast majority (over 60%) of his edits have been relegated to talk pages also begs the question as to how much disruption he could possibly have been causing to merit such a strong punishment. Finally, while I question the wisdom of the topic ban, I recommend that Hidden Tempo voluntarily spend some time learning the ropes on less controversial, heavily-patrolled, and stressful areas of the encyclopedia—for his own good.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I realize that Hidden Tempo was only blocked a short time for calling Hilary's trustworthiness numbers "feeble," but I still think that that example raises serious questions about unequal treatment by admins. By way of comparison, User:Oneshotofwhiskey recently started a massive edit war at the WP:BLP Dinesh D'Souza, in which he replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot and left numerous inflammatory comments such as "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)" and "We are not calling him a pathological liar, delusional, mentally-unstable, or an adulterer though outside of wikipedia it is certainly true." Despite this, Oneshot was not blocked and engaged in friendly exchanges with an admin (Oshwah) in which no block was even threatened. (As Oshwah remarked: "The last thing I want to do is impose any sort of administrative action or sanctions upon anyone who does not fairly deserve them.") I was unable to achieve consensus for topic banning Oneshot from D'Souza at ANI; not one of Oneshot's BLP-violating comments was ever redacted. In fact, Oneshot's behavior was defended by several editors, including Kingsindian ("The editor has apologized and retreated from the mugshot photo ... I don't see any disruption in the discussion, though it has sometimes become heated"), Snow Rise ("In fact, his edit summaries make it clear that he thinks he is following an editorial path that is more neutral than the article status quo"), and SPECIFICO (who lavished praise for Oneshot's "constructive and usually policy-based ... edits and comments" and filed an ANI regarding weeks-old complaints against me two hours after my topic ban proposal gained some support in a move other users considered "retaliatory and unwarranted"). Oneshot was later indeffed for massive sockpuppetry, but the point still stands: It seems we are sending the message that you can say virtually anything about a conservative pundit like D'Souza—and about Bernie Sanders—but the minute you dare to question Hilary's trustworthiness numbers you are blocked. This can only have a chilling effect on the representation of diverse views on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

@Hidden Tempo. You said you previously edited on WP for years [131]. Did you previously receive any blocks, warnings, etc, while editing from other accounts or as an IP? Most people who commented here were misled: they thought you are a new user. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hidden Tempo. It seams that you are threatening a contributor today in this comment, even after shortening your AE statement. You tell: "I would like to give you an opportunity to strike that comment...". And if she/he does not do it, then what? My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed, but kept as something other users referred to
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

First of all, I think Tempo is not a new user. They are way too familiar with bans, policies and who is doing what.

Secondly, Tempo creates a lot of disruption using very small number of edits. If there is a case for preemptive t-ban, this is it. Do not do it, and you will see what happens.

Finally, there are claims about unfair treatment here and elsewhere [132]. Not true. Yes, users who support D. Trump tend to be more disruptive. This is nothing new. Users who support fringe theories, extremist groups and non-orthodox politicians tend to be more disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I think Hidden Tempo is unable to interact constructively with other users including admins. Hidden Tempo immediately starts accusing each contributor who had happen to disagree with him on something. That is what triggered his topic ban, and that is exactly what he continue to do on this noticeboard. Based on their responses, he is going to continue complaining about other users if this appeal is granted [133]. Does he understand the problem? No, he does not. He tells "Not accusing anyone of anything" [134]. How come? Is not that an accusation of people who never interacted with him before? Also note a misleading edit summary ("All opinions are welcome, as long as they're leftist in nature"). But the comment is not about all opinions are welcome. It tells exactly the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SashiRolls[edit]

I believe now I should post a quiet message in the involved editor section. Obviously I'm sort of involved since I was also discussing -- without much luck -- some ideas on the page where all this trouble seems to have started. Sometimes reading, yes, I winced because this or that was sharp, but c'mon seriously... you have to have a thick skin to try to say anything in political space. Or have read Gogol before google.

These inquiries, this inquisitiveness, these show trials don't strike me as helpful types of appeasement. Nobody here is Hitler: we can try to be a peaceful community, no? Malicious BLP violations and sharp invective, such as what I've read on various pages, including in the citations in JFG's statement above, has gone too far. When passions lead people to curse about politicians on WP talk pages or – worse – about other editors, there is fear under the surface. What is this fear? I agree with Eeng, being upfront about one's POV is good. I would never chose a name like Fairness, for example. Zero credibility. ^^

I agree with My very best wishes' observation that the center of the political spectrum has a big advantage over the wings in this wiki-building process because of the "nature" of WP:RS since antiquity. Logically, then, this frustration should be more acutely perceived by those on the wings. Yet it is those in the center of that widening gyre that seem to curse the loudest. So where are we now? Things fell apart, the center didn't hold. It's time to heal quickly and move on.

It's custom to go back into forgotten history and cite Copernicus in the mainstream vs fringe debate – possibly to distance ourselves from all the entanglements that Diderot and d'Alembert – publishing abroad – faced ("Because of its occasional radical contents [...], the Encyclopédie caused much controversy in conservative circles, and on the initiative of the Parlement of Paris, the French government suspended the encyclopedia's privilège in 1759");

but I think it's better to look at more recent history, a time when one wrote for the drawer, as Mandelstam and Bulgakov called it. Not exactly open culture, those times were they? Please, peace: let the prisoner go if he promises to play nice. I really don't think this is any of our business.Всего хорошего, SashiRolls (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I've read the recent comments by Masem, RexxS, Soham321, and Timothyjosephwood. Defending a user against a topic ban is not a waste of time. Especially, as Soham mentions, editors with a clear acuity that may only be manifesting itself on Trump/Clinton pages because of the current level of access accorded to those who do not share the "consensus" view on these figures who are actually somewhat "dissensual". Johnuniq (like Calton) seems to think -- my apologies if I'm wrong -- that I, for example, have an ax to grind against Clinton. This is not true. I would never have edited any Clinton pages had I not read so many "placed stories" during the election about other candidates. (By placed stories I mean stories that were written by those spinning for one candidate or another.) I was, indeed, surprised that a number of issues during the campaign were never treated on the campaign page, or more particularly the Clinton Foundation page, where an RfC still !! has not been closed concerning the Caracol project in Haiti, broadly covered in mainstream sources. Just the mention that there was controversy regarding this story was vehemently blocked (by Scjessey -- mentioned above -- among others), which was astonishing to me given to the sheer volume of reporting that has been done on it (and which I put onto the talk page in an effort to move consensus towards mentioning it). I do believe a slim majority of editors voted in the end for inclusion of that material, but the RfC was never closed, so we couldn't move forward. It's against the rules to cast aspersions, doubt good faith, and so forth. And yet, despite my call on the HRC presidential campaign page, no admin ever went to close out that RfC, not even MelanieN who clearly saw that call.
I don't want to fight POV wars or see POV wars being fought, and yet, there is truth to what has been said here on AE about issues such as "gaslighting", "smear", and tag-team type editing. A type-A, warrior-type mentality is prevalent here on Wikipedia (at least in the spaces at issue). Is this because most editors are men? Maybe, maybe not. (I think it may be, though don't get me wrong, I know from experience that women can often be very powerful and combative POV advocates on fora too) I think it's related to the fact that we are engaged in faceless interaction which does not promote accountability, so someone like Calton can cuss me out in a way he would never dare do IRL, because he would be quickly reminded of social norms of politeness and professionalism. The first line of our article on Fake news websites says: "Fake news websites are websites that publish hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation to increase web traffic through sharing on social media". Reliable sources have spoken of the Clinton outlet Shareblue / Blue Nation Review as "pravda-esque" for making up stories/headlines like "Why does Bernie Sanders keep denigrating Hillary’s supporters?" It is included on at least two fakenewschecker sites, which include sites engaged in what might be called "hard spin".
Neutrality greeted me in the political "arena" by asking me to delete the word "spin" from a talk page back in July (see the top of my talk page), and now I find him using that same word as though it were innocuous: "The article content that has nothing to do with fake news, and furthermore it is difficult to see how any rational observer could see otherwise. Political spin is not "Fake news." Now, I guess I & others are meant to conclude that I'm an irrational observer... that's how such ABF selective spinning (what some have called "gaslighting" I gather) works. When I first read Hidden Tempo on the HRC campaign page, I knew he was someone eloquent who had a clear understanding of what was at work, and that is why I am supporting him here, as I have supported others who have raised these issues (sometimes in "politics", sometimes in other areas). My POV: I don't often agree with the assessments of EdJohnston and Bishonen. I do see they are both very often willing to get called into these matters (to such a degree that I wonder how much time they can have left for building an encyclopedia rather than wearing the enforcement uniform). I bear neither of these administrators any ill will, but think that they might be -- in good faith -- missing something very important. PS: WP:NOTAFORUM is disingenuous. WP is a forum, different from the Athenian forum and different from reddit (or a php bulletin board), but a forum -- under the surface -- all the same, especially here on this project page.SashiRolls (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Having no idea who Calton is (other than from his user page, from our limited interactions on the Haitian-US Relations page (IIRC), and from Bishonen's talk page, where she urged him not to intervene on AE and to calm down [136]), I'm not quite sure what to make of his aggression except to see that he is known for it. I have been transparent through this process (as transparent as the tban allows me to be, since it does prevent me from talking about some aspects of my own alleged POV). I showed transparency in my statement by referring people to my talk page and by mentioning users whose actions I referred to in my statement. This is more than can be said for Calton and User:Sagecandor who have gone behind user's backs.
As a point of fact, Calton is wrong: I did not vote for the candidate he thinks I voted for, nor did I vote for the winning candidate. My actions on Wikipedia have been to counter disinformation and the recycling of what I've called "placed stories" above (a good example is the copyright violation I had to IAR to remove from the page I am temporarily banned from). The administrator involved who decided my case chose to take no action on that matter, though of course it was brought to his attention, as has this matter. Whether Calton would cuss me out in the real world workplace or not is a question worth examining: If he were my boss, I would suck it up and deal with his attitude if I thought the project my employer was working on was an interesting one worth my continued effort and there was potential for the work environment to improve. Were he my co-worker, such outbursts would certainly not serve him well in staff meetings, he would lose far too much credibility and might quickly find himself headed for the minority or the door; and were he to make threats like those in his statement as my subordinate, in the best case scenario he would remain employed if he were regularly correct despite his difficulties with normal social rules. In my limited experience with the user, that is not the case. At worst, he could well end up fired with a restraining order preventing him from returning to the work place.

But Wikipedia is not an ordinary workplace. Nobody gets paid, and -- as Bishonen says -- it has its own gallows on the jobsite. [137] SashiRolls (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee[edit]

I won't add my comments in the Results section, as I have issued and lifted a short block. Because of that I think it's better to leave the consensus to others.

  • As for the block, MelanieN opined that the action was not block-worthy. That's a fair opinion, and for the specific action I think it was marginal. I did what I thought was best at the time for getting Hidden Tempo to understand the problems with personal editorializing and why it is forbidden. I'm not sure how successful that was.
  • Hidden Tempo says he has "gained the confidence of at least one admin (@Boing! said Zebedee) that I am now better equipped to follow BLP policies and play well with others", but that is stretching it a bit. Hidden Tempo said in the block appeal that "I am not able to use any words in my edits that are not also in the source material, even on talk pages, without committing a BLP violation", which is over-literal and does not really show proper understanding, but it was sufficient to convince me that we would not see a repeat of the immediate problem and that it was safe to unblock so that this AE appeal could progress.
  • Part of the problem, I think, is that Hidden Tempo appears to see things in very literal terms. That unblock request was one small example, but I'm seeing a lot more here in this appeal. For example, we see the belief that the TBAN was for two (or whatever small number of) specific edits, when it was in fact for more general behaviour for which some specified edits were offered as examples. Another example of literalism is in Hidden Tempo's claims that, because he has not specifically said who he does or does not support between Trump and Clinton, he should be seen as editing neutrally. Editing with a POV is a far wider issue than just explicitly stating your position on a subject, and it's close to impossible to hide your POV by simply not stating it.
  • I'm also seeing lots of lawyering here on specific examples, without really standing back and considering the whole picture. It's important to consider specifics, certainly, but the discussion of those specifics needs to be done in the context of the whole.
  • On the topic ban itself, I can see merit in Bishonen's suggestion to narrow it to just Trump and Clinton. But I can envisage subsequent lawyering as to what, specifically, is covered by those two subjects. It's 50/50 from me on this one.
  • IBAN with Volunteer Marek? I largely oppose IBAN's, for the same reasons as Bishonen, and would oppose this one. Topic bans are, in my view, significantly more effective and more efficient.

I'm sure there was something else I wanted to add, but I've forgotten what it was. But that's probably enough words for me anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Timothyjosephwood[edit]

Someone step up and decline this appalling waste of time before we spend a few thousand more words on a forgone conclusion. TimothyJosephWood 14:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, there is almost nothing to be gained by repealing the topic ban because the user has made almost no meaningful contributions to the topic area to begin with. They are a net negative and instead of showing that they can productively and collaboratively contribute in other areas, they have come here to spend, what is apparently an overabundance of personal time, on yet more endless debate instead of doing literally anything else.
Spending so much effort on appealing the TBAN shows me nothing beyond the fact that their primary intention on Wikipedia is to engage in a political debates, and not to build an encyclopedia. If they can be reformed, then a TBAN is an opportunity to do so. If they cannot, then they are no loss to the project. What is however a loss to the project, is spending more otherwise productive time from otherwise productive editors on this appeal. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Rouge admin TimothyJosephWood 20:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Soham321[edit]

Johnuniq writes that the background of editors who have offered comments on this AE appeal should be scrutinized. In this connection he mentions me and also SashiRolls. As proof of the fact that my "views are may be colored" (Johnuniq's words), John gives the link to an unsuccessful July 2015 appeal of mine pertaining to a topic ban imposed on me by Bishonen. In this connection I have the following to say:

  • I wonder whether John is guilty of not dropping the stick when he refers to the July 2015 incident to claim that my "views are may be colored". By this yardstick, since John made over 45 edits on Bishonen's user talk page, and Bishonen has made 21 edits on his user talk page, and a scrutiny of these edits reveal that John and Bishonen are on friendly terms, does it imply that John's own "views are may be colored"?
  • There is no T-ban of any sort imposed on me as of now; i am an editor in good standing. I have pointed out elsewhere that in my opinion the reason why the T-ban was imposed on me, and why my appeal against the T-ban was unsuccessful, was because of my unfamiliarity with WP:RULES.
  • The fact that I do not show up on discussions involving every topic ban or block appeal imposed by Bishonen (or any other Admin) shows that I only offer my views in specific "deserving" cases. (I did not comment in the recent discussion involving Peeta Singh in which a T-ban was imposed by Bishonen since I thought it was a deserving T-ban and there were a sufficient number of editors and Admins supporting the T-ban so I thought my comment in this appeal would be unnecessary.) Is it John's contention that because of my past history, I should not in future offer my comments on any block or ban appeals in AE or ANI (even though I am currently an editor in good standing with no T-bans imposed on me) since my "views are may be colored"? If this is the view of the community I will be happy to oblige.
  • The only reason I intervened in discussions involving Hidden Tempo and TheTimesAreAChanging is because I consider both these editors to be intelligent and knowledgeable and I believe it would be WP's loss if they were to stop editing. I have not come across a single edit in article space made by these two editors which violates WP:NPOV. I completely endorse JFG's suggestion that a disclosure of one's POV should be encouraged, not discouraged. See diff1 and diff2. Soham321 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston writes that Hidden Tempo(HT)'s words "There is a veritable army of Hillary supporters and Trump detractors on these pages that have already taken care of that" violate WP:BATTLEGROUND. This, together with Ed's claim that HT criticizes sources that Wikipedia generally trusts as being left-wing, seem to be the reasons for why Ed believes the topic ban was justified. In this connection I have the following to say:

  • The comment was made by HT on his own user talk page during a dialogue with Bishonen who was complaining about his editing and who would go on to impose the topic ban on HT. The message you are sending by holding HT to account for what he said to Bishonen during this dialogue is that one should not enter into any extended dialogue with an Admin communicating with your on your talk page about your editing history since your words in this dialogue can be used against you to justify any Admin action taken against you. And this comment of HT on his own user talk page was made in a specific context; this is the diff to HT's comment And this is a more extended quote from that comment of HT:

    Do I ever make edits that make Hillary look better and Trump look worse? Admittedly, no. But guess what? I don't have to. There is a veritable army of Hillary supporters and Trump detractors on these pages that have already taken care of that. There is literally no potential NPOV edits that could be made on Hillary's bio or campaign page to make her look better, and vice versa for Donald Trump's. The President-elect's page has multiple issues, and has more than earned its neutrality and length templates. Every possible event, statement, and left-wing blog's opinion (yes, some blogs are left-wing, and no that's not a political view) is represented on his page.

  • HT had less than 275 edits to his name at the time the T-ban was imposed on him. He cannot be expected to be familiar with WP:BATTLEGROUND. The fact that HT made the comment not on any article talk page or talk page of another editor but on his own talk page during an extended dialogue with the Admin who would go on to impose the T-Ban on him, means that Ed should be viewing this comment more leniently in my opinion. Soham321 (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Masem, since you apparently believe Hidden Tempo is guilty of WP:BATTLEGROUND, I place for your consideration this post of My very best wishes (MVBW) which I believe violates both WP:AGF when he accuses Hidden Tempo of not being a new editor on the ground that HT is "way too familiar with bans, policies and who is doing what."; and also violates WP:BATTLEGROUND when he writes that "Yes, users who support D. Trump tend to be more disruptive. This is nothing new. Users who support fringe theories, extremist groups and non-orthodox politicians tend to be more disruptive." And this is Hidden Tempo's response to MVBW's comment:diff. Slightly battleground, on account of using the world "disgraceful", but not nearly as violative of WP:RULES as his accuser in my opinion. Soham321 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I am also concerned about a possible WP:BLP violation by My very best wishes when he wrote the following in this AE discussion: "Yes, users who support D. Trump tend to be more disruptive. This is nothing new. Users who support fringe theories, extremist groups and non-orthodox politicians tend to be more disruptive." I'd like to know RexxS's opinion on this in light of his strong defense of WP:BLP in this AE discussion. Soham321 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In her latest comment, Bishonen gives a diff to a comment on her talk page giving details as to why she thinks the 6 month topic ban on TP is appropriate. Bishonen's comments reveal an extraordinarily naive understanding of American politics. Consider Bishonen's words (from her talk page diff):

But it doesn't sit altogether well with me that he speaks of being "perceived" as having an inherent pro-Trump/anti-Clinton bias, and proposes to take measures "to prevent these accusations from being leveled in the future...after HT submitted the short version, he's still, after all that has gone down, standing by his claim that he is a "neutral editor"...Hidden Tempo's claims that, because he has not specifically said who he does or does not support between Trump and Clinton, he should be seen as editing neutrally.

  • Every knowledgeable editor editing an article pertaining to US politics will have a POV (to put it in a sophisticated way), or a bias (to put it more crudely). It is impossible not to have a POV in US politics if one is knowledgeable about US politics.
  • Neutrality is something separate from having a POV. One can make neutral edits while having a POV.
  • An editor need not be pro-Trump or anti-Trump, or pro-Clinton or anti-Clinton as Bishonen seems to see it. An editor may agree with Clinton on the issue of medical insurance, while agreeing with Trump on the issue of the need to retain jobs in the US. Likewise an editor may agree with Clinton on many issues, and with Trump on many issues; and also disagree with both Clinton and Trump on many issues. My point is that this is not a black-and-white thing as Bishonen seems to see it.
  • Earlier Bishonen had written that she finds American politics "strange" and "incomprehensible": diff
  • Peacemaker67 who is also endorsing the 6 month topic ban does not give any specific reason for why he thinks this ban is appropriate other than the fact that he has read Bishonen's reasoning for the topic ban. Earlier, Peacemaker had revealed his own naive understanding of US politics when he wrote that "American politics in general is something that is just unfathomable to me"
  • I am concerned that Admins who admit they have a naive understanding of US politics are evaluating AE discussions having underlying content disputes pertaining to US politics. I think this is a fit case for ArbCom to consider: whether an Admin who openly admits to being naive about US politics is competent enough to evaluate any AE case with underlying content disputes pertaining to US politics. Soham321 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Lizzius, I never asked for any ban or block on the person I complained about in ANI (which was after they refused to retract the unnecessarily inflammatory comments they made in this case after being requested to do so) . The fact that they promptly retracted their inflammatory comments in this AE discussion (by hatting it themselves) after I filed the ANI case shows that they took my complaint seriously. Soham321 (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Calton[edit]

There seem to be a lot of political editors who are looking at this AE as a chance to ride their particular hobbyhorses or try to "work the refs"in their own AE cases.

Like SashiRolls (talk · contribs), for instance, whose pinging within their above grievance-fest brings me here. They've received their own topic ban from the Jill Stein article for their inability to keep their crusading under control. (The talk pages for August and September for Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka are particularly instructive: for the latter, do a search for "smear"to get some flavor of SashiRolls's crusade, and this comment illuminates both their obvious bias and their battleground mentality). The final straw was their edit-warring attempt to unilaterally override a discretionary sanctions zero-revert RFC, proclaiming other editors were conducting "an offensive against [Jill Stein]".

SashiRolls's claims of neutrality can be judged by looking at their actual behavior, like their attempt at guilt-by-association they try to rationalize above (the bogosity of the actual content, I'll probably be dealing with at the Talk:Fake news website soon). Their sense of victimhood can be gleaned by their willful and self-serving misreading of my comment as "cuss[ing] them out": click the link and see for yourself. And if I had wanted to "cuss out" SashiRolls, I would have done so, and I would certainly not have the slightest hesitation in doing so in person, whatever their clumsy attempt at baiting tries to imply.

In short, SashiRoll's comments should be given short shrift and -- given the way things are going -- SashiRolls might be making their own re-appearance here soon enough. Which, of course, will be part of the concerted efforts of the Bad People to censor SashiRolls. --Calton | Talk 15:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Having no idea who Calton is... And yet you pinged me here. Don't you recall? And as much as I respect her, a) I don't work for User:Bishonen; and b) User:Maslowsneeds topic ban violations were AFTER Bishonen's warnings.

As a point of fact, Calton is wrong: I did not vote for the candidate he thinks I voted for, nor did I vote for the winning candidate. More reading comprehension/mind-reading failure from SashiRolls: I have said not a word nor made even a suggestion of "who [you] voted for", so it's kind of hard to be wrong about something I've never said. What I have done is point to your topic ban on Jill Stein and the battleground behavior which prompted it, which contradict your unconvincing (and continuing) claims of neutrality. That continuing behavior -- as well as the (probably) willful/(possibly) bungled misreading of basic texts as you just illustrated will (in my opinion) inevitably lead you back here, no matter what seem to be your efforts to "work the refs" in advance. --Calton | Talk 04:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS[edit]

I am an uninvolved editor, a British citizen living in the UK, with no experience of, or interest in, the field of US politics.

I've just had the unpleasant experience of being harangued on my talk page by Hidden Tempo. [138]

He makes a point of referring to how the facts make Trump and Clinton look in his post. I believe that is a breach of his topic ban. I'm afraid that his investment in arguing his case here has made him forget that one of the purposes of his topic ban was to prevent him from spreading his fixation across the encyclopedia and to give disinterested editors such as myself a break from it. It appears that the sanctions applied so far are not having the desired effect, so I request that some escalation is considered to drive the point home to him. If his present conduct is representative of what we can expect his behaviour to be should his topic ban be relaxed, I can't see any alternative to extending it beyond six months to prevent further disruption. --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: (moved from his section)
If you ask me directly, I certainly wouldn't say that users who support Trump are more disruptive. Although if you take a look at User:James J. Lambden/sandbox, he does seem to have assembled quite a bit of evidence to support the assertion that Trump supporters are more disruptive by a factor of more than 3 to 1. As an aside, he seems to indicate in that table that Hidden tempo is acknowledged as a Trump supporter, not a neutral editor as he's been claiming. Nevertheless, the table may be contentious in that we don't know how comprehensive James Lambden's survey is, so my opinion is that saying "users who support D. Trump tend to be more disruptive" is a breach of WP:NPA. If you find an example of MVBW repeating it several times after having it pointed out to him – as Hidden tempo did in his BLP violation – then I'll support a similar action. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Hidden Tempo[edit]

I am sympathetic towards the points raised by Hidden Tempo with one exception. I find edit summaries on his talk page like "Removed slanderous personal attacks and out-of-context POV remarks.", "Deleted repeated harassment and false accusations from User: Volunteer Marek", and "Removed more filth from the well-known tendentious editor "Volunteer Marek." to be unnecessarily inflammatory and overly aggressive. Two wrongs don't make one right. Even if he believes the other party is being unreasonable, the WP best practice is to continue adopting restraint when it comes to any kind of content dispute. I am willing to be lenient because this is a relatively new editor who is probably unfamiliar with the rules of WP editing. I would recommend to Hidden Tempo to start reading the material in WP:RULES Soham321 (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN gives a lot of diffs which she argues reveal HT's strong POV, but none of these diffs seem to refer to edits in article space. Does this mean that HT's edits in article space are neutral? Everyone has a strong POV when it comes to individuals like Trump or Clinton. When HT slams the NY Times, he is not making a fringe argument; he is making an argument which the President Elect has made. Finally, i have not scrutinized Melanie's edits in detail for her POV but in the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page, she has made exactly one edit and this consisted of undermining the credibility of a person who was supporting Trump: diff Soham321 (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Looking at Hidden Tempo's contributions and his comments on this page, he gives the impression of being interested only in US Politics (over 90% of his contributions), and with a strong bias toward toward Trump and against Clinton. I can find no edit where he has found criticism of the former and none where he has anything positive to say about the latter. That in itself would not be so bad, as there are likely other editors with diametrically opposite viewpoints, but his inability to understand how sources are used on Wikipedia – "Is Fox News not a reliable source?" with no clue about the fact that context determines reliability – or to listen to the advice given, tells me that the encyclopedia would be better off without his presence in the field of US politics for a while longer. In a similar way to the WP:Standard offer, I'd want to see evidence that he has learned how to contribute positively in other areas before letting him back into a controversial area. And before he turns to ad hominem attacks on my opinion, as he has to Bishonen - whose English is perfect, by the way - I live in the UK and view US Politics as an dispassionate outsider. English is indeed my first language. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Having seen Hidden Tempo's recent post, I'm now completely convinced he shouldn't be editing US politics, and arguably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. Does he not realise that wikilawyering that "not a single political view was stated by myself" in the face of the obvious bias in his contributions simply insults our intelligence? If he were simply voicing his thoughts about the state of American journalism, we could just direct him to WP:NOTFORUM, but he has regularly labelled reliable sources as "left wing" in a systematic attempt to discredit them as sources. There is no acceptance on his part of the fact that mainstream newspapers which have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy meet our requirements for reliable sourcing. Similarly, repeating in this very thread a BLP violation like Hillary's trustworthiness poll numbers that I referred to as "feeble" and thinking that including the word "alleged" is a get-out-of-jail card for other violations is indicative of a contempt for other editors' ability to see past words and scrutinise actions. Finally, repeating the calumny of politicians paying people to scrub/protect their Wikipedia pages in this context without a shred of evidence to support the allegation is really a step too far. I see no likelihood that he recognises the legitimate concerns that Bishonen expressed prior to imposing the topic ban. --RexxS (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
      • @Hidden Tempo: do you really think that more wikilawyering about definitions of "politics" is going to strengthen your case? It isn't. Your edits convey a political view and a clear bias. No amount of denial is going to alter that fact, especially when other editors can simply look through your contributions and the history of your talk page and see for themselves. Your edit summaries are particularly enlightening. Your edits don't just appear to favour Trump and denigrate Clinton, they actually do just that, against a background of you claiming that you're "neutral". Who do you think you're kidding? You take "great exception" to my statement that you committed a BLP violation? Really? You'd better read our WP:BLP policy, with particular reference to its scope, which includes talk pages and pages such as this, and pay particular attention to this: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." I take it you understand what "contentious" means? If you think that you repeatedly calling a person's trustworthiness poll numbers feeble isn't a BLP violation, then I'll see you at ANI where I'll be asking for a block for you to prevent further disruption. Remove it or suffer the consequences. Next, your extremely reliable source, Time magazine, discusses paid editing in 2015 and before, but says nothing about editors being paid to edit in the arena of 2016 US politics that you chose to work in. When you bring up that accusation during your disputes there, we can all see that you are attempting to tar your opponents with the "paid editor" brush, despite not having a shred of evidence (as I accurately pointed out first time) that any of them are receiving payment. Your faux indignation at being caught out using such disreputable tactics merely serves to highlight your continued poor behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
        • @Hidden Tempo: Your source NBC News never once mentions the word "feeble". That's your choice of adjective and is not "allegedly" contentious, it is contentious. If you can't or won't understand after being told so many times that it's a BLP violation on a talk page and on this very page, then you've no business editing Wikipedia. I've seen far too many civil POV-pushers to be impressed by niceties, so don't plead that one. --RexxS (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@RexxS: I have trouble following your reasoning. Apparently HT was paraphrasing a reliable source mentioning 11% support for the candidate's perceived trustworthiness. Quote: Just 16 percent of voters say that Trump is honest and trustworthy, but only 11 percent believe the same about Clinton. Calling that a "feeble" score is now an insult? What if he used "low", "weak", "very low", "historically low", "unprecedented"? He didn't use "pathetic", "ridiculous", "abysmal", "daunting" or "miserable". "Feeble" is quite a feeble term; how low shall we set the bar on acceptable vocabulary now? And 6 months is not a feeble ban! — JFG talk 18:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLP is a "bright-line" policy. There's no gradation like "slightly contentious"; a term is either contentious or it isn't. In this case it is. Again, this is clear wikilawyering, attempting to push the boundaries of what is acceptable comment on another living person. The bar is set at zero: we allow no contentious terms at all. Hidden Tempo has made a habit out of creating his own negative descriptions of a BLP subject without a single source to justify the choice. Now it needs to stop. If you also don't understand how our BLP policy works, then I suggest you refrain from commenting on it. --RexxS (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Un faible taux de participation = a low participation rate. faible = low, weak, etc. Wow! SashiRolls (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@RexxS: I understand BLP rather well, thank you very much. And I maintain that this particular case is in no way a BLP violation. First, "feeble" is not an insult, it's not even derogatory. Second, this adjective was not qualifying Ms. Clinton but her trustworthiness score in some reliably-sourced poll. An 11% score of anything can be called "feeble", "weak", "low" without passing judgment; this is just a statement of fact. Were this score 89%, it could be called "strong", "high", "commanding". Were this score 45% it could be called "average", "passable", "unimpressive". Were this score 23% it could be called "weak", "mediocre", "disappointing". And no matter how HT qualified the given score, that was not derogatory towards Ms. Clinton. As you said, BLP is a bright-line policy, and this edit does not touch the line because it does not touch the person. That HT needs to stop editorializing and casting aspersions on fellow editors, I wholeheartedly agree, and I have given him relevant advice in my statements above. That he should be t-banned for 6 months is utterly disproportionate.
Shall we examine the jurisprudence? In a recent case, Scjessey was censored for calling Mr. Sanders a "dick" on a talk page. That's both a clearly insulting word and unambiguously addressed at a notable living person, so the BLP violation is patent. Nevertheless, the offending editor wrote in his defense: The phrase "being a dick" is not a BLPVIO. Was he t-banned? No. Was he even admonished? Slightly. Was there further action and drama? No. His edit was erased and the world moved on. (Funnily this happened as Scjessey was replying to an argument by Hidden Tempo. Then, unable to call Sanders a dick any longer, Scjessey called him a "petulant, power-crazy candidate who fanned the flames of hate against Clinton and depressed her vote". Wow, BLPVIO much?) So let's discuss Hidden Tempo's problematic behaviour here, but let's not judge him by a much stricter standard than more experienced editors or apply drastic sanctions indiscriminately; lest we be accused of biting the noobs. — JFG talk 23:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
If I may, as a semi-involved editor, the first definition of "feeble" is: "lacking physical strength, especially as a result of age or illness." This has been a long-running claimed characteristic of HRC by DJT and has an added meaning here. As far as the non-action against Scjessey, perhaps that wasn't handled correctly. It's not relevant. Objective3000 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I am in no way advocating sanctions against Scjessey: he was probably feeling frustrated and clumsily let this show in a heated talk page debate. That's all fine and dandy by my book: tell the involved parties to keep cool, hat the discussion, revdel the truly offending comments if any, and move on. I actually became aware of this incident because I defended Scjessey's edit by calling TPO and NOTCENSORED on somebody who had erased his "being a dick" comment. — JFG talk 02:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
"Stop talking about dog whistles. The kabbalistic similarities between 'dog-whistling' and 'wolf-crying' are too obvious to ignore." It is relevant that Hidden Tempo has been held to a higher standard than virtually any other editor in American Politics. Above, I provide a similar example where an editor calling a conservative pundit "a pathological liar, delusional, mentally-unstable, [and] an adulterer" passed without incident, and was not even redacted. Hilary shouldn't be the sacred cow! (Disclaimer: No hidden meaning intended.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW, here are some examples of "feeble" being used in a sentence, from Merriam-Webster:
  • She's still feeble from her long illness.
  • We heard a feeble cry for help.
  • Business is suffering because of the feeble economy.
  • He made a feeble attempt to explain his behavior.
  • He offered a feeble excuse for his behavior.
  • "Dislike" is too feeble a word for how she feels about him.
Only the first (and maybe the second) sentence uses "feeble" to literally refer to a person's physical stamina. To suggest that "feeble" has no other common uses is silly. Why not try assuming good faith? (Also, Hilary did collapse at that 9/11 memorial, and it probably wasn't—as the Wash Post alleged—because Putin had her poisoned. Am I getting blocked for that?)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's misleading. WaPo did not allege anything of the sort. A sports columnist reported that someone else made this allegation in the Sports Section. And yes, HRC did have a collapse -- which is why the use of the word is relevant, particularly in the context of the history of Hidden Tempo's numerous edits disparaging HRC. Objective3000 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


  • User Hidden Tempo made only 275 edits in the project so far. Most of their recent edits were made in a highly contested political area under discretionary sanctions. Many of these edits, including ones in article space are arguably POV-pushing. I do not think anyone should even consider appeals by such users on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear My very best wishes, every editor is free to edit in only their preferred domain without being accused of WP:SPA. Every editor is free to admitting their own POV and discussing systemic bias honestly on Talk pages without being accused of POV-pushing. You have been accused of such in the past but you should not deserve a lengthy ban for that. As long as an editor knows to distinguish his personal opinion from what is acceptable to write in Wikipedia's voice, they are a valued contributor. — JFG talk 01:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, no. An editor who only edits in one "preferred domain" is by definition a single-purpose account – with all the concerns that raises – and should not be surprised if that's pointed out to them. Your other point, that editors who know how to distinguish their personal opinions from their contributions to articles are valued contributors, is likely true. Unfortunately, Hidden Tempo has shown no such self-awareness in a contentious area subject to discretionary sanctions, which has inevitably led to his current topic ban. --RexxS (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
RexxS, HT has so far made less than 300 edits on WP. Why should it be so strange that he has not edited in diverse areas of WP? Many if not most editors on WP would be branded as SPA accounts if only the first 300 edits of an editor are used to call him or her an SPA. This is now coming across as WP:BITE to me. Soham321 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Now, you're really insulting my intelligence. In my first 300 edits, I edited dozens of articles on different topics and even created a new article. If you make all 300 of your first edits in one narrow area, of course you're a SPA. If you have any evidence of me BITEing new users, let's hear it. Your transparent attempts to smear me is a familiar tactic to discredit those you disagree with. I'll treat your baseless accusation with with the contempt it deserves. --RexxS (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
RexxS, i went and examined your first 500 edits on WP. With respect to your edits in article space, they seem to have a narrow focus on anything related to diving. This apples even to the algorithm whose WP page your edited. Soham321 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That's odd, because I think they have a very broad focus on everything to do with diving from Ambient pressure to Zippers on drysuits. But then there's Saint Patrick's, Newry, Little Rock Central High School, Harold Abrahams, Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, Noble gas, Oxygen, Neena Gill, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop, Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, Formation of the Napoleonic Empire, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 5, Midland Examining Group, Germanium, Reactive oxygen species, as well as loads of talk pages. I'm not seeing your point. --RexxS (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The WP articles on Noble gas and Oxygen refer to diving in the article content. You did make a few edits to some non-diving articles (usually 1-2 minor or non-lengthy edits in any such articles), but the vast majority of your first 500 edits in article space--including all your major/lengthy edits-- were in articles having anything to do with diving. Soham321 (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Did you, me or RexxS receive a topic ban after making our first 250 edits and did we complain about this on WP:AE? No. So, please stop wikilawyering. My very best wishes (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    • This is someone who made very few content edits, but already managed to receive a topic ban, and for a very good reason (there was nothing "out of process" here). What she/he suppose to do? Edit quietly something that does not cause anyone's objections in another subject area, gain a lot more experience and politely ask later to remove the t-ban, after proving that they can constructively contribute. But what they actually do? They brought an unsubstantiated complaint here, which creates even more disruption. Do they create disruption on purpose? I do not know, but they soon can be indeffed. My very best wishes (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I only comment here as many of the same issues around this situation mirror what I experienced in the Gamergate situation, in that I was many times accused of having a pro-GG POV for trying to write a more neutral article which required going against the strong opinions published by sources, as well as writing lengthy points in talk page discussions to try to explain this. In contrast, I carefully avoided anything close to personal attacks despite numerous editors personalizing the situations at me; whereas HT does seem to engage in personalizing the issues. There is one piece of advice I can give and that is to back off from the topic area and edit elsewhere, if only to calm down and let the situation simmer down.
  • However, to points raised by EdJohnson below, I see some problem commentary. As determined by Pew research (and more details here [139]), the bulk of sources we do deem as RSes are considered left-leaning - or more to the fact, we generally have purposely decided that right-leaning sources doesn't qualify as RSes because of sensational reporting. HT's statement about our trusted RSes broadly being left-leaning is not false. And with more and more sources adopting new journalism-types of reporting, where facts and opinions are intermingled, it becomes more and more a problem. Couple that with our generally acceptance of RSes primarily from the left, and we quickly can become an echo chamber for a popular press view. I do not edit anything in American politics, but in monitoring boards like RS/N and BLP/N, there clearly is a tendency for editors to take controversial claims about right-leaning persons or groups made in our body of RSes (which are broadly left leaning per above) and state these as fact; this moreso happened over the last election cycle. We as editors have to be more aware of that, and while HT's approach may not be the best way, HT and others should have every right to discuss potential systematic political-scale bias of this nature on talk pages with other editors without being called out as a POV warrior. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • One problem with that analysis is that the US-centric Pew Research Center produces a ranked list of 33 news sources, then labels 26 of them "left-leaning" and 7 of them "right-leaning". Of course, outside of the USA, most editors would not agree with that categorisation, and you'd have a problem trying to convince mainstream UK editors that the BBC ranks so far to the "left". In fact it's in a group at the median of the rankings. The next problem is that a WP:RS's reliability depends on context. There is nothing inherently "reliable" about the New York Times, CBS News, or Breitbart. It must depend on context. They may have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but I hope that nobody is going to use them as a RS for whether taking folinic acid improves the symptoms of autism spectrum disorders.
    • So if you start from the premise that four times as many sources are "left-leaning" than "right-leaning", it's easy to conclude that we have a preponderance of "left-leaning reliable sources" and that it must create a problem. But that doesn't follow – if we conform to our sourcing guideline WP:DUE, we must "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Hidden Tempo's attempts to correct what you see as "our trusted RSes broadly being left-leaning" is a breach of WEIGHT and he is rightly taken to task for it.
    • Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, like an editor thinking that the press doesn't support his political view. Hidden Tempo has not demonstrated the ability to drop that stick, and – coupled with the way he treats those editors he see as his ideological opponents – there are no grounds for allowing him back into the contentious area where his problems arose. He needs to demonstrate his ability to work collaboratively and temperately before that can happen. --RexxS (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
      • There's a whole separate policy discussion that needs to happen regarding this new political systematic bias (moreso because we have purposely opted to not treat many right-leaning works as reliable due to sensational journalism) that is inappropriate to have here. A key issue is to remember that it's not just the political leanings of sources, but that they have more and more engaged in new journalism, which makes them less neutral as they write stories now around a viewpoint and treat that viewpoint as fact; UNDUE/NPOV does not readily account for this. Without getting into that, I see HT's situation as butting up against editors who are able to stand firmly on the UNDUE position because that's how we've worked in the past, but we need to change that to avoid following the non-neutrality that media sources are more often adopting. But again, how we do that is a completely separate issue for elsewhere. I don't think HT's approach is always the right away to address their concerns on the affected articles (BATTLEGROUND comments seem to be appropriate from reviewing contributions), but the points they have raised on sourcing bias are extremely valid points to discuss on talk pages of controversial topics to make sure we're not repeating opinion as fact, or if we are ignoring facts that don't fit the popular opinion. If HT's actions are going to be reviewed for block or ban purposes, it should not be because they have offered arguments about sourcing and media bias in political topics. Other behavior is of concern though. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
        • I would not disagree that there's a debate to be had about the impact of new journalism on UNDUE, and I wouldn't object to hearing Hidden Tempo's views on that in the appropriate place. But he can't challenge what is current established policy by fighting against it in individual articles and their talk pages, especially where they are subject to discretionary sanctions. That quickly becomes disruptive and leads inevitably to friction with other editors who have opposite political views as well as uninvolved editors who try to enforce our sourcing policies as they stand. I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that HT's posts in the controversial area are inextricably linked with his other behavioural concerns. He needs a break from that. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
          • HT doesn't appear to be affecting too much mainspace content, and staying with the 1RR of the DS (not even toeing that line from the last 100 contributions); the complaints here appear to be about two issues: volumes of talk page content that are seemingly from a contrary POV, and battleground behavior. The latter is a problem, but the former, having been accused of the same during the GG ArbCom case, is not something that should be a blockable offense, as it was determined for myself. I do offer the same advice I was given then - just to back off and be more economical with words when one is that tenacious, or even just to step away for a brief period, but using talk pages to discuss article topic issues, even if wearing their POV on their sleeve, is exactly why we have talk pages, and absolutely should not be a block or bannable offense. I do agree that the POV aspects are tied to HT's battleground nature, but let's focus on what is clearly problems, which is the personalizing issues w/ battleground mentality. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
          • @Soham321: If there is (at least) one editor being accused of BATTLEGROUND, there is often at least another editor or more that also should have behavior evaluated under BATTLEGROUND too - it takes two to tango for all purposes. There are times it is a single editor clearly at fault, but my skims of relevant talk pages involving this case show overall behavior that is trending towards BATTLEGROUND, though have not spent any significant time to narrow down exactly which editors are problematic. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Masem. I do not think my comment was inappropriate, I as tried to explain to Soham321 here, however if you or any other admin thinks it was indeed inappropriate, I can strike it through or remove - no problem. I only wanted to help. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't make any specific accusation towards a specific editor other than HT here, only that when skimming the affected talk pages, there is a sustained BATTLEGROUND atmosphere. A more in-depth review of all actors at play would need to be done to point any more fingers. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I experience the kind of stonewalling that Hidden Tempo does anytime I try to edit an article in the broad range of politics. Editors will stretch reliability to publish slander about Conservatives while arguing reliable sourcing and undue weight on Liberal topics. Hidden Tempo hasn't handled it well, but this project is rife with, as RexxS has said, those of a diametrically opposite viewpoint. Are right-leaning editors more disruptive? I'd say perhaps on the surface. The other 'side' has, from my own experience, appeared to be more organized and better at using civil POV pushing to get under the skin of right-leaning editors. It's a tried and true tactic. I've had editors argue that my sources weren't reliable before I'd even posted them. I've had editors argue that my sources were invalid (paraphrasing) "duh, because faux news lies". I've seen editors push vigorously to label BLPs or Orgs as "Conservative" but then resist labeling like article of the left. I've seen Media Matters for America opinion pieces used for sources where Fox News was opposed. There is more going on here than simple name calling - and I've never seen someone sanctioned for calling an editor's remarks "filth". We have long standing editors on here who have done much worse. I, myself, said "ass" earlier today - where is my sanction?--v/r - TP 21:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think any of this seemingly broad-based characterization of editors that you may think are left-leaning relates to Hidden Tempo's TBAN. Objective3000 (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You'd be wrong. I am very clearly saying that 'filth' is not sanctionable, and that obvious poor behavior often has a hidden provocation that deserves equal attention in these topics.--v/r - TP 22:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I can confirm what TParis is saying, just at BLP/N and RS/N alone, as well as taking what I experienced at GG in mind as well. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You'd also be wrong to post in the uninvolved editor section of this case, User:Objective3000, it seems to me. Diffs if necessary.SashiRolls (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Apologies if this is correct, although I did identify myself as semi-involved even though I don't think I was involved in any particular incident mentioned. In any case, I'll bow out. You might also be considered involved as you and HT were in at least one heated section at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 Objective3000 (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Soham321: I won't go so far as to call your poor characterization of Bishonen's response deliberate, but I think it is fair to say you missed the point. In fact, I would urge you to re-read the diff Bishonen provided (you will find she actually said the opposite of what you posited in terms of editing with a known bias), but also to revisit the beginning of this uninvolved editors thread, where you posted similar thoughts and received replies in the same spirit. I apologize for adding more to this ocean of words for all to sort out: I was following up on Soham's filing at ANI, which involved another out of context quote and was thankfully treated as seriously as it should have been. As for the remainder of this case, we all edit Wikipedia knowing we are subject to the policies that govern content creation, and it is clear in reviewing the history Bishonen highlighted that Hidden Tempo's editing patterns simply aren't compatible with following those policies in this contentious area. There may be larger issues with the mainstream media and reliable sources as a whole, and TParis's concerns certainly lie adjacent to that broader issue. However, so long as we are a network of collaborators held together by common policy, excusing bad behavior in not the way to get the change we think we need. Lizzius (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Hidden Tempo[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Please note that I have issued a short block for User:Hidden Tempo for continuing the BLP violations here in this AE appeal (in the form of repeating the use of derogatory adjectives which are not used by any supporting sources, and trying to justify that use even when personal editorializing is clearly forbidden by BLP policy). So I would ask that any consideration for closing this be delayed until either the block expires or Hidden Tempo agrees to stop repeating the BLP violations. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
To update, after discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page in which the problem seems to have been understood, I have unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would decline the appeal of the topic ban. have reviewed the ban per User:Bishonen's recommendation above:

    But I've already dialogued with them on these matters, so I suggest reviewers read their user talkpage, especially this section and this, and form their own opinion.

Based on my reading of the talk page, and noting how Hidden Tempo criticizes sources that Wikipedia generally trusts as being left-wing, I agree with User:Bishonen's six month topic ban of this editor from American politics post-1932. I don't see any reason it should be lifted or narrowed. We do tend to parse the language that editors use on talk pages to figure out if they are capable of editing neutrally, or if they view the article as a battle zone. This remark by Hidden Tempo doesn't put him in a good light: "There is a veritable army of Hillary supporters and Trump detractors on these pages that have already taken care of that." The word 'army' disagrees with the advice here: "In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions". Letting Hidden Tempo continue to participate on these articles is a recipe for ongoing warfare. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • So far I'm the only admin to offer an opinion in this section on granting the ban appeal. If it turns out that I am the closer, I want to make the offer to User:Hidden Tempo that I'll reconsider if he is willing to revise his 4200-word statement so that it fits within the 500-word limit. Otherwise my intention is to deny the appeal. It's my hope that if he undertakes a shorter version, he might come up with better arguments that are more aligned with Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • At my request Hidden Tempo prepared a new version of his statement to meet the 500-word limit (see #Statement by Hidden Tempo). I think this is an improvement and I hope the people who have commented on this appeal will take a look to see if they want to revise their opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Bishonen's reasoning is sound, and this is a proportionate and appropriate sanction to control someone who is not, I think, terribly accepting of dissent. Given the contentious nature of the recent election, and the ongoing dramas about the President-Elect, I think that anybody who engages in tribal infighting in US politics articles is likely to end up in the same boat. Wikipedia is unlikely ever to become a post-factual encyclopaedia, a political blog, or a platform for extreme partisans. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Having looked at Bishonen's reasoning, and HT's shorter version (thanks EdJohnston), I am convinced that the TBAN is appropriate and proportionate. If HT is capable of editing neutrally and constructively in a less contentious area, I say let's see evidence of that. Six months is long enough to determine if HT is able step back from battleground behaviour and be a net positive for WP. I was a little tempted to support the narrowing of the TBAN as Bishonen suggested, but such things can provide too many temptations to wikilawyer around the edges and just create more drama. I also have little time for IBANs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Closing. The appeal is declined. Three admins have commented in this Result section on whether to grant the appeal: User:JzG, User:Peacemaker67 and myself. None of us favors lifting the topic ban. Thanks to Hidden Tempo for coming up with a shorter and more persuasive version of their appeal. User:Bishonen did not say when the ban could be appealed again, but I suggest three months from now. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)