Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive181

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

I'm appealing the first part of the sanction on the grounds that I have not edited this article for at least 5 years,, nor was a single diff presented in the original WP:AE request demonstrating any problematic conduct on this topic.

I'm appealing the second part of the sanction on the grounds I edit-warred to remove negative, contentious WP:BLP content. As everyone knows, it takes at least two to edit war. Indeed, numerous editors had also edit-warred on this article yet, many of whom edit-warred to include contentious WP:BLP material, yet I was the only one sanctioned.

• Akhilleus
• ArtifexMayhem
• Capitalismojo
• DHeyward
• Gnncmac
• Joel B. Lewis
• JzG
• Mann jess
• Nomoskedasticity
• Peter Gulutzan
• PeterTheFourth
• Stephan Schulz
• Tillman
• Ubikwit

My "crime" was to remove negative, contentious WP:BLP content, not the other way around. Wikipedia policies and guidelines provide exemptions for those who remove contentious BLP content. There are no exemptions as far as I know for those who edit-war to include contentious BLP content into articles. Further, I'd also like to state that I'm not even a BLP Nazi. But when we start sanctioning editors for removing contentious BLP content while looking the other way at editors who edit-war the same content into an article, something is seriously wrong with the project.

@Zero0000: I interpreted the the topic ban to be on the topic in general, not the article specifically. But since I rarely, if ever, edit anything related to the article or the topic, I think the distinction is mute. There was no evidence presented in the original WP:AE request which demonstrated any problematic conduct on the article in specific or the topic in general. The actual dispute centered upon the issue about whether it was acceptable to edit-war contentious negative WP:BLP information into an article. I believe that the community supports my position that edit-warring contentious negative content into a BLP is not acceptable conduct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I'm not going to make any apologies for defending WP:BLP. If you can point to any specific problematic behavior, I'm more than willing to re-examine my conduct, and improve upon it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: If an editor raises a good faith concern regarding a WP:BLP violation, under no circumstance should editors edit-war to include WP:BLP violations back into the article. Discussion should continue on the article talk page, WP:BLPN or some other appropriate venue. I am not aware of any policy, guideline or even an essay which advocates edit-warring contentious BLP content into articles. EdJohnston, I think you're one of the more level headed AE admins, and I will continue to support you regardless of the outcome of my appeal, but what I am saying is that edit-warring to include contentious negative content on a BLP is not acceptable behavior. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: I am (or at least was) a frequent patroller of WP:BLPN so I understand WP:BLP perfectly well. Even now, there's a glaring BLP violation in the very first sentence of Anthony Watts (blogger). Per WP:LABEL, we are not allowed to use value-laden labels such as denier unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Further, WP:BLP requires that the burden of proof lies on those restoring the BLP violations, not the ones removing the BLP violations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zero: This has nothing to do with climate change. The issue here is whether it is acceptable to edit-war WP:BLP violations into an article (or whether it is acceptable to edit-war contentious, negative BLP content into an article).

I state the following:

1. It is not acceptable conduct to edit-war WP:BLP violations into a Wikipedia article.
2. It is not acceptable conduct to edit-war contentious negative WP:BLP content into a Wikipedia article.
3. Either way, the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

Does anyone here seriously disagree that edit-warring WP:BLP violations and/or contentious negative WP:BLP content isn't acceptable conduct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: Ummm....no. WP:BLP doesn't say that BLP applies to all topic spaces except climate change. BLP applies to all of Wikipedia. We cannot simply throw out the rules just because of one's own personal opinions about a topic. In fact, your post helps illustrate the core of the problem. Wikipedia is a not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for editors to carry on ideological battles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale

@Zero0000: No, the sanction I applied was TBAN from both Anthony Watts (blogger) and Climate change denial; the latter was not intended to be for the page itself only. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 13:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

AQFK appears to have a significant misunderstanding of BLP. What it actually says is not that someone may edit-war to remove "contentious BLP content" -- rather, it is "contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced" that must be removed. The difficulty for AQFK is that the material he was edit-warring over (and hey, at least he admits it) was properly sourced. It strikes me as important to know (in connection with this request) whether this misrepresentation of BLP policy is deliberate or simply incompetent. Either way, I get the sense that AQFK's main goal in making this request is to get a green light to resume edit-warring over this material; note also that he hasn't really done any editing on other topics since the topic ban was imposed. As for the list of other editors who restored the material AQFK deleted -- what that list really shows is the extent of consensus regarding the way the article should be edited. So let's hope my prediction proves to be wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• This edit is quite revealing of AQFK's difficulty and indicates an on-going problem re working in a collaborative editing environment. I'm really quite curious to see what will happen now that the sanction has expired, i.e., will we soon see a resumption of the behavior that led to the sanction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Akhilleus

I don't edit much in the climate change area, but I see I'm listed first on AQFK's list of edit warriors on Anthony Watts (blogger). So I guess I'm "involved." Anyway, AQFK seems to find no fault with the behavior that led to his temporary ban from climate change articles; is there any change that the topic ban could be extended? Because otherwise I think that he will continue the problematic behavior, and we'll be back here soon. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

According to their statement User:Penwhale apparently meant "climate change denial" in a broad sense, but linked to the article Climate change denial when writing up the result. This apparently led to confusion. If this is correct it would obviate the first part of AQFK's appeal (and the record should be clarified accordingly). In any event both restrictions will expire a week from Wednesday and so the appeal seems almost-but-not-quite pointless given the usual pace at which requests here are decided. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

It's time to start closing down the climate denial apologia on that article. The fiction that reality-based criticism is "negative material" has been used as a magic talisman for too long. We do not need warriors for truth whose truth runs counter to the scientific consensus, and since AQFK seems to think he never edits in this area I fail to see why the appeal was lodged in the first place.

We have reliable mainstream sources that describe Watts and especially his blog as part of the climate change denialist movement. I have yet to see a single reliable source that credibly identifies those who accept anthropogenic climate change as denialists of anything. The science is overwhelming: the climate is changing (virtually nobody qualified to venture an opinion disputes this at all any more), it's largely due to atmospheric CO₂ (ditto) and we are the dominant cause (wcih view has vanishingly few credentialled dissenters). Climate change "skepticism" became pseudoskepticism a while back and is, by now, simply denial. We need to get past the stupid attempts to deny the science - largely a US issue anyway, most countries are over this - and focus on the things where reasonable people can differ, such as what to do about it and how soon. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

As this is a BLP issue and we are supposedly an encyclopedia we don't have to reiterate exact words used about persons made by those person's scientific opponents. We should avoid such hotbutton terms especially if the subject of the BLP has claimed that that descriptive is not true or accurate. My take on Watts is he is not a denialist but is adversarial to the mainstream view on climate change in terms of its severity or future prospects for doom and that he disagrees that humans are the sole cause of this phenomenon. Watts has stated he believes climate change is fact...his disagreement is with the alarmist stance. The term "denialist" is a poor comparative analogy to Holocaust Denial....and is misused to silence any discussion inappropriately. Much like the suffix "gate" is misused to compare relatively minor issues to the notorious Watergate Scandal, it's simply not necessary to refute Watts in our encyclopedia in the same manner his detractors do. Would also appreciate if some of the condescending comments about the U.S. cease. With that said, edit warring is unacceptable and sadly if the concensus is that we should misuse this website to call someone something they themselves deny, then that's a shame, but that's the way it goes I suppose. For the record, the opening and title of the article Climate change denialism really is lousy. If you want science them all these scientists can help me with my slow update of the FA Retreat of glaciers since 1850...and stop fretting about labelling a skeptic as a denialist.--MONGO 09:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Gulutzan

MONGO is correct to refute JzG but there is no consensus to misuse the article. That being the case, A Quest For Knowledge was right to point out that the majority of known reliable sources say skeptic not denier, and to oppose those who insist on inserting denier in the lead and removing skeptic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

Topic ban is over, correct? That said, the pejorative "denier" is a political term, it's negative, not widely used and the source for it is not a political expert. JzG accurately states the scientific consensus. What he doesn't seem to understand is expressing the understanding as he did is a "denier" position. "Most" in IPCC terms means "more than half." (IPCC is 95% confident that of the 0.8C of observed warming, at least 0.4C is attributable to humans). However, Mann and others believe virtually all the observed warming is attributable to humans. They believe natural causes, such as volcanoes, have lessened the footprint. If, like Watts and JzG, a person doesn't attribute all the observed warming to human activity, instead of "most", they are "deniers" per Mann and others. The label is purely political and it is at odds with consensus when it can be applied so broadly that it would include IPCC's own statement. We should not be advocates for a political position and this sourcing for "denier" is not from science, it's from political advocacy by someone that is a political advocate. --DHeyward (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by A Quest For Knowledge

The original AE was here. I won't vote on the appeal since I participated in the original ban discussion. But the case for lifting appears weak. See the Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy. Over a period of two months, AQFK removed the same quotation from the article on Anthony Watts (blogger) 22 times. This is a pattern of long-term edit warring. In the domain of ARBCC there are few examples of good behavior, and the 'denier' terminology should raise our eyebrows. But AQFK's behavior was (in my opinion) disruptive. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by A Quest For Knowledge

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

• The original case: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive176#A_Quest_For_Knowledge. The admin consensus in the case discussion seems to have been for a TBAN on the topic of climate change denial, but the notice put on Quest's talk page by Penwale appears to refer to the particular article climate change denial. Can this be clarified please? Zero^talk 07:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sure lots of other editors have engaged in problematic behavior in this topic area, that's why we have the sanctions in place. But your appeal should address your behavior, and does not appear to beyond the statement "My "crime" was to remove negative, contentious WP:BLP content". It should also address the concerns raised in the initial request which resulted in the sanction. At that request (where I participated, for the record, though I don't remember it - it's been a long summer) other admins raised concerns about your "battleground approach" and stated that you have "engaged in long-term edit warring". Gamaliel (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have only one question here; since the TBAN expires in ten days' time (16 September), surely it would be far less of a waste of everyone's time to simply wait until then? Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have reopened this discussion. AQFK has expressed a desire to clear his name, and he should have that opportunity. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm trying to understand the BLP argument. In the "climate debate" world, the epithet "denier" is something of a dirty word. The mainstream and the fringe sides use it against each other to imply that the other is merely refusing to admit the truth, rather than being "skeptical" as good scientists are supposed to be. This essay now featured on Watts' site shows it used against the mainstream. In this climate (oops) I don't believe that Wikipedia should use the label in its own voice. However what is being debated is inclusion of an attributed opinion that appeared in a "reliable source". That is not a BLP violation. On the other hand, since it is a negative opinion that the target doesn't accept, it should continue with something like "though Watts contests that description". If Quest was fighting for that, rather than deleting the whole sentence multiple times as if it accuses Watts of murdering his mother, I'd have more sympathy. Zero^talk 01:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Soham321

I wish to continue participating in a debate with another editor in the talk page of Voltaire. In doing so i would like to make use of quotations about races and "racism" of Voltaire that have been given in secondary sources. Since these quote or quotes also make a reference to India and Indians i would like a free pass on the talk page of Voltaire and also on the main article of Voltaire about mentioning India and Indians with specific reference to Voltaire's views on races and his alleged "racism". My objective is to defend Voltaire from the racism claim; however i am not going to be dogmatic about it. I will lay out the evidence and i am prepared to listen to the evidence which says Voltaire was a "racist". This kind of a discussion on the talk page of Voltaire would also be useful for future editors of the WP page. For this purpose i am invoking a WP guideline, whose name i forget, which says that any action which leads to the betterment/improvement of Wikipedia trumps all other rules. Soham321 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, many things were said in that Arb discussion and there were editors supporting me also, claiming i had been provoked and claiming that i had been behaving like a "saint" when interacting with a senior editor who has a reputation of being cantankerous. Let us not cherry pick what one person said in that discussion. It is true though that i ought to have been more cool both before and during that Arb discussion. My defense in this connection is that i was (and still am) going through a divorce proceeding. But do please consider giving me some respect in view of the fact that i have been a content creator on WP; take a look at the new WP pages i have created in the recent past: Paradox of the Actor, On the interpretation of Nature, Letter on the Deaf and Dumb,Philosophical Thoughts, and Dialogues: Rousseau, Judge of Jean-Jacques Soham321 (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a reply to Future Perfect at Sunrise: Please see diff3 with respect to Future Perfect at Sunrise's accusation that "in a rather stunning display of Wikilawyering, he seems to be first lambasting the author of a secondary source for not providing direct citations to primary sources for a statement he makes, and then accuses a fellow editor of OR because that editor showed, with his own citations on the talkpage, that the secondary author's statement actually did agree with the primary sources he talked about." I stand by the note i placed since i examined the source, the exact page of the book, and i did not see any reference to either Voltaire's writing or to any other authority (any secondary source) when Cohen made the following claim: ""More commonly polygenists argued, as did Voltaire, that blacks, because they were separately created did not fully share in the common humanity of whites". I was stating something factual in my note; i was not drawing any inferences. Consequently in my opinion what i did does not constitute OR. Soham321 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

In view of Future Perfect's claim that my editing has been of poor quality (an allegation also made by Abecedare on the talk page of Voltaire) i would like to add a general comment about my editing by giving a link showing what some other editors think of it. link Ghatus writes that "I do not know about Soham's offence. But, I saw his edits in Maharana Pratap on 12th and 13th June,2015. It was of high class." Twobells writes "All his work has been of the highest class, albeit wordy". Mohanbhan writes "Most, if not all, of your disputes concerned the use of certain writers who were (and are) being systematically excluded from wikipedia. Since ArbCom was not engaging with the subject (they traditionally don't, and perhaps can't, since they have a lot of other responsibilities) and were only looking at whether your interactions were "friendly" nothing that we said about the real nature of the dispute mattered to them. Content disputes should be settled by subject-experts IMO, and content disputes should not be turned into conduct disputes." Soham321 (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

In view of what i said in my original statement: "My objective is to defend Voltaire from the racism claim; however i am not going to be dogmatic about it. I will lay out the evidence and i am prepared to listen to the evidence which says Voltaire was a "racist". This kind of a discussion on the talk page of Voltaire would also be useful for future editors of the WP page." i am not sure why Gamaliel should think that i have some kind of agenda. I have reached certain conclusions based on my reading which i wish to share on the talk page. And i clearly state that i have an open mind and will not be dogmatic about my conclusions. I only wish to share my knowledge on the talk page but for some reason which i can't understand that is being perceived as being unacceptable. In my opinion if i am not permitted to share my knowledge of Voltaire vis a vis his alleged racism, it would be WP's loss and violative of the WP guideline which says that anything that improves wikipedia trumps all other rules. And i am only asking for the waiver on the Voltaire page, not on any other page. Soham321 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a response to Dennis Brown who apparently thinks i am guilty of ad hominem attacks on the talk page of Voltaire. Dennis, i went to dictionary.reference.com to obtain the meaning of "ad hominem". I got two results:

• appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
• attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

I do not believe i am guilty of any of the two meanings of the term as defined by dictionary.reference.com. I did not make any personal attack or make any emotional appeal either when interacting with Abecedare or when interacting with Carlstak. Dennis, if you disagree please give me an instance of when i made any ad hominem attack on the Voltaire talk page (where the meaning of "ad hominem" is defined by dictionary.reference.com or any other dictionary.) Soham321 (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply to JzG: Just so that we are clear i am not asking for a lifting of the topic ban. I am only asking for a waiver on the Voltaire page for reasons already stated. Voltaire was a contemporary of Diderot and Rousseau and i have made many contributions to pages about and related to the French Enlightenment thinkers. One can ascertain from my contributions that i have something to contribute to the discussion. I fail to see why i am not being permitted to freely discuss Voltaire's alleged "racism" on the Voltaire talk page. Is this not a violation of WP:NORULES? Recently i have been involved in an ongoing Requested Move discussion: here, here, and here. I would like an uninvolved Admin to decide whether i have been "rude" or cordial in this discussion. Finally, I am not a single purpose account; earlier, prior to my topic ban, i was primarily editing WP pages related to India. Soham321 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

Since Soham321 hasn't mentioned his appeal to me on my page today, with my replies declining that appeal, I'll link to our conversation: . There are interesting comments by other people there too. I think I responded fully at that link, and won't repeat myself here on AE. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Soham321

• This is a very curious matter. I am not cognisant of the original cause of the topic ban. However it seems that this request, on its face, reasonable, is in danger of being turned down not on the basis that it will lead to issues based on the reasons for the original ban, but on a general dislike of Soham's modus operandi.

If it is contended that Soham, due to their manner of conducting themselves, is, or should be, persona non grata then that is a matter for blocking, AN/I or an arb case. To refuse an otherwise reasonable request, merely because one does not like the cut of the appellant's gib does not seem like due process.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC).

Result of the appeal by Soham321

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

• After reading Bishonen's original ban notice as well as User:Soham321's talk page, my opinion is that the topic ban should remain in force. You were lucky to get off with only a six-month ban. You already took the original ban to Arbcom (July 2015), where one of the arbitrators said "Soham321's response to the topic ban (to fight it tooth and nail in any available venue, and to argue from the outset that the problem lies with other editors) is for me ample indication that this was a sensible call by Bishonen." If you were hoping to impress us with your good behavior, you have a long way to go. So I would decline this appeal, which gives no convincing reason why an exception is needed. Your statement above includes no evidence that your editing of Wikipedia has become more cooperative since the ban was imposed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• At first sight, and without knowing much about the backstory, I would have said that the topic of Voltaire is sufficiently far from the intended scope of the topic ban that a cursory connection between them made in the course of a talkpage discussion there wouldn't bother me too much. And seriously, just how relevant could a discussion related to India possibly be to the topic under discussion (Voltaire's apparently well-documented negative views on Africans)? So, my first gut reaction was, good for Soham for playing it safe and asking here for this limited exception, before doing something that could have been seen as "testing the boundaries" even though in itself it would likely have been harmless. On a closer look at the actual context of the Voltaire discussion, however, I am distinctly underwhelmed by the quality both of Soham's article editing there (see this rather bad instance of tendentious OR) and his behaviour on the talkpage (where, in a rather stunning display of Wikilawyering, he seems to be first lambasting the author of a secondary source for not providing direct citations to primary sources for a statement he makes, and then accuses a fellow editor of OR because that editor showed, with his own citations on the talkpage, that the secondary author's statement actually did agree with the primary sources he talked about.) As I am left with the impression that Soham's editing in this field displays many of the same problems he was topic-banned for in the India topic area, I'd have to say now that the Voltaire page will probably be better off with less rather than more importing of India-related argument by Soha§m321. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not impressed with what I see of Soham321's behavior on Talk:Voltaire and this editor has a self-admitted agenda "to defend Voltaire from the racism claim". While I agree with FPaS that it was commendable that Soham321 seek an exception instead of going ahead and just doing it, I don't think their behavior thus far in this area is otherwise commendable. I also agree with FPaS that the article is probably best left alone by Soham321. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• I see too much ad hominem and such on the talk page of Voltaire to be comfortable extending an exception here. The risk of problems outweigh the benefits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• I fail to see why we should lift a topic ban in order to allow Soham321 to engage in arguments that so clearly lie outside policy. If anything this underscores the problem that led to the restriction. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Closing: This request has been filed as a Arbitration Enforcement Appeal. Five admins have posted, all opposed to the request. Arbcom has determined that only admin opinions count when voting on an appeal, if AE is chosen as the venue. After six days it appears there will be no further admin comments, so the request for an exception is denied. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Lanlan lanwan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lanlan lanwan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA2

ARBPIA sanction: 1RR on all articles related to the Palestine-Israel conflict

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

1. 3:55 Sep 20 First revert
2. 12:49 Sep 20 Second revert
3. 10:45 Sep 21 Third revert

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13:37 Sep 20

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are two 1RR violations here. After the first violation I put an alert on the editor's talk page plus the comment "Note that the sanctions include a 1RR restriction on all articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. You just broke it at Hizma and I invite you to revert yourself to avoid being reported." The editor deleted the alert 21 hours later without comment, and then did the same revert a third time (the second one having been undone meanwhile by someone else). Editor clearly needs to learn that these sanctions are for real.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Lanlan lanwan

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.

Result concerning Lanlan lanwan

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

• This appears to be a clear cut violation. The user has been blocked for a 1RR violation in this topic area before, back in 2013. Gamaliel (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Unbiasedpov

Background:-

• 99% of my editorial time was spent on Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots talk-page. I have spent very little in article editing. Majority of co-editors have seen merit in my concerns on at-least 1 occasion. (Clarification added: I have been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years. I have edited many many articles. 99% mentioned here is not 99% of time on Wikipedia but 99% of time in current article. In other words, Out of total time spent on current article, 99% spent on talk-page-of-article and 1% on editing-of-article. Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC))

Here are few sub-sections i started on talk-page:-

Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Proposal:_Make_Godhra_train_burning_sub-section_accurate

Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Tendency_to_revert_edit_without_using_the_talk-page

Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Multiple-Issues

• Despite intimidation and bullying, I have been very civil and respectful on talk page. I was constantly seeking consensus and made updated proposal based on feedback received. In an attempt to seek common-ground. I also started Rfc and Mediation request:-

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/2002_Gujarat_Riots_2

Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#RfC:_-Add_series_.22Violence_against_Hindus.22_or_Remove_series_.22Violence_against_Muslims_in_India.22.3F

Charges against me:-

• Charge#1 (Talk-Page):-

Repeatedly making,& updating, proposals on talk-page and failure to find consensus on Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/2002_Gujarat_Riots_2 parallel fora example1 and example2 []

Explanation of charge#1 example1:

I am updating proposals based on feedback received. For example:-

Original proposal:- Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Proposal:_Make_Godhra_train_burning_sub-section_accurate

Updated proposal:- Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Alternate_Wordings

Explanation of charge#2 example2:

As shown in example#2.I did edit,and add extra comments, but i always signed them.I have understood that this might cause confusion;Hence, I will refrain from such practice in future. My intention were to add clarity and accuracy. See the full impact of example#2 edit here Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Proposal:_Remove_quotes_from_Lead

• Charge#2 (Edit-Warring):-

edit-warred on the article page without finding consensus and in face of objections

Background:-

Edit-warring example, provided in charge#2, is about Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree's statement and two other failed verification citation. I am show-casing Embree statement for sake of simplicity but please read entire subsection Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Alternate_Wordings for clarity.

I have spent 99% of time time on talk-page. What-ever edit i did were promptly reverted without use of talk page:-

See" Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Tendency_to_revert_edit_without_using_the_talk-page

Earlier, I was advised to use WP:BRD policy;Hence, I have tried to use WP:BRD in this edit-warring example provided in charge#2.

Explanation of charge#2:-

Current3 Article content:-

"Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree stated that the official version of the attack on the train, that it was organized and carried out by people under orders from Pakistan, was entirely baseless"

Problem with Current3:-

From the talk-page "I,Unbiasedpov, have read citation [43]. Current3 omitted half of Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree's statement. Here is complete sentence from citation [43] "A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire. Fifty-eight people died. The official account declares, without proof, that the attack it was organized and carried out under orders from Pakistan".

In the book,Embree states that there is no-proof of Pakistan involvement in Godhra train burning and Wikipedia:2008_Mumbai_attacks. Embree does not imply "entirely baseless". More-over, "no proof" is not same as "entirely baseless". "No proof" means "Absence of Evidence". "Entirely baseless" is more like "Evidence of Absence". "Absence of Evidence" <> "Evidence of Absence". Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit#1:-

In edit#1 i Replaced current3 half-statement with full-statement "Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree stated A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire;However, The official account declares without proof that attack was carried out under direct orders from Pakistan."

My Edit#1 was reverted. So, I used WP:BRD and did Edit#2.

Edit#2:-

In edit#2 I left original current3 half-sentence intact and added "Failed verification" tag to it.

My Edit#2 was also reverted and I was banned from topic.

I know i am not supposed to comment here but this is the best place to clarify misunderstanding.

Clarification:- I have been editing Wikipedia for several years. 99% mentioned above is not 99% of time on Wikipedia. It is 99% of time in current article. In other words, Out of total time spent on current article, 99% spent on talk-page-of-article and 1% on editing-of-article.Unbiasedpov (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope un-involved admins @Gamaliel, Beyond My Ken, Dennis Brown, JzG, and Liz: will look at the merit of my edits and review at-least 3 edits or talk-page proposals. Most of my edits fall in two categories:-

correct misinterpretation of cited source.

point out dubious citations which violate WP:RS and WP:Thirdparty policy.

For example, My last edit, explained above, is about citation of Historian Ainslie Thomas Embree. Please read the explanation above. Please check the citation here
https://books.google.com/books?id=u48rUnVEHbEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Routledge+Handbook+of+Religion+and+Security&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAGoVChMI38yA-ZOIyAIVy5eACh325ANP#v=onepage&q=godhra&f=false
.Ping me for questions.

Backgroud Information:-

This article "2002 Gujarat Riots" have 4859 edits[]

The top two contributors to this article are both sock-puppet/abandoned accounts [] []

In 07/2013, Top-Contributor & Sock-Puppet accountUser:Darkness_Shines re-wrote the entire article. Even today, Article is practically a Darkness_Shines's version[]. This version contains many dubious citations violating several wikipedia policies. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What happens to a typical proposal:-

My proposals resonates with majority of editors but there is always one,or two, editor opposing it.

For example,User:Kautilya3 agrees with me on proposal2 but if i make that change the disagreeing editor will revert it. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

On CCT citation discussed by User:Kautilya3:-

CCT is a primary source published by Teetsa Setalvad's CJP Citizens for Justice&Peace(not a reputable publisher). Both,Setalval & CJP, are a party to the dispute. Supreme Court of India monitored Investigation report SIT carries adverse remark against both;Thus,CCT citation violates WP:RS, WP:Primary and WP:Thirdparty policy. See talk page of article for details. Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition, There are several errors in original article statement "The Concerned Citizens Tribunal (CCT), headed by Teetsa Setalvad concluded that ....the attack by a mob was part of a government conspiracy to trigger riots across the state".

Firstly, CCT was not headed by Teetsa.

Secondly,CCT never implied that godhra attack was a govt. conspiracy to trigger riots.Unbiasedpov (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Abecedare

Here is my complete explanation for the topic ban, which I had posted on the userpage when I imposed it:

You have been sanctioned because of continued disruptive and POV editing, slow but persistent edit-warring, and being unresponsive to feedback despite numerous warnings. In particular, despite earlier advice on how to discuss the issues constructively, you again repeatedly made multiple broad and overlapping proposals , (which inevitably failed to find consensus) in parallel fora; changed the proposals even after others had responded; and edit-warred on the article page without finding consensus and in face of objections , . Your conduct and repetitive arguments are disruptive, consuming an inordinate amount of other editors' time (on either side of the issues), and frankly preventing progress from being made (eg, this section) on a topic that requires more sober, neutral and collaborative editing.

For context, please see:

• This RFC and the previous and following sections on Talk:2002 Gujarat riots. Pay particular attention to the date of the posts (you'll have to check the talk-page history to truly appreciate what a mess that RfC was). Also see this parallel request for mediation.
• This advice I posted at the userpage when I closed the RfC.
• The immediate next discussion started by user on article talkpage (again look at talkpage history for full picture). Also see this parallel request for mediation.

If there are any questions I can help answer, just ping me. Abecedare (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kautilya3

As one of the involved editors that tried to engage with Unbiasedpov, I can vouch for the fact that the editor's participation on this page has been incredibly disruptive and taxing, owing to the poorly thought-out and poorly explained proposals, inadequate understanding of the reliable sources on the subject as well as of Wikipedia policies, and just pure tendentiousness. Abecedare clearly told the editor to make one clearly thought-out proposal at a time (Talk:2002 Gujarat riots#Multiple-Issues). But multiple overlapping proposals were again made Talk:2002 Gujarat riots#Proposal: Make Godhra train burning sub-section accurate. Look closely at Proposal3 and see what you make of it! But, after people patiently looked at them and provided their comments, the editor once again altered the proposals . At this point nobody knew what sources he was talking about. Then the editor seems to have added the sources here (which somehow escaped my notice) and then proceeded to make changes to the article without waiting for any further input.

The essence of the editor's push is that the Government's view should be represented. The CCT (the Concerned Citizen's Tribunal, headed by a highly respected former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India) is labelled as a "dubious primary source", even though it has been cited in pretty much every high quality reliable source on the planet. Ainslee T. Embree, who was again mentioned above to buttress the editor's own view point, states: "Accounts about how the violence began are contradictory. The official account of the Gujarat government provides a starting point..." and then goes on to narrate the official account. The editor wants to pick up the elements of this account and present them as Embree's view point. This is clearly a misrepresentation, and the straw that finally broke the camel's back.

Even if the editor's proposals had merit, this is clearly not the way to go about implementing them. If Abecedare's advice of one-proposal-at-a-time had been followed, perhaps some progress could have been made, and the editor might have learned something in the process as well. In the Multiple-Issues section of proposals, the editor listed 35 sources, with no mention of publisher or date, and no sense of whether they qualify as reliable sources. These are clearly efforts to overwhelm and intimidate rather than to convince. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Unbiasedpov

• An editor (any editor) who spends "99%" of their time on one article's talk page is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, they're most likely here to push a POV. (Civil POV-pushing is still POV-pushing.) When the editor has chosen a name such as "Unbiasedpov", it's a good bet that their POV is anything but unbiased. I put this in a class with those editors who choose usernames with "truth" in them - they're generally here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and generally end up getting topic banned from their preferred subject, indef blocked, or site banned. I don't see anything in the specifics here to make me think anything different about Unbiasedpov. Their appeal should be denied. BMK (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I just want to note that Unbiasedpov's 85 edits to the article and talk page represent 20% of his overall edits (418). He's only made more edits to one other article (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom). (Also, a reminder to Liz that as a fairly newly-minted admin, she can now put her comments in the uninvolved admin section below, and doesn't need to hang out up here with the rank-and-file rabble any more!) BMK (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Gamaliel That open bar could explain a lot! <g> BMK (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Unbiasedpov

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

• My thoughts are roughly the same as BMK's. I'm not inclined to consider lifting this unless this user is able to demonstrate productive editing outside this topic area. Gamaliel (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• If I can speak in a very general way: The whole idea of a topic ban (versus an indef block) is that we assume good faith that an editor can in fact contribute in a positive fashion in areas not related to where they have had behavioral issues. If they don't choose to edit significantly in other areas, it really doesn't give us a measuring stick to gauge the likelihood that they can return to full editing without incident. For that matter, if someone is only interested in editing a single thing, that is sometimes a red flag anyway, as their interest may be more about advancing a cause or idea (read: POV) rather than to improve the encyclopedia as a whole. As a rule, I tend to object to lifting a topic ban on anyone that is only interested in editing a single page or a small group of pages, for the reasons stated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Well, those percentages are wildly incorrect, according to the the edit counter, Unbiasedpov has 36 edits to 2002 Gujarat riots and 49 edits to Talk:2002 Gujarat riots. The question is, were those 85 edits to the discussion and article disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• Frankly, the username says it all. This is a Warrior For Truth. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• BMK is right, join us down here Liz. We've got an open bar and leather recliners. Gamaliel (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I was just contributing an observation as an editor, rather than weighing in as an administrator. I see A/R/E admin decisions as an area for experienced administrators. But I'll accept the comment move as it seems like a neutral change. Thanks for the patience, I'll get my admin-training wheels off in a bit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at his other contribs, or a sampling really, shows the numbers aren't that useful. He contributes is somewhat similar areas, and he will be able to do just that then appeal after a few months without incident. And welcome to below the "result" line editing, I'm confident you will do just as well as anyone here. You're always welcome to make observations rather than take a position in any case you are uninvolved with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I recommend declining this appeal, having read the statements by User:Abecedare and User:Kautilya3 and noticing that User:Unbiasedpov has not provided a convincing answer. His topic ban is only from the 2002 Gujarat riots, not from all of WP:ARBIPA. The discussion of these riots has been troublesome in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Gob Lofa

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gob Lofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case : for double violation of 1RR restriction on Troubles related articles within the past day.

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

At The Troubles:

1. 10:40, 20 September 2015 - changed Northern Ireland to "the Northern Ireland polity", a subjective term that they have been trying to put into articles mentioning Northern Ireland.
2. 21:58, 20 September 2015 - restores after I partially reverted their edit. They also use a misleading edit summary to justify it.

At Provisional Irish Republican Army:

1. 12:39, 20 September 2015 - likewise adds in subjective term "polities".
2. 22:09, 20 September 2015 - restores "polities" under the reasoning of "Adopting part" of my edit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 02:38, 14 August 2015 - blocked for 24 hours for breaching 1RR at Protestantism in the Republic of Ireland.

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

1. 06:19, 13 August 2015 - notified of Discretionary Sanctions in regards to Troubles article.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has known for a good while that their intent to either change Northern Ireland's description to "polity" or add it in when it is not even needed is contentious and that it has previously been contested on various articles, yet they continue to do it. Examples being 31 August 2015 and at Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 (30 July 2015, 1 August 2015, 5 August 2015, 6 August 2015) - where they were reverted by three different editors and got no agreement for their edit on the talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Gob Lofa

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.

Result concerning Gob Lofa

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

• Can someone briefly explain is contentious about the word "polities"? Where is the talk page discussion with this editor about this matter? I really don't want to sanction someone for violating a consensus when no one has tried to explain this consensus to this editor, outside of some edit summaries. That said, this editor does not have an impressive record in this area and has a long block log. Gamaliel (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nobody's questioning whether or not it is appropriate to violate this restriction. It obviously is not. But it is just as obviously not appropriate to refuse to engage in discussion during an editing dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a 1RR violation. I see Gob Lofa making an edit, the edit being reverted, and Gob Lofa reverting back—which is a single revert, and not a violation of the 1RR. There could be a case to answer for the "polity" edits if this has been going on for a while and there has been significant discussion (I only see two or three editors participating in the discussions linked). Certainly it's not a common description of Northern Ireland, though "province" is not without its own controversy. Note: I do at times edit in this topic area, but my interests are mainly in the role of the British armed forces. I'm not well-acquainted with any of the editors involved here, and have no opinion on the content issue being debated. Nonetheless, I will move my comment if there is any good-faith objection to my commenting as an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mabuska: There is also the general controversy over nomenclature of the nations of the United Kingdom (cf. the argument over whether Wales is a country or a principality). It's not directly relevant, I'm just pointing out that wherever there's more that one way of describing something, especially when politics is involved, there's an argument to be had.

    Actually, a 1RR violation does require two reverts. If, for example, I add a sentence and you remove it, then I re-add it, I haven't violated the 1RR; if you were to remove it for a second time, you would have violated the 1RR, as would I if I reinstated it a second time. This has always been the interpretation of 1RR that I've used and that I've seen at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mabuska: This has been open for a while. Do you wish to present evidence of an ongoing pattern of disruption, or are you happy for this to be closed with no immediate action taken? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning DHeyward

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions :

• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions -- Sanctions as determined by administrators, below.

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

1. 20:50, 20 September 2015 = Violation of WP:BLP making statements about 14-year-old-boy about crimes not committed.
2. 03:28, 30 September 2015 = Violation of WP:BLP, making statements about sister of 14-year-old-boy
3. 04:04, 30 September 2015 = Edit-warring to add back in same WP:BLP violations as above.
4. 04:49, 30 September 2015 = Edit-warring, again, to add back in same WP:BLP violations, as above.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18 January 2015 = Block by admin HJ Mitchell for Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy: block made in accordance with WP:GS/GG community sanctions
2. 13 March 2015 Topic ban by admin Gamaliel related to interaction with MarkBernstein

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see 30 November 2014, by Sonicyouth86.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 8 January 2015, to Binksternet.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 13 March 2015 by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• NOTE: Please note the egregious nature of this edit, combined with the edit summary chosen by the user in question: "Undid revision 683413422 by VQuakr (talk)DailyBeast is a secondary source. What Are you thinking? BLP doesn't apply at all.". Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Specifically, please take note of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User notified, at DIFF. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning DHeyward

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.

Result concerning DHeyward

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

• I personally think this is non-actionable. It's not really related to the restrictions, the AfD comment was defensible, the BLP edit not so much and should have gone through WP:BRD but this is not WP:AN/EW. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You know, MastCell is right. The quote that was used for the claim that the sister was suspended for a bomb hoax does not actually say that. It says: "“I got suspended from school for three days from this stupid same district, from this girl saying I wanted to blow up the school, something I had nothing to do with.” - that is not at all the same thing, the complainant could have been just another Islamophobe. To be clear, this is not a violation of the topic ban. It is, however, pretty sneaky and it is also edit warring to add questionable material in violation of WP:BLP. I don't know what this board is supposed to do about that. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• This editor has a history of edit warring on controversial articles and is not sufficiently able to resist the temptation to be obnoxious to editors he is in conflict with. That said, I'm not sure this rises to the level of enforcement. The AFD comment was crass but not actionable. The article edits are sufficiently sourced and though poorly worded initially, this editor is making changes which appear to be an attempt to take into account objections by others and is participating in talk page discussion. Should the edit warring continue, I would consider a 1RR restriction, but beyond that this appears to be a content dispute and not a BLP violation so far. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• The first diff is not particularly problematic, but the other three show edit-warring to reintroduce a fairly serious BLP violation, in my view. DHeyward wrote that a living private figure was "suspended by the same School District for an earlier Bomb Hoax." The cited source clearly presents this incident as a false accusation of a bomb hoax against the living person. DHeyward's edit removes this essential context. I'm surprised more people don't see this as a problem.

  If this private figure (whose name DHeyward helpfully included in the edit) applies for a job and her prospective employer Googles her, one of the first things likely to come up is a Wikipedia page saying that she was "suspended for a bomb hoax"—devoid of the context present in the original source indicating that she was falsely accused. This is exactly why BLP exists: to protect living people (especially private figures) from the adverse consequences of careless editing on one of the most high-profile websites on Earth.

  Now, I have no idea whether the "GamerGate" sanctions apply to this article, or whether these edits fall under AE's purview. I'd be just as happy with an injunction to get a fucking clue and edit more responsibly (cleaned up and phrased WP:CIVILly, of course) rather than a block. But we need to be a little bit clearer about where the BLP line is. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @Collect: When editors revert to restore material, they implicitly take responsibility for the material that they are re-inserting. This is a fundamental aspect of personal responsibility and editorial common sense. Arguing that DHeyward was simply edit-warring to restore someone else's BLP violation, rather than a BLP violation of his own creation, isn't the mitigating factor you seem to think it is. MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• DHeyward, you need to tone it down. Please bear in mind how public and permanent Wikipedia is, and that these are children you're discussing, not public figures with years of practice. You can make your point perfectly well with more considered remarks. Others, please don't import gamergate disputes into this (or any other) topic area; misconduct on one highly toxic topic area might be overlooked given the generally appalling level of discourse there, but if the same faces start showing up in the context of disruption in other topic areas it starts to look like the problem is with them and not with the topic area. Next, DHeyward's edit is a reasonable, but overly concise (to the extent that vital context is lost) interpretation of the source. This sort of thing would not normally merit an AE request or a noticeboard thread. DH should be more careful, in the same vein as with his remarks at the AfD, but it does not, in and of itself, rise to the level of sanctions. Finally, nobody has specified the arbitration remedy to be enforced. The only obvious one is the BLP discretionary sanctions, of which DH is not formally aware. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cwobeel: In order for discretionary sanctions to be imposed, the person on whom they're to be imposed (in this case DHeyward) must meet one of the criteria at WP:ACDS#Awareness. DH has only been alerted to the gamergate sanctions. You may be able to argue that he meets one of the other criteria, but I still wouldn't be considering any serious sanctions, at least at this point, for the reasons I outlined above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning EllenCT

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

VictorD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Edit warring : 7) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

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

EllenCT repeatedly, unilaterally reverted the same material against several different opposing editors over the span of a week and a half in two sections in the United States article, often with misleading edit summaries. Every diff below contains her preferred changes to the inequality segment ("X"), the tax segment ("Z"), or both.

Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21):

1. "X"

2. "Z"

3. "Z"

4. "Z"

5. "Z"

6. "X"

7. "X"

8. "Z"

9. "X"

10. "X", "Z"

11. "X", "Z"

When advised to stop edit warring EllenCT stated her intention to continue reverting ": "I will continue to do so as often as is the custom for as long as is necessary." She followed through on that with multiple reverts on the 21st.

EllenCT had already recently been given a warning by another editor on her talk page involving edit warring on a different article , and should be familiar with the rule.

For the record, I only edited the article twice in that entire span.

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on June 28, Sep. 22.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note - I originally filed this report on the edit warring board , but was advised to take the complaint here. I was away when that reply was posted, and EllenCT seized the opportunity to initiate the case here herself, except twisting it so that I was now somehow the one being reported, hijacking and distorting the process. Her report was a malformed mess and she failed to provide a single diff of my edits even after being prodded to post evidence. Fortunately several editors were able to decipher what had happened but the resulting chaos confused admins who indicated they weren't sure how to proceed. Her report should be closed. Now it's my turn to try. I'm taking the bold liberty of filing this report against EllenCT as originally advised. Hopefully this fresh start will clarify things.

This is not a content dispute. This is a straightforward conduct violation. The diffs are fresh because I initially reported them on the edit warring board on the 21st, at which point EllenCT's edit warring began its current pause. Without action against her here it may resume. VictorD7 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning EllenCT

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.

Result concerning EllenCT

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