Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Wikipedia


10 people in discussion

Article Images

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

    Important information

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    0RR restriction reduced to 72 hours on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections by sanctioning admin and general agreement below. --NeilN talk to me 16:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    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
    JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – — JFG talk 14:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    Sanction being appealed
    0RR restriction on ARPAP2/1RR articles, following Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Is there an Admin in the house?
    Link to the sanction notice: User talk:JFG#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    Notified.

    Statement by JFG

    First of all, I admit that a technical 1RR violation occurred as reported, with a 17-hour interval between two unrelated reverts; I simply didn't pay attention. However, I strongly deny the purported pattern of 1RR violations which has been cited to justify the sanction.

    This is a wikihounding campaign by SPECIFICO who has repeatedly accused me of violating DS or 1RR simply when she happens to disagree with my editing. She has been making unsupported DS violation claims and vague litigation threats against several other editors, e.g. most recently K.e.coffman here and Darouet there. I have warned this user repeatedly of the chilling effect she is creating, but she keeps trying to corner me on a technicality (and apparently succeeded today). Here are six instances of her direct accusations which turned out to be unfounded:

    SPECIFICO never managed to find any genuine misconduct on my part. I consider this attitude to be disruptive and borderline harassment, however I refrained from reporting her behaviour and I treated it with as much humour as I could muster.[1] An editor once brought me to AE, and another to ANEW, and in both cases no violation was found; these were misunderstandings about what constitutes a revert. One of the reporting users graciously apologized but SPECIFICO piled on with a kind of "you'll get nailed next time" taunt, yet she never pushed the matter to WP:AE.

    Please note also that I voluntarily self-revert when notified of an actual DS violation (for example self-revert + pursuing discussion), whereas SPECIFICO simply ignores warnings when she breaches revert restrictions (for example this thread or that one, ignoring self-revert requests and issuing threats).

    SPECIFICO's hounding behaviour towards me has been so blatant that another editor, Factchecker_atyourservice, whom I didn't know, came to my talk page to joke about it by making a parody of her attacks. This thread is also worth reading, whereby another editor, Objective3000, admittedly sometimes in disagreement with me, considered that SPECIFICO owed me an apology for her aspersions.

    Imposing a permanent 0RR restriction on me would be validating the chilling effect intended by one adversarial editor, in practice denying me legitimate editing actions towards article improvements in AP2 topics. Given the fuzzy interpretations of what is and is not a revert, I run the risk of being blocked for simply making a bold edit that somebody will construe as a revert of some content. Sanctions are meant to be preventive, not punitive, and this 0RR restriction looks like punitive treatment for a series of mostly-unfounded DS violation claims.

    For my inadvertent violation today, I agree to voluntarily abide by 0RR for three days, and I request the formal lifting of this restriction after 72 hours. Furthermore, I request a strong admonition to SPECIFICO for a pattern of hurling baseless accusations at her fellow editors, thereby wasting everybody's time and energy towards unconstructive discussions.

    Finally, I'm sorry for burdening admins with a rather lengthy statement; I felt I had to provide enough context to defend myself properly.

    Statement by Ian.thomson

    I admit that I had looked though and saw the multiple warnings, with diffs. The proclivity for manual reverts (along with SPECIFICO sometimes not linking to prior versions) makes it harder to sort through. There was a flame this time, and lots of smoke in previous instances. That said, my phrasing was "after multiple warnings," not "multiple violations."

    JFG said For my inadvertent violation today, I agree to voluntarily abide by 0RR for three days, and I request the formal lifting of this restriction after 72 hours -- I'll go further and reduce it to 0RR on just the page in question for the three days. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    @DHeyward: My activity at Alex Jones predates his involvement in the election and has been to oppose WP:FRINGE-pushing editors. My activity at Pizzagate was over BLP concerns and my continued activity is, again, discouraging conspiracy theorists (if it's not fringe, I don't really care what other editors do to those articles). My activity has more to do with conspiracy theorism than with politics, per se. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by (slatersteven)

    Well a look at 19th of feb show this revert [2], followed by this [3] which JFG's own edit summery says is a "self revert". Yes it is a technicality, but it is two reverts.

    I assume the warning on 23 refers to two reverts on the 22nd [4] and [5], opne was (it claims) a reversion of a banned user's material, but still (technically) two reverts.

    I stopped here. yes there do seem to also be multiple reverts on the 26th as well. The two instances of double revert I checked are not really egregious, in that one was a self revert and thus only technical violations.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by DHeyward

    Overturn. This was a rather hasty response to a nebulous charge. Are we really counting a self-revert as a violation of 1RR as the second revert? I noticed SPECIFICO leveling accusations of edit warring against JFG on the BLP notice board and no action was taken. There is a degree of forum shopping going on and it was unclear what action caused the imposing administrator to invoke a 0RR restriction. --DHeyward (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Clean block log for an editor accused of a pattern of edit warring? Not much of a pattern.

    Considering the sanction request was made on the article talk page with no discussion and no diffs for a pattern of behavior (which is really a pattern of complaints), this is a rather egregious overreaction to a 1RR violation from an out of process sanction request. JFG has never been blocked for edit warring so the argument for a pattern of edit warring is rather ridiculous. This was an ill-considered sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    I'll also note that the talk page for the article where this request was made has hatted the discussion as being out of process with a notice that bringing sanction requests to talk pages can result in sanctions. This sanction should have never been issued. --DHeyward (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    @NeilN: As I said, the request was out of process. Had you acted earlier, the request would have been closed. An article talk page was a poor choice and many admin AC/DS sanctions that have come under scrutiny are those that occurred without input at AE or ANI. Everyone agrees that admins can act unilaterally. Virtually everyone agrees that discussion at AE is preferred for any actions that may be questioned. I would hope the imposing admin would lift their 0RR sanction and let it be discussed but if not, they should be prepared that the bar for overturning that decision is much lower than overturning consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @Sandstein: If the sanctioning admin had provided diffs or examples of the behavior they were sanctioning, it might be possible to address them. But the admin only said the current 1RR was stale. That diff is all that there is in the sanction discussion. And a clean block log. Not a lot of evidence to address. And we have editors saying a self-revert counts as the second revert in 1RR pages which is nonsense. I can only hope that diff wasn't used as evidence. --DHeyward (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    I'm also concerned that Ian.thomson has edited within the area of AP2 most recently in Pizzagate and AlexJones, both of which were prominent in the most recent US election. --DHeyward (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    The 72 hour agreement for lifting seems reasonable. --DHeyward (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by My very best wishes

    I think JFG indeed violated 1RR restrictions on these pages previously. For example, one (revert of this edit) and two (clearly marked by JFG himself as a revert in the edit summary). Here is whole discussion if anyone would be interested in.

    I also admit reporting JFG previously on 3RRNB here. Here is why. My reading of WP:3RR was that undoing work by previous contributors (plural) like here would be counted as revert. However, JFG insisted that one must provide exact edit (diff) by specific contributor (singular) that he reverted. I am not sure that JFG was right, but the closing admin (El C) decided he was right. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by (involved editor)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JFG

    In considering this matter, please note that the sanction would apply to "articles" plural, not just "the article" as User:El C mentioned below. JFG has been active (without incident) at multiple articles where the sanction would apply. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    • Not involved in this incident; but placed my comment here conservatively as I’ve been involved in articles, pro and con, with JFG. There are times that I think JFG makes changes to mainspace too quickly during a continuing discussion, which I find quite bothersome. But, I think that we have to take into account the effect of 1RR and DS. I agree that these must exist. It’s just that, at times, editing articles under DS is like dancing the tango in a minefield. Technical violations are going to occur. I may disagree with JFG on many edits – but, he is a valuable editor involved in difficult articles. 0RR seems excessive and damages his ability to contribute. I suggest a rainbow trout, or a brief 0RR as suggested below. Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Result of the appeal by JFG

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'd decline the request as invalid. The appeal does not indicate which specific sanction is being appealed. What I'd expect is a link to a statement by an administrator specifying a sanction. The talk page thread linked to in the request does not contain a sanction. This appeal is therefore invalid and can be closed.  Sandstein  14:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • @DHeyward: Although I closed the thread and sanctioned SPECIFICO [6] the original sanction itself by Ian.thomson is not out of process as admins can act on any action or requests. However I want to emphasize that article talk pages should not be turned into mini-WP:AE boards. --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Undecided. I was the admin who has gotten many of SPECIFICO's requests to sanction JFG for 1RR violations, but all of these, save one, were not reverts. I'd wait to hear from the enforcing admin's reasoning before deciding. This sanction does severely handicaps JFG from editing the article on an equal footing. El_C 21:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    E.M. Gregory is cautioned to take more care in the future when editing articles subject to sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning E.M.Gregory

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    E.M.Gregory (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/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 24 April 2017 10.49 Full revert
    2. 24 April 2017 11.22 Partial revert of same material
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • ArbPIA reminder at their user talk page on 5 April 2017 (no idea if this was their first reminder or not)
    • 21 April 2017 warned on same article by Black Kite about 2RR
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning E.M.Gregory

    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 E.M.Gregory

    I lost my cool and reverted too hastily, forgetting to discuss the deletion first on the talk page. I backed off from brangling over I/P articles ages ago, after finding the discussions in re: Susya endlessly aversive. I now limit editing in I/P to articles that come up for AfD (like this one,) non-controversial topics like art and literature, occassional sourcing, and terrorist attacks - which I create and edit worldwide. This keeps me out of the swamp of deletion wars and personal attacks in which I/P editing is mired. But it also means that I simply forgot that reverting this deletion violated a rule. An error on my part. I do want to point out that the information deleted was sourced to an essay was by Itamar Marcus and published in the Times of Israel.[8] It was written in NPOV voice and was deleted without discussion during a tense AfD process with editors arguing delete on the grounds that the Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing attack was a single-news cycle event with no ongoing coverage. Removing this material during an intensely controversial AfD process framed by several editors as an argument that all terrorist attacks in Israel/Jerusalem/Palestinian Territories should be added to lists rather than kept as stand-alone articles. (Because I edit terror attacks, crime, and attacks that may or may not be terrorism worldwide, I was aware that this argument is contrary to our treatment of similar attacks in other parts of the world.) I do not know what Fram's motives ere in deleting this material, although certainly he has been adamant in opposition ot the existence of this article, describing it as lacking ongoing impact [9], attacking even what the calls "mainstream" media coverage as "unreliable" [10], but because I work regularly at AfD do that edits removing ongoing news coverage from a page have the effect of are making it appear that coverage of an event has not met the criteria of sustained coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Fram

    E.M. Gregory, first read things attentively before making up statements here. I was not "attacking even what the calls "mainstream" media coverage as "unreliable""[11], that was a quote from now indef blocked user Cyrus the Penner (who was on your side of the debate from the start): they were claiming that mainstream media coverage is unreliable, a statement with which I clearly disagreed, but which showed his POV in editing the article and AfD. Don't attribute statements or opinions I have not made to me please, and certainly don't build a whole flimsy defense on these incorrect starting points.

    Considering the ArbPIA reminder of early april, and the 1RR reminder of 21 April, it seems unlikely that "I simply forgot that reverting this deletion violated a rule." Your description of [12] as an NPOV source can be judged by uninvolved readers on its merits, but in the end has no bearing on this AE request. Fram (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    • Congrats, striking our one incorrect reading of statements by me, and now adding a new one. No, I didn't send a reminder in early april or on 21 April, other editors did. You can find the diffs at the very start of this AE request. Perhaps, in a enforcement request about your edits, read the actual request and try to understand what people are saying and what the history is before replying. Fram (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    @Shrike: because E.M. Gregory reverted the same thing twice? I didn't really pay attention to what others did separately, and the two edits by MrX are edits he could have done in one go as well (they are two separate sections, if I looked correctly). But if you feel that these as well broke the restrictions and deserve the same treatment, be my guest (I also don't know whether MrX has had ArbPia warnings and recent warnings about this behaviour, which Gregory certainly had, but again, I have not looked in this in detail). Fram (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    @Shrike: E.M. Gregory self-reverted after you advised them to "Just self revert to be on the safe side"... Why this would put them on the safe side is not really clear, his false statements and allegations in this AE request or his inability to see that an opinion piece is not a reliable source for statements of fact about something that perhaps one day might happen don't give me much confidence that there is any understanding of the problems with his edits in this contentious topic area. Fram (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    @Wordsmith. No opinion on whether this is the time when a first block is needed, or a final warning is sufficient. But the "clean record" of E.M. Gregory is dubious (the lack of archiving makes it hard to research this though). It seems that here they received a one-month topic ban from the Israel-Palestine subject in May 2016. So, while his block log is as of now empty, he doesn't have a clean record, not even in this very topic area. " he has admitted getting heated, and he did self-revert." Yes, after the discussion on his talk page, the ANI request, and this AE request were started, when another editor advised him to do so "to be on the safe side". Self-reverting to avoid a block is hardly a mitigating factor in my book. "the fact that this case was filed within half an hour of Fram opening an ANI thread[28] (and after E.M.Gregory had already admitted that he was hasty and made a mistake) smacks of admin shopping." I was advised at the ANI thread to start an AE request, but apparently following that advise is now "forum shopping"? Not really, no. Forum shopping is getting a negative response at one venue, and then trying again at another: it is not being sent by one venue to another, and then being accused there of forum shopping because you followed that advice. "Fram has, in fact, given out ARBPIA DS notices before, so he knows perfectly well that AE is the appropriate place for this." AE is the perfect place for people who have already had ARBPIA warnings (which I didn't know for Gregory at the time I filed the ANI request, just like I didn't know about the earlier topic ban until just now), and I felt that the issues were farther reaching than just the 1RR of ARBPIA. Anyway, your fourth point reads "Fram shouldn't have come here, this is forum shopping. Fram should have come here, this is the right place". Please make up you mind. Fram (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    @Huldra: my first post on his talk page asked him to self-revert, but instead he reinserted the opinion piece after another user had again removed it. The situation here is not comparable to yours (which I haven't looked in to). ANI and ARE only came after a request to self-revert was not heeded and a further revert to include the contested material was made. Fram (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Shrike

    @Fram: Why did you report only Gregory there other users that broke 1RR?For example User:MrX [13] [14]--Shrike (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    MrX self reverted and I think Gregory too.--Shrike (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    and again here [15] with the explanation "I forgot that...." which seems perfectly plausible to me. Lots of us eidt carelessly at times, forgetting stuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    What do you mean, "and again here"? Or do you consider self-reverting as another revert to be added? In that case, why did you self-revert after this AE request was filed? Please stop throwing accusations and incorrect statements around, it really doesn't make you look any better. Fram (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    @El C: The user have self reverted [16] even before first admin comment. @Wordsmith:There are additional user that violated 1rr and self-reverted do you suggest to warn them too?--Shrike (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC) @El C:Do you suggest same sanction for other user that violated 1RR and self-reverted on the same article?--Shrike (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by MrX

    I did inadvertently violate 1RR and I have self-reverted. I was making a series of small contiguous edits and did not realize that Icewhiz had made an intervening edit.

    E.M. Gregory seems to have strong views in this subject, as evidenced by his willful violation of two of the article editing restrictions, his 37 AfD comments, and suggestion that Fram and I have a political position with regard to the subject (I don't). This discussion and the article edit summaries hint that E.M. Gregory will probably stop at nothing to win disputes in this subject area.

    A block would be an unfortunate mar on his clean block record, but I do think a short topic ban would help.- MrX 13:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Dovid

    I'm not involved here, as I have not done editing in this article. The request happened to catch my eye. After reading through the editing history of the article and a bit of the editors as well, I decided to comment. Forgive me for barging in.

    This seems to be overblown. A minor infraction of 1RR, which the editor has already admitted to and apologized for? The complainant is being more belligerent than the subject. No sanctions should be applied.

    A warning might be appropriate, but given that the editor has already owned up, and by his/her own statements appears to be self-policing against this behavior, it would probably be more of a sop to User:Fram than anything else. Perhaps give both of them a warning - User:E.M.Gregory for hasty editing that lead to rules violations, and Fram for i,,ature administrative action (escalating instead of de-escalating, admin shopping). Dovid (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Huldra

    Ok, my 2 cents: I was given my first block after over 10 years in the IP area, 3 minutes after being reported by an obvious sock, without any previous warning, and without any chance to self revert. My second block was also given without any warning, and without any chance to self revert. Do I think E.M.Gregory deserves a block? Absolutely not. The fact that I have been treated like shit by admins, does not mean that I want other editors treated the same way. And, for those of you unfamiliar with the IP area; I’m very much on the "other side of the divide" from E.M.Gregory, in fact, I just AfD one of his latest masterpieces, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis. Actually, I would love to see him topic banned from the IP area...or at least, banned from making any new articles in the IP area. But blocked, when he self reverted? No, that is simply not right, IMO. Huldra (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Debresser

    E.M.Gregory took full responsibility for his mistake, both here and at WP:ANI,[17] so I recommend minimal action, perhaps even a warning. An editor who has been active in this area and has been able to avoid problems, should receive some credit here. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Result concerning E.M.Gregory

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Ah, my favorite topic area to see at AE again. Doing some looking into the diffs presented, on the face of things it is fairly obvious that a violation did occur. However, there are several mitigating factors. First, we have a 2+ year old account with a clean record and block log. Second, he's been brought up at AE exactly once in his tenure here, in 2015[18] where no admin suggested taking any action. Third, he has admitted getting heated, and he did self-revert. Fourth, the fact that this case was filed within half an hour of Fram opening an ANI thread[19] (and after E.M.Gregory had already admitted that he was hasty and made a mistake) smacks of admin shopping. Fram has, in fact, given out ARBPIA DS notices before, so he knows perfectly well that AE is the appropriate place for this. I'm inclined to resolve this with a warning to E.M.Gregory, but waiting to hear more opinions. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • If this was on AN3—which in cases of 1RR is actually more likely than AE or ANI—I'd be blocking for 24 hours (due to previous history of topic ban and prior warnings). I still don't understand why the user didn't simply self-revert, as was suggested to them. What happened there? El_C 15:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    I'm closing this with no action taken, with a recommendation to take this to AN where a more tailored TBAN may be considered. This is without prejudice to another admin imposing a post-1932 politics TBAN under their normal discretionary authority. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning EJustice

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    EJustice (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#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :
    Prior community discussion of the issues
    1. ENI thread: NPOV problem opened 19:30, 6 April 2017 by S. Rich
    2. ANI discussion: POV forks being created as school project opened 22:04, 6 April by User: The Wordsmith
    3. ANI discussion: Re: POV Forks opened by EJustice 13 April 2017
    4. ENI thread: Environmental Justice class project - update from Wiki Ed 15 April opened by User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)
    5. Thread at User Talk at Ryan (Wiki Ed) opened 17 April 2017 by User: Seraphimblade
    6. ENI thread: Advocacy classes and issues opened 24 April 2017 by Seraphimblade
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Course page with clear BLP violations about Trump (later noted at class liaison page here and removed in this diff) and stating the class agenda: ...in order to create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency. created 18 January 2017. While we have the "neutral, well documented" aspect, the agenda to use WIkipedia to raise the alarm is very clear. Please note that there are 6 sections for this class. Here they are at Wiki Ed: section 101, section 102, section 103, section 104, section 105, section 106. There are 180 students. Some of the articles and their fates have been tracked here.
    2. 15 March 2017 Encouraging students to generate POV content, eg I like the bold statements, even more so when supported by articles (like the Mother Jones one about puppy mill lobbyists!) This was made at the Talk page of Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations.
      1. Am going to dig in here a bit. The article at that time was in this state and contained OFFTOPIC, POV content like As the most disliked POTUS of the United States in at least 60 years, Donald J. Trump has a highly contentious agricultural platform.[1][2] and pretty much everything else in that section and other parts of the page.
    3. 15 March 2017 comment praising Environmental impacts of pig farming when it was in this state.
      1. I am going to dig in here a bit. The article at that time contained content like The Midwest has traditionally been home to many hog CAFOs, but it became particularly populated with them between the mid 1980s and mid 1990s, especially located in the Black Belt region referring to an area where many slaves traditionally worked on plantations, and after emancipation many freed slaves stayed to work in that area as sharecroppers or as tenant farmers.[3] The ref is about North Carolina which is not in the Midwest; the ref makes no mention of a "Black Belt", nor race at all, nor slavery, nor sharecroppers. It is about hog farming in N Carolina. The next sentence does deal with race: To this day, many black residents in the Black Belt region face high levels of poverty, poor standards of housing and low quality of education, employment and health care.[4] This ref does discuss race and poverty but makes no mention of hog farming or CAFOs. It is clear there is WP:SYN going on here, to build an argument. The content that these students generated is shot through with this kind of thing. Not what we do in Wikipedia. EJustice has no awareness of this. These kinds of edits were later criticized, and you will see EJustice's response to that.
    4. 15 March 2017 Comment on draft of "Farmworkers in California" in a sandbox: An important topic, so work on getting a strong scaffold/outline to make your big points!
    5. 6 April 2017 First comment in an AfD, saying article is education program and that it is fine. Article was userified.
    6. 10 Apirl 2017: comments on Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama: Additionally, any thoughts on how the Trump Administration's actions will impact this issue? can you find citations to such analysis?
    7. 10 April 2017 comment on draft - note that their attitude is hardening now: 1) keep your eyes on the prize -- focus more on strengthening and deepening your citations and evidence on issues of justice than on combatting those who seek to erase any mention of it.
    8. 10 April 2017: key comment -- comment on draft: Remember however that your grade depends also on the extent to which you cover EJ in the article.
    9. 13 April 2017 first comment addressing non-students Responding to comments by User:dsprc made in response to questions from students about dsprc's edits, in this section of the Talk page. EJustice cites WP:Systemic bias and doesn't hear dsprc's policy-and-guideline-based objections. They have the "systemic bias" hammer in hand now, and will be responding regularly with that, instead of addressing issues.
    10. 13 April 2017 at EJustice talk page, responding to dsprc: Your input above strikes me as gratuitous, meaning unsupported by fact. Feel free to point to actual text that represents non-neutrality or maligning of others. Please also reflect on how much you are violating Wikipedia's own expressed guidelines for avoiding systemic bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#What_you_can_do).
    11. 13 April 2017 AfD !vote: ...The course, among many other things, aims to help neutrally document the Trump Administration's assault on environmental protection....Finally, please consider this advice about systemic bias from within Wikipedia itself
    12. 13 April 2017 partially deletes a PROD. See edit note.
    13. ANI discussion: Re: POV Forks opened by EJustice 13 April 2017 (linked above).
      1. says in OP for example .... I think the underlying challenges the community faces with these articles have quite a bit to do with systemic biases. I'd suggest a read of this article to help understand some of the reactions the students' work is eliciting, and a focus particularly on what to do about it. Finally, a number of Wikipedians have suggested that our class syllabus is itself flawed and biased. I would welcome their input to improve it and make it more factually correct.... (problem is not its "factual correctness" - EJustice is not hearing the problem, and does this typical advocate thing, where the problem must be with other people.)
      2. 14 April 2017 not seeing the problems Sections and pages were deleted without any real evidence while the sections themselves were well supported by scientific journal and popular literature citations
      3. diff comment: Their (my students') constructiveness and meekness in the face of hostile editorial responses that seem at times to be motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class is admirable. Emphasis added. Note responses to that, here and here.
      4. Please also note this series of responses from User:MelanieN, going from at first very sympathetic, to somewhat exasperated and sharp, as their interaction with EJustice unfolds: diff, diff, diff, diff,
    14. 03:29, 15 April 2017 at an AfD. key comment I agree with your assessment that the students' work (upper-division students at one of the world's pre-eminent universities) has been treated with untoward hostility. I could anticipate this because this work does get regularly attacked in the real world. (Check out Rush Limbaugh, 2004.) And we trained the students to stay calm in the face of such attacks and to do their best and, most importantly to rigorously source their statements. I disagree a bit about the cause of the turmoil. It is a political topic, but more importantly acknowledging issues of race and class challenges many of the known systemic biases within Wikipedia. Many of these topics though are not political, certainly not by the definition of BLP or the discretionary sanction for post-1932 politics. Are the legalities of tribal lands and waterways really about biographies or direct politics? If not, then what might be at play in seeking to eliminate this as a topic for Wikipedia? The last question there is rhetorical, and it is clear what Ejustice believes the problem is.
    15. 17:52, 17 April 2017 Again, in EJustice's view there is no real problem with specific edits students have actually made, nor with the mission of the class and its agenda; the problem is systemic bias among Wikipedians. ...It's (Environmental justice is) a big deal and has a lot to do with understanding and solving environmental problems. So it's educational content the world needs, provided by people trained to create it. ...My frustration with the editors who have engaged negatively is their blindness to their own blindness on this front...their unwillingness to see how hard it is to get this stuff discussed neutrally and to engage positively in the effort to do so. Every time I read WP's guidelines, I am fortified that the intent is to be positive and engaged, so I'm sticking with that.
    16. As is extremely common in student editing, copyvios were found, which EJustice doubted and pushed back a bunch of times to have versions restored - no concern that WP cannot host COPYVIO. Diffs: at deleting admin's talk; at ANI, back at admin's talk page; at their own Talk page; at User:Ian (Wiki Ed)'s talk page; diff, etc.
    17. here, I tried to call their attention to the underlying problem with the mission of the class via the excellent Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers essay. Their response which included I think the key thing that editors are getting wrong is their inability to separate topics that are particularly triggering in today's political environment from good neutral content about things like environmental racism..... But the inability of critics to separate their feelings about the topic from the facts makes some of the feedback less than useful. and My frustration with the editors who have engaged negatively is their blindness to their own blindness on this front...their unwillingness to see how hard it is to get this stuff discussed neutrally and to engage positively in the effort to do so. Every time I read WP's guidelines, I am fortified that the intent is to be positive and engaged, so I'm sticking with that.. and later (diff) You strike me as a live tiger This turning things back on people is the same thing they did in the ANI, and is what advocates always do in WIkipedia. They subsequently moved the DS alert I gave them and that discussion to a subpage, User:EJustice/notrelevant. The title of which speaks for itself.
    18. comment at AfD, repeated 19 April 2017 here at the article talk page as an instruction to their students: Feedback from instructor: The literature cited shows that more regulation leads to more employment and economic growth in Appalachia. This paradox increases the notability of this subject and the page could be streamlined based on this connection. When I asked what that means exactly, EJustice wrote this. In other words, this instruction to the students was conjecture and advocacy stated as TruthTM. This is where the class is coming from and where they are being led, in their Wikipedia editing. This is not what we do in Wikipedia. This is a thesis that someone would argue for in an essay.
    19. 23 April 2017 another attack on motivations of me and others.
    20. 25 April 2017 as above. Which prompted this filing.

    References

    1. ^ Denson, Author: Ryan (2017-01-25). "The Numbers Are In: Trump Is The Most Hated Newly Inaugurated President EVER". Addicting Info | The Knowledge You Crave. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
    2. ^ Ball, Molly. "Trump's Last Vacant Cabinet Post". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-03-06.
    3. ^ Furuseth, Owen J. (November 1997). "Restructuring of Hog Farming in North Carolina: Explosion and Implosion". The Professional Geographer. 49 (4): 391–403. doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00086. (nb, citation fixed)
    4. ^ Wimberley, Ronald C; Morris, Libby V (2002). "The Regionalization of Poverty: Assistance for the Black Belt South?" (PDF). Southern Rural Sociology. 18 (1): 294–306. (NB, citation fixed)
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    (none)
    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 and diff on 14 April 2017
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    EJustice's trajectory within WP is very typical of advocates who arrive here, mistaking Wikipedia for something that it is not. EJustice arrived with a clearly stated agenda, has mostly ignored feedback, and has accused those who raised issues with their content of being blinded by their own biases. No self-awareness, no acknowledgement that a bunch (not all) of the student editing has violated policies on many levels (POV, SYN, failing verification, COPYVIO), nor glimmer of openness to seeing Wikipedia for what it is. (It is hard to write about race and class everywhere in the world, including WP - maybe especially in WP with our policies and guidelines and mission, and our community full of messy humans)

    EJustice set this POV-editing agenda for a class of 180 people; EJustice is driving (their grade depends on it) and encouraging students to add essay content to Wikipedia arguing an environmental justice agenda, against Trump's agenda; this is the WP:Beware of tigers problem. EJustice has demonstrated this in their AfD !votes, their talk page comments, and their responses at various boards.

    I feel awful for the students. See this conversation with a student on my Talk page. That student is trapped between what their professor is demanding and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

    EJustice being here under the Education Program has kind of exacerbated the overall problems - pulling out this diff from a volunteer at ANI, already cited above: If it wasn't for the wiki edu connection, User:EJustice would have already been warned, if not blocked, for POV pushing per WP:NOTHERE.

    This is.. awkward and unfortunate and is surely something that will be discussed when the semester is over when the Wiki Ed staff are not working like crazy trying to help students complete their assignments.

    But EJustice's activities have caused widespread disruption and absorbed a ton of volunteer time, as you can see from the discussion boards cited above. They continue to personalize objections to content created by students, instead of dealing the policy-and-guideline based issues themselves, as shown by the last two diffs above in particular. In the case of EJustice as a Wikipedian, in my view they should be topic banned from contemporary politics, and be informed that this goes for future classes via TAs per MEAT. This is a very bad outcome but I don't see another way. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    • shrunk. Acknowledged. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • User: Sandstein I thought about that too. Where I came down is that per the dashboard page cited in the first bullet of diffs, the agenda for this class was driven in reaction to Trump's environmental agenda. The focus of this class is raising awareness of EJ issues and of Trump's "assault" on them. If you control+f this for "assault" and "Trump" and look at the article titles created by the students, you will see that EJustice talked about "assault" not only in syllabus but in an AfD, and that the focus of the class is Trump. At the ANI thread they opened they said The topic of environmental justice is particularly tricky right now. President Trump is on the record... etc. Contemporary politics is every where in this. That is why their behavior falls under these DS, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Sandstein thanks for reply but I struggle with your analysis. The content generated by the students was specifically and generally Trump related, at EJustice's direction. EJustice's comments accuse those objecting to the content of being full of bias -- that we (I am among them) are incapable of editing neutrally about contemporary US politics because of that bias. So the comments are an effort to influence content about contemporary US politics; we do not permit editors to be active in US politics who behave this way. Not to mention, who drive other editors to add this kind of policy-violating content about contemporary US politics. I do appreciate the nod toward AN should you remain with this position and a consensus of admins ends up agreeing with you. That is a valid alternative route. This also prompts me to consider that a community ban might be a more... appropriate solution. But let's see what other admins weigh in with. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • OK, seems like most people are leaning toward AN as a better venue. I am fine with withdrawing this in favor of that venue. Not sure if that is relevant to a darn thing but wanted to say it. If this is withdrawn, my next step would be to simply provide a link to this request at AN, so that none of us have to re-post what has already been said. If this stays open for further admin input, am fine with too. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Quick note. As the lead to Environmental justice says, "the term has two distinct uses: the first, and more common usage, describes a social movement that focuses on the fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, while the other is an interdisciplinary body of social science literature that includes theories of the environment and justice, environmental laws and their implementations, environmental policy and planning and governance for development and sustainability, and political ecology." Much of the students editing was actually advocacy in line with the former, instead of describing things in the US through the lens of the latter. This was the key problem (the "live tigers" problem) Am leaning more and more in favor of an indefinite block, not just a TBAN, especially in light of EJustice's response which is the kind of ... difficult interpretation of things that got us all here in the first place; I think a TBAN would just become a source of further turmoil about edges of the topic ban. If we need to move to AN to do that, let's do that. I think that is within the bounds of the DS, however. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Responding to User: EdChem. I very much hear the reputational issues all around that you raise; this is what I meant when I talked about the awkwardness of all this. My sense is that as people have responded here, they have been aware of that. Considered community action (as we are doing.. and one of the reasons why I chose this venue is that it is optimally structured for careful consideration) was required, and the record of what we have already done here will help others see and understand what happened.
    But what you write doesn't deal with what happened. EJustice arrived here and did what individual advocates always do, but in addition to arriving wrapped in his own truth and committed to his own mission, he wrapped himself in the flag of Education Program as diffs above show (see especially this) and he committed 180 meatpuppets to amplify his mission - he misled the students with regard to what they should do in Wikipedia and drove them there by their need to produce work that would be graded. He gives no sign that he understands this.
    This was the nightmare of the Education Program made real, and the risks of conflict of interest that classroom editing creates, were also made actual here. These students were caught between the policies/guidelines/mission of WP and their external need to do the assignment they were given and get their grades. These unfortunate students...
    The normal and appropriate course of action here is a TBAN minimum or as is emerging an indef to prevent future disruption and harm of students, the Education Program, the volunteer community and of course Wikipedia. Any such restriction would be appealable. It would be amazing if EJustice could be resilient and see what they have done and make a successful appeal. Classes like this one in particular ~could~ add a lot of value to Wikipedia and aid the mission. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Please take care with regard to statements about off-wiki matters. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Train, there are clerks etc to handle posts that might not be appropriate. Things also tend to be handled in good time at AE, with enough time to reach sound decisions but not allowing things to linger overlong. Both are reasons I wanted to deal with this in this venue. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    diff

    Discussion concerning EJustice

    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 EJustice

    Appreciate all the discussion. I will restrict my response to the charge that I violated Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions .281932 cutoff.29. Please correct me if there is more at stake in this discussion on this page.

    As this diff indicates, I have not edited within the sanctions area. There was one sentence in our course syllabus that has been the major source of POV claims against me, while the syllabus itself clearly states that the Wikipedia assignments are an exercise in writing neutrally.

    It is not clear to me that the syllabus, hosted on Wikiedu.org, is subject to POV rules. If so, would wikipedia editors have the right to alter the readings or other assignments? It is simply a syllabus and its content (POV or not) has no bearing on an assignment in which students were required to write neutral, well supported wikipedia articles to the best of their abilities.


    A key issue here is whether environmental justice is by definition a POV term. It is a field of academic research that is over 30 years old, yet Jytdog above states: 

    :: key comment -- comment on draft: Remember however that your grade depends also on the extent to which you cover EJ in the article.

    as if students' coverage of this issue in an article is somehow wrong. If I insisted in a chemistry class that articles cover chemistry, would I be subject to sanctions?

    Finally, here is just one example of Jytdog's assuming bad faith on my part. If one understands environmental justice as a field of research, his long complaint above becomes instead a POV itself, arguing against environmental justice as a field of research.

    I am sorry if my insistence that the intersection of race, class, gender and other social characteristics with the environment is an important field of research and data, and NOT POV, is interpreted as intransigence on my part. I assure you that it is not. Jytdog's list of complaints across so many articles illustrate the way in which on many topic areas it remains difficult for people to accept the strong research that is available on this subject and instead to treat this work as somehow biased. EJustice (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by The Wordsmith

    @Lord Roem: I intend to make a more substantive comment, but I will request that you grant Jytdog a waiver on his statement length. This issue encompasses a massive number of articles involving many editors, and extra space really is necessary to put this issue in context. The only reason I didn't bring it to AE myself is because of the sheer scope of this. And as always, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED on 2016 Election-related articles in general and this Berkeley issue in specific. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    • I've been dealing with this nonsense since I happened upon one of the articles while browsing AFD. Upon doing some routine research, I was horrified to find the rest of them. A full list (of the ones in mainspace, anyway) is at User:Train2104/Berkeley NPOV articles. A handful of them, such as Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, are okay, though that only came about through a large effort involving many editors resulting from a note I dropped on Talk:Donald Trump. Prior to that, it was a mess of POV pushing and Original Research and Crystal Ballery. Going by the looks of it, roughly half of them have already been deleted or otherwise removed from article space. And through it all, EJustice has maintained that anyone opposing or criticizing the work being done is doing so because of their own biases. I really think there's a fundamental disconnect between what Professor Gelobter thinks Wikipedia is for, and what we actually do here. Many experienced editors and admins have tried to help him understand, but I don't think he's willing to budge. A topic ban for him and his students (many of which have been meatpuppeting on each others' AFDs) is the only way that I know of to end this disruption, short of waiting for the semester to be over and then a massive cleanup. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • @Anonymous Students: Let me be clear and state that I do not want you to be punished or banned. Many of you were misled as to what sort of things were appropriate on Wikipedia, and that is not your fault. That is the fault of Professor Gelobter, for being given advice on community norms and ignoring it. A few people here have had the chance to work with you on Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, and they have good things to say about you. I would like it if at least some of you stuck around, learned the ropes from experienced editors, and used your own knowledge to contribute the correct way outside of the constraints of this class. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Bri

    I'll make this short and sweet.

    1. I encountered this group's editing also, and found it beyond problematic.
    2. The courses are obviously US politics agenda driven and inherently POV.
    3. The 10 April diff [22] is particularly concerning in that it appears to show students being pushed until they conform to the course's agenda. I don't know how this works at UC Berkeley, but this amounts to WP:MEAT in our sphere.
    4. Also here he is offering legal advice to his students that are at odds with our norms.
    5. The course leader should not be allowed to participate further until they demonstrate that they understand our community processes and norms.

    - Bri (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by MelanieN

    I have been involved to a slight extent with EJustice and his students, primarily at one of the articles: Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. At that article several of us have been working with several of the students, collegially and with good results, and it is a proper encyclopedia article. I have interacted with EJustice himself on only one occasion, the ANI that Jytdog quoted from above. Speaking as a regular editor (not as an admin because of my involvement), I have two points to make.

    • "Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration" is a proper subject for Wikipedia, comparable to other articles about the various policies of various presidents. I was unaware of all the other articles that have been created (180 students? OMG!), and having looked at a few now I am pretty much appalled. Almost none of them are proper subjects for an encyclopedia article. "Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations"? "Environmental impacts of pig farming"? "Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama" for heavens sake?? At most these subjects could be a paragraph in a related article. These are not articles, these are student term papers, and they should have been assigned and graded as such. From the subject matter, to the format, to the neutrality or lack of it, they are completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. This was inherent in the class itself, which is frankly oriented toward a particular political viewpoint. In the future this professor should not assign his students to do their term papers in the form of Wikipedia articles, and steps should be taken at the education project to ensure that this does not happen again. Unfortunately, almost all of these inappropriate articles are going to have to be deleted or redirected.
    • The user EJustice has been very belligerent about attributing any criticism or deletion to bias, rather than to enforcing the guidelines of an international encyclopedia. That's just a defensive reflex on his part; EJustice knows nothing about the political or social opinions of editors here. That's by design; most of us try to edit in such a way that our own beliefs and attitudes are not reflected in our editing. (I personally have been accused of being everything from a flaming liberal to a Trump apologist.) But EJustice has a fixed belief that anyone who disagrees with his agenda must be doing so because of their own biases. That fixed belief, and the WP:IDHT attitude it generates, are incompatible with being a Wikipedia editor. It appears that EJustice is NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, but rather to use it to promote his own viewpoint. IMO action needs to be taken on that basis.

    I thank Jytdog for this careful research and exposition of this massive problem. Unfortunately AE may not be the proper venue for the problems raised here, and we might have to do it all again at AN in order to take the actions which are called for.--MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    @Lord Roem, Sandstein, and El C: You mentioned a topic ban, presumably of EJustice. To be clear, what topic are you considering banning him from? Also a comment: banning User:EJustice himself from editing does nothing to prevent him from sending 180 students here to post POV term papers. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    One final comment: If sanctions or restrictions are applied to EJustice, the statement applying and explaining them needs to spell out clearly, one more time, that the problem is not that we object to this field of study. After all, we have had an article on Environmental justice since 2005. The problem is that this instructor's approach is unencyclopedic. The assignment given, and indeed the very premise of the class, was not to do scholarly research in the field, but rather to demonstrate that the policies of a particular named politician are destructive and wrong. ("Besides a few individual assignments, students will largely work in small groups to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles in order to create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency."[23]) That polemic approach was and is contrary to Wikipedia policies, and is the reason for any future restrictions. --MelanieN (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    I am grateful to Anonymous student 2 for letting us know that EJustice has been urging his students to come here and defend him, even suggesting what they should say ("Isn't this the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit?") It's clear that he was WP:Canvassing for WP:Meatpuppets (another area where he either does not understand or chooses to ignore Wikipedia norms), and I commend the two students who have commented here so far, for not doing that. Instead they came here with thoughtful commentary about their experience and Wikipedia. I think they have reflected very well on Cal students and I am impressed. For his part, I would prefer not to think that EJustice is a good or typical example of the Cal faculty. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    P.S. I have been reminded that I should not always take comments from anonymous IPs at face value, so evaluate this information accordingly. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Seraphimblade

    I'll comment here since I've been rather involved in this issue. I fully agree that this is becoming a major problem. Normally, when I've run into issues with class projects, I've found that instructors and students are quite willing to receive and act on feedback, and it doesn't have to go any farther than giving them some advice and being there if they have questions. Unfortunately, that has not been true here. EJustice has seemed fundamentally unwilling to change the approach they've taken, even after having been told repeatedly that it is unacceptable. At this point, I don't know what else we can do but apply sanctions.

    To the question by Sandstein, many of this class's edits are American Politics related, but there have also been issues with BLP. Discretionary sanctions always are applicable to BLP issues. But something needs to change here, because this is reaching a serious level of disruption, and with the instructor being unwilling to change what they're doing, I don't know what else to do. I warned some time ago that it might come to this if it continues, and, well, here we are. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Train2104

    I encountered this course after seeing the first ENI report linked in the "prior community discussion" section above. Their behavior has been problematic, magnified by the sheer volume of students and articles involved. I echo the comments by the various editors above, and thank Jytdog for bringing this here, for it is sorely needed. The edits are clearly motivated by American politics, and as such, should fall under discretionary sanctions.

    Students look up to instructors as role models, and we expect instructors to demonstrate good behavior to their students. However, here, we are considering sanctions against a particular editor, not against all 180 students. We do not know the behind the scenes processes that occurred leading to this, including the choice of article topics, etc. But we do know that the syllabus was deliberately written with a goal in mind, and thus by extension, the course and assignment have an advocacy goal, one clearly not compatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. Nor do we know whether or not this user has attempted this course in the past (pre-Trump of course). But clearly they have refused to listen to our advice, and instead accuse us of systemic bias and not supporting his cause - when we try to be as neutral as possible. The fact that there are 180 students, far less than 180 articles (thankfully!), and that numerous SPA/meatpuppet votes were cast at the AFD's tell me that role accounts were likely used. This also violates policy, and is a violation the instructor should clearly be aware of, in addition to the copyright matters above. I echo StAnselm's comment at ANI - we are here only because of the protections (real or imagined) afforded by the Education Program, and if this were a blind meatpuppet army they'd long be blocked.

    I support the application of sanctions against this instructor, and urge the community to participate in the postmortem analysis and discussion that Wiki Ed has promised will occur over the summer, in response to this and numerous other course-related problems this semester. The semester is almost over, so I'm not sure of their effectiveness, but Wikipedia does not operate according to the calendar of any particular university. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    I agree with @Jytdog: that a topic ban may not be the best solution - the user's past behavior indicates that protracted disputes over the edges of the topic ban are very likely. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    In response to Anonymous Student 2 - wow. It is clear that the instructor is using the students as a meatpuppet army to protect himself and promote his cause. I am going to say firmly and clearly that it is in my belief none of the student accounts should be sanctioned without specific and clear evidence of misbehavior unrelated to the student assignment, and as of this point, I do not see any of that. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Wiki Ed

    I've just posted a statement about this AE request on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation here: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents#Statement by Wiki Ed regarding AE. It's not posted on this page for two reasons: first, it would exceed the word count; second, we wanted to comment on the situation and our role in it, but, of course, would rather not opine on the outcome of this process. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Seraphim System

    I agree in large part with the comments above - there have been problems and User:EJustice has not been responsive to feedback, and has blamed other editors for being motivated by bias (I can only speak for myself, but I am not promoting a POV about this and did not appreciate being accused of racial or gender bias). Is there systemic bias? Yes, absolutely - but as I have said before, that is not a free pass to disregard policies like WP:SYNTH WP:OR WP:CRYSTAL etc. Even if all these policy guidelines are followed, there will still editors who are disruptive and non-neutral - but there is not much room for debate here, the policy violations were clear and routine.

    That said, I'm not convinced AE is the right place for this - from the diffs provided I don't see any evidence that the editor has edited in the sanctions area himself, or that these articles were even in the sanctions area when this conduct took place - maybe they should have been, but for a significant duration of this course they were not. Environmental Impacts of Pig Farming for example - not in the sanctions area. These pages should have been correctly templated and protected from the start, they were not. This general behavioral complaint should be raised in the correct forum, if only so we don't slide further down the abyss of chaos and disorder. Seraphim System (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    @EdJohnston: It could be brought under the scope of discretionary sanctions - American law pages are not part of American politics "broadly construed" - that statement veers into meta-theories of law territory. The widely established understanding is that the judiciary is considered to be independent of the political branches and they don't adjudicate on political questions - some specific pages may be both legal and political - Statutes passed by Congress could be considered political, because passing legislation is a political process - but the page on Torts or Marbury v. Madison are not pages about politics. Torts is not part of American politics, movements to change the law of torts are part of American politics, as are legislative actions to modify the laws of torts, executive orders, or even agency regulations may be "broadly" construed as being part of American politics in some contexts - I can't deny that Administrative law is part politics "broadly construed", (but litigation challenging enforcement of regulations on legal grounds is not). I want to make this clear going forward - when it comes to torts and cases, x=x and y=y, except when 1,2,3. The whole point of the exercise is that it is not political, it is not democratic, nor based on majority rule or other "political" processes. As for how that applies to the Environmental Justice page - DS could apply because the page is not only about a general area of law - it does include content that is about politics and political movements, and relies heavily on non-legal sources. No problem, if it is under DS it should have been protected and templated, and the usual editing restrictions should have been in place. Seraphim System (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    @Jytdog: I agree that most of the students work has been more political advocacy then law, and this is likely realated to the syllabus and other issues that have been discussed already. Seraphim System (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by DHeyward

    This type ofabuse threatens to undermine the very core principles of wikipedia. The fact that it seems to be supported by outreach efforts means it needs to be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy. Period. --DHeyward (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by TonyBallioni

    I'd been refraining from making a statement here because my experience has been mostly with the copyvio issues, which EJustice's talk page documents his response to and in my opinion is worthy of community sanctions in itself. I'll echo MelanieN in saying that I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the students on the Trump article, but Jytdog's diff concerning the grading standards of this course and EJustice's response to it make it clear that he does not understand why grading students based on introduction of a POV into Wikipedia is wrong, and it also places the urgency students on talk pages have felt to include certain content in context.

    The course page description mentioning Trump makes it clear that the intent was to edit in the DS area, which combined with the student actions in line with their grading standards makes me believe AE is the right place to deal with this. I think a topic ban from courses involving politics of the United States would be justified, on AE grounds alone, and combined with the blantant defense of plagiarism and copyright violations by a university professor I think makes it the only justifiable outcome if it is taken to another forum. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    • @Jytdog: I would support indef or a site ban that can be appealed to AN per the standard option because of their response and the multitude of issues, some of which are outside the scope of DS. I think a tban could be handled within DS, but indef or site ban would probably need to be community imposed. I also agree with MelanieN that it must be made clear that any sanctions must make clear that this in no way has to do with his political views or their topic of research but the fact that he has had no regard for Wikipedia's policies, and actively tried to get around them despite efforts of many of us in the community to help. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Without responding to the off-wiki issues, I want to say that I think we should have a close on this soon at this venue. If the DS apply and the responding administrators feel that sanctions should apply, let them be applied. If people don't feel the sanctions imposed are enough to prevent future disruption or there is a concern about forum, it can be handled at AN. Prolonging the AE process at this point is not likely to add anything that has not already been said. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by JFG

    EJustice has demonstrated a WP:NOTHERE attitude, which can gravely impact Wikipedia's reputation. He has received many warnings and offers for help, and apparently failed to get the point. I see only an indef ban as the correct preventive remedy. No student account should be sanctioned, but the rationale against EJustice should be explained to them. — JFG talk 07:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by OID

    As Ryan from wiki-ed points out, this is an unsual case where an instructor has agreed to abide by wikipedia rules then basically turned around and ignored them. Restrict the instructor *and any class/students they teach* from live article edits (restrict them to talkpages, draft & userspace etc) and we can all go stop talking about it. Draftspace etc already have the processes in place to evaluate, amend draft articles, and the instructor will just have to amend his class or learn to do things the wiki-way. (Yes this is hard on the students, but that is entirely the instructors fault. As a process issue, meatpuppets are also considered aware of any sanctions that apply to the hidden hand behind them.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Kingofaces43

    Just a note that some of the students chosen topics within the umbrella of environmental justice on the course page fell within pesticide related topics, which are also under DS from the GMO ArbCom case. Ejustice themselves did not edit within those pages, but they were directing people to those topics through the course page. I don't think GMO-Pesticide DS are needed right now (it may be a stretch to apply those DS to Ejustice), but just a heads up that if a future class comes up with this professor even under a political topic ban, there's a decent chance they might end up in yet another DS topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Tryptofish

    I can't really add anything that has not already been said, but I share the opinion that the way the class project was set up was seriously disruptive, that the length of the presentation here is not worth worrying over, and that the instructor is unlikely to become helpful without sanctions. I've taken part in some of the past discussions with EJustice, and it seems to me that EJustice does not intend to change their approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Sorry that I gave EdChem an edit conflict, but speaking as another academic who became an editor, I disagree with treating instructors and students differently than other editors. This did not happen in a vacuum: there was plenty of helpful advice from WikiEd and the community, and plenty of time to take that advice on board. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by EdChem

    I've been watching this miss unfold for a while, starting from the problematic new articles and including the discussions with EJustice and Ryan at Wiki Ed, and I've been debating whether to say anything. I have the strong impression that Ryan (Wiki Ed) has worked hard behind the scenes to avoid this becoming a train wreck and that EJustice has not listened to, or not understood, some very good advice. Unfortunately, there have been some unhelpful comments made to students and to EJustice – not just harsh/bitey-unhelpful, but also well intentioned but not useful-unhelpful. As an academic who has assessed student work at both undergraduate and graduate levels, I can see how an on-WP course project can get into a huge conflict between academic goals and encyclopaedic writing. As a Wikipedian, I can see how the goals can mesh and what to avoid, and I can see how EJustice can have made some of the mistakes that he has. Sadly, we are well past the point where much of this course's writings can be salvaged, and the paths from here diverge. EJustice needs to make sure he can do a valid assessment of the student work for credit, WP needs to clean up article space, and the future needs to be considered. So, I suggest the following:

    1. One or more admins who are willing to volunteer for the task can work with EJustice so he can see what he needs to for grading purposes within WP policy. With plenty of necessary deletions having occurred and continuing to occur, providing material off-wiki is likely going to be necessary. Related to this, we know EJustice will share his experiences with colleagues, as will his students. Doing what we can to support the assessment side will hopefully reduce the reputational damage to WP from those discussions, as will helping all to understand that the WP issue is advocacy and encyclopaedic content, not any particular topic.
    2. A decision on EJustice should not be taken here at AE. I don't doubt that DS jurisdiction can cover many of the students and the work, as well as some of EJustice's comments, but I think any decisions on bans and blocks will have consequences beyond just EJustice. Such decisions are better taken by the community as a whole, or by ArbCom, rather than by an AE-admin consensus or a unilateral AE action. Yes, a unilateral action is authorised and justifiable, but I do not think it would be wise. In addition, as Kingofaces43 has recently and accurately noted, the articles touch onto other DS areas (like GMO), and I note that it is also possible that some do not fall clearly within any DS area. The AN option avoids the need to craft an action within a DS area, but rather to tailor it to the actual situation.
    3. We need to know EJustice's future intentions, vis-à-vis running course projects on WP. I think an AN-supported ban on such an action without an outline of goals and methods which is accepted by the WikiEd team and the community as consistent with WP is desirable. WP has the right to protect itself from another situation like this one developing, which may ultimately mean a site ban, but I would prefer to avoid that and a ban on post-1932 politics is a potential minefield of edge-testing, etc.
    4. We are already seeing some debate on where the edges are – take recent comments from Seraphim System, for example. A page like Marbury v. Madison is clearly prior to 1932, but leaving that aside: the parts dealing with the limits of original jurisdiction and the powers of judicial review are not political, but lame duck Congressional actions authorising judicial appointments of a single political stripe, with an incoming President taking immediate action to frustrate are clearly in the realms of politics, and those parts of the article would be caught within an American Politics DS – remember that DS applies to the topic, which includes the parts of pages on other topics which are substantially part of the DS-covered topic. The problem we have is not the potential controversy of the topic area, it is the setting of a task which is non-neutral advocacy in its intent. In that sense, a topic ban is a poor fit for addressing the actual problem, and if the advocacy issue can't be resolved, then no topic area will be appropriate for future projects (and a site ban would be the logical enforcement remedy).
    5. EJustice, I have debated whether to post on your user talk page to point out some perspectives, experienced Wikipedian and academic to academic, but I won't unless you are open to the discussion. I know you must be feeling harried by all that has happened. Wikipedia can be a jungle of overlapping policies and guidelines with unexpected pitfalls, and it can also be very unfriendly. I admire your courage in trying to do a 180 student project as your first foray onto WP, it was brave... but, to be frank, it was not wise. The design you chose was always going to conflict with how Wikipedia operates, and I could point out how many of the problems could have been avoided. I would be willing to have the discussion in a sub-page of your user space, because I think what I would say is relevant to others and I prefer open communication... but I would also be willing to ask that other users not comment in the discussion, restricting their views / comments etc to the talk page. I would also be willing to include Ryan from WikiEd, if you like, and to delay it until after the assessment etc is dealt with (Ryan will be very busy until summer anyway). Please let me know what you think.

    Short Version: I oppose a topic ban as a poor fit for addressing the actual advocacy problem, and I strongly advise no AE action, not for lack of jurisdiction, but because AN is a more appropriate forum both for widespread community input and for tailoring a remedy to suit the actual problem. The clean up in article space via deletions must and will continue, but EJustice should be supported / assisted to complete the assessments for grading etc of the students. This is both fair for the students (who are caught between WP policy and incompatible task design which is not their fault) and will hopefully reduce reputational damage to WP from EJustice and the students sharing their difficult / unpleasant WP experience with others. Finally, the discussion in summer with Ryan and others from WikiEd is vitally important for looking at lessons for WP and future student editing, which continues to provide challenges. EdChem (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by EJustice

    EdChem I would welcome the chance to have the kind of discussion you suggest, particularly bounded as you suggest on a sub-page to keep us focused on my understanding and learning how to contribute more fruitfully. And I'd welcome the help to facilitate our grading. Hope we get to do it! EJustice (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Jusdafax

    I find myself in complete agreement with EdChem. I too oppose a topic ban and strongly advise no AE action - if need be, AN is the place to take this. I commend EdChem for his thoughtful reasoning. If Wikipedia is truly to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" then let's take Ed's statement to heart. Jusdafax 04:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Anonymous Student

    I've stumbled upon this page after hearing what my classmates have been experiencing with their respective projects. (My group's contributions hardly caused a ripple, so I didn't experience any of this myself) I can't speak on behalf of the professor or the other students, but I do fully understand the issues that the community has raised in response to our contributions and agree that the assignment did have some inherent conflicts of interest with the stated goals of Wikipedia. I understand this has taken a lot of time and caused headaches for editors who felt rightfully alarmed by the content they were seeing. I just want to say, for what it's worth, we are all incredibly new to this and it actually has been a valuable learning experience about how to present information in a neutral way. It's a learning curve, and we're just starting to exercise our critical thinking muscles.

    I would implore editors to not to be unduly harsh with the student accounts... I'm afraid it would do little except leave a bad taste in 180 impressionable young minds that were just trying to satisfy a rubric. It might be wiser to keep that door open so that those that are motivated to contribute more can come back and develop our awareness of WP ethics. My own group discussed our feelings about this very issue, and it has been eye-opening for me to read along with this whole thread.

    Thank you for all of your time and it is very heartening to see this kind of passion behind the scenes at WP. Keep up the good work! 128.32.87.206 (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Anonymous Student2

    Because I think it is relevant, I wanted to let the community know that students from the class have been directed by the professor, in lecture and via email, to this page for comment. The email states "I've activated the link www.bit.do/ejwiki if you wish to weigh in on whether I should be banned from Wikipedia. Please feel no obligation to do so and if you do keep your input substantive (people will try to bait you). Statements like: "Isn't this the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit?” are great, and use diffs (see the bonus assignment for how). There's also a new, bonus assignment for documenting extraordinary edits to your articles or talk pages." 2607:F140:400:A024:440:DBDF:46D2:3213 (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning EJustice

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'll review soon, but your request is way too long. Please shrink it to comply to the 500-word limit. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
      • I think what's been been presented is more than enough. It's unfortunate that we have to face this with a university course that has the potential to strengthen existing articles w/ better research and sourcing... but the editor in question is very clearly POV-pushing and refusing to listen to feedback. We've sanctioned with less extensive evidence. I believe a topic-ban is appropriate, with the added proviso that the editor should be very wary about asking his students to edit where he can't. They need to understand what WP is for and what's not appropriate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
        • Adding that while I think the above is enough to act on my own, I'd like to hear other admins' thoughts before jumping in. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
          • The more I think about it, the more I think AN might be best to handle this if only because this isn't just a potential sanction against one editor, but the entire class, as MelanieN mentions above. I'd feel uncomfortable making such a broad decision on my own, especially when we're not unanimous that DS applies. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
      • I agree with others that the length of the complaint should be overlooked. GoldenRing (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • At first glance we do seem to have conduct issues here that could justify a sanction, but I would like it to be made more clear how this is about the "politics of the United States" and therefore within scope of discretionary sanctions. Apart from a few Trump-related comments, the diffs in evidence are basically about topics related to environmental justice and environmental protection in the US. This is of course a political matter in a broad sense, but then most controversial public policy issues are. My understanding of the sanctions is that they were enacted to deal with disruption in the topic area of partisan or party politics, such as elections-related content. If they are understood to cover every controversial public issue, they'd cover basically everything related to the U.S., which I don't think was the intention.  Sandstein  20:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Unlike Jytdog, I don't think that, just because EJustice may possibly have had political reasons for their actions, these actions are within the scope of discretionary sanctions about U.S. politics. In my view, it is required that the potentially disruptive edits are themselves related to U.S. politics in order to be sanctionable. I would therefore not take AE action here. However, a request for a community topic ban, which is not limited by topic area, might be made at WP:AN.  Sandstein  20:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • I tend to agree with Jytdog that, due to the focus of the edits (rather than merely the motivation, as Sandstein claims), it can be seen to fall within the scope of ARBAP2—but a topic ban can work just as well to end the disruption. Clearly, something needs to be done, as the statements by several editors above attest. El_C 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Perhaps, we should take this to the wider community (at AN), since the 180 students may also need to be placed under restrictions. Sounds like a plan. El_C 23:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • I've left a note at AN asking for admin input.
    If the class is done for this year, the I guess the 180 POV-pushing accounts are no longer a serious problem. Something needs to be done about EJustice though. I'm not entirely convinced that a than from post-1932 American politics will be the answer; aren't we then risking the same types of problems in whatever area their class is assigned next year? I'm frankly tempted to just indef them, on the grounds that indefinite does not mean infinite and if they can demonstrate that they've understood the purpose of Wikipedia and how they can do education programs constructively then they can be unblocked, but I'd like some more support for that idea before trying it. GoldenRing (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • @Jytdog: Exactly. My thinking is that this is someone who shouldn't be here until we see an attitude change. GoldenRing (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Well, EJustice has responded, and I'm not seeing a lot of understanding of what the problems are. The next question is what sanction would be appropriate. I'm minded to a topic ban from wikiedu, to prevent them setting assignments, but how would that suit with the scope of DS? If DS don't stretch this far, ought we perhaps to ask the committee to handle this by motion? GoldenRing (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • I agree that this falls under the US politics sanctions. If the party is over, there is no point in chastising the students, if there was ever a point to that. The instructor's behavior, however, is far from acceptable, and if they don't respond here, they're very likely to get a topic ban from editing or assigning anything remotely political. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • The article on Environmental justice (which discusses mostly the USA) falls under WP:ARBAP2 since American laws are part of American politics broadly construed. I think that an admin would be acting within our policy if they issued a topic ban of User:EJustice from everything covered by WP:ARBAP2 as well as an indefinite block under normal admin authority. The block would be appealable at WP:AN and could be lifted if the user agreed to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. Unless problems from the students continue I don't see a need for sanctions against more than one person. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • First a couple of quick points. There is no real doubt in my mind that this falls under ARBAP2. Secondly I think the length of the OP's statement can be forgiven given the unusual nature of the case and its history. After looking it over I have to agree with most of the comments and the OPs statement. This appears to be a fairly brazen campaign to right great wrongs. This kind of WP:AGENDA oriented editing would be bad enough on one editor's part, but this is a highly aggravated case by virtue of the number of people involved and what I can only describe as an attempt to subvert the project's neutrality. I support a topic ban from any articles and discussions dealing with post 1932 American politics broadly construed for EJustice and any course/class they may be running. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

    Request concerning Mar4d

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Mar4d (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/India-Pakistan
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 25 April 2017 Changed the section title from "Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents" to "Insurgents and intelligence operatives", like the section includes only proven convictions, when its full of allegations. On edit summary he wrote "+ref", he didn't mentioned he made a misleading title and added a new event.
    2. 24 April 2017 Warned the editor the he went "above WP:3RR", despite he made just 2 reverts.[24][25] See WP:BATTLE.
    3. 24 April 2017 Censoring content by removing all mention of Pakistan despite Kashmir conflict refers to conflict of Kashmir in Pakistan, and 4/7 editors on talk page agreed to include Pakistan.
    4. 25 April 2017 on SPI, he claims "seems they were not notified about this SPI", when policy is that notifying "isn’t mandatory". Either call it WP:GAMING, or stirring up drama.
    5. 25 April 2017 Trying to preserve article about an obviously non-notable person, when the page creator himself requested deletion[26]
    6. 24 April 2017 Misrepresenting sources. On edit summary he claims that "source makes no mention of OBL personally involved in the conflict", despite source does back the sentence by saying "led by Osama bin Laden, was inducted by the Pakistan Army into Gilgit and adjoining areas to suppress the revolt"[27]
    7. 23 April 2017 clear violation of WP:BLPCAT, the person has never identified himself to be Pakistani. Before making such a category, Mar4d had to first source that information on the article body.

    Interesting thing is that this all comes under 2 days, and remains continuous for many years. Above diffs show how he misrepresents sources, engages WP:BATTLE, violates WP:BLP, pushes WP:POV, censors content, etc. Given his block log and this amount of disruption in such a small period, it would be best to have him banned from entire South Asia. D4iNa4 (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    • El C, I hope you have checked his violation of WP:1RR, WP:BLPCAT, misrepresentation of sources and frequent WP:NPOV violations in this month alone, you can never expect him to edit without creating tensions in this area. Hounding him on every article just to watch his new ways of gaming would be complete waste of time. On a quick look I find some more recent edits that are clear violations.
    • While undoing this edit, he removed [28] {{cn|date=June 2016}} tag without inserting source and calling it part of "vandalism", though it wasn't.
    • refers usual content removal/addition as vandalism,[29][30][31] (see WP:NOTVAND)
    • while he is abusing,WP:ROLLBACK,[32] he re-inserts sentence that is unsourced for 6 years.[33]

    So we have already seen, he would remove {{citation needed}} tag when it favors his POV[34], and he would restore the unsourced sentence with the tag when it favors his POV.[35] Ultimately, since he has been blocked so many times and socked (2009-2015) on this subject, I guess sanctions like topic ban are long overdue. 

    D4iNa4 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. [36].
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    12 August 2016
    • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months
    • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
    • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    [37]

    Discussion concerning Mar4d

    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 Mar4d

    This is a frivolous report filed in bad faith, compiling its and bits with no substance. The tone in which it is written seems reminiscent of WP:HOUNDING. I do hope that the user takes note of WP:BOOMERANG, being well aware of their one-sided editing in the past 48 hours. In my defence, I'd like to point out:

    1. 25 April 2017 This edit, as the summary points out, involved adding a reference on militants. Rather than creating a new section, I combined it into an existing section. I do not see what is misleading about copyediting, I do it all the time WP:BOLDly. The section title was too long, so I made it concise. Besides, the content below it touches up on the allegations so it's redundant (see MOS:SECTIONS).
    2. 24 April 2017 On this one, you are wrong. Capitals00 made 5 reverts on Rape in Kashmir Insurgency under the 24 hour window, and they were basically edit warring: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] They were also incorrectly claiming WP:CONSENSUS while reinstating those edits. The WP:3RR rule gives no leeway, all editors must not exceed 3 reverts whether involving the same or different material. Instead of filing against Capitals00 at WP:AN3 for 5RR, I chose to leave them a note.
    3. 24 April 2017 If you are following the discussion on the talk page, you would know that multiple editors have expressed concern on that content's suitability for inclusion, given the article's scope. I have no idea where you interpreted the 4/7 figure from. Please go through the most recent discussions in particular.
    4. 25 April 2017 This one is laughable actually. It is considered courtesy to notify someone when you start SPI against them, you chose not to do that. The fact that you're unhappy over me doing what you should have done, and accusing me of WP:GAMING and WP:DRAMA, is quite telling.
    5. 25 April 2017 Irrelevant. Feel free to start a section on that talk page if you want to discuss WP:NOTABILITY, or the reason for turning down WP:PROD.
    6. 24 April 2017 Again, you could've asked about this on the article talk page, or even mine. I stand by the original edit. The source makes no mention of OBL being present in the conflict, or that he ever visited that region. It says militias led by him (or in other words, affiliated). Those two are different things. The lead incorrectly states the former, which I corrected. Also note that the first source is a column/op-ed by a RAW official, so it fails WP:RS.

    Lastly, the user seems to have enough time for filing SPIs and arbitrations but not enough for talk pages. Please focus on the latter. Adios, Mar4d (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    @El C: @Capitals00: It is most definitely a revert and disruptive. How on earth does blanking a new article with 82 citations qualify as an "edit"? That too based on a years old merge discussion which is inapplicable, as two other editors pointed out. Please don't extend persistent WP:BATTLE, and justify your edit warring for goodness sake. Further, neither Capitals00 or D4iNa4 have clean block logs (not even going to link them). I don't appreciate the cherry picking and WP:ASPERSIONS being casted here, so let's leave it there. I have returned to editing in a good standing, and anyone is free to review my contributions. Lastly, D4iNa4 has just opened another thread on Tyler Durden, a neutral editor which is ridiculous. It is obvious both these users are using WP:AE as their dramaboard to settle a score. Mar4d (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @El C: Could you clarify how you concluded on the 1RR please. This edit on 5 April was a revert. This (6 April) was an amendment based on a talk page compromise, as my summary states. Also, as you mentioned that I "never responded" to the notification, I actually did right after it. It was a content dispute. Please go through the second last section of that article's talk page. Mar4d (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @El C: @Capitals00: Topic banned? FYI, THIS remains my first and ONLY edit on that entire article. All my other edits are on the talk page. And this edit was performed due to your trigger-happy 4th revert claiming WP:CONSENSUS, barely half an hour into the discussion! And I have yet to be "shown" any source against my argument, in fact I found a contradiction, hence the reason I commented there. Please stop, you are digging yourself deeper into the cesspit. Mar4d (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Capitals00

    Mar4d is misrepresenting my edits here. this is an edit not a revert, this is not a revert since it ended up with self-revert, is not a revert either since it ended up with self-revert.

    Mar4d is evidently a heavily disruptive editor. Just what he wrote here is enough of an explanation. He believes that he can maintain non-notable articles contrary to guidelines and commonsense?

    Mar4d has been taking up fights with other editors[43] for no reason.

    Mar4d had also violated 1RR[44] on Gilgit-Baltistan[45][46] on 6 April while the discussion was on going[47] yet he edit warred before joining the discussion. @El C: I mentioned this because Mar4d has gamed 1RR before as well. He had been blocked in November 2015, for abusing socks in order to evade WP:3RR and WP:1RR for over 7 years,[48] and since he was unblocked after heavy conversation, it becomes necessary to put him under strict sanctions or just indef block. Capitals00 (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Yes @El C:, first edit is a revert, an editor made the edit[49], Mar4d reverted it[50], then other editor reverted Mar4d[51] and Mar4d reverted again.[52]. Capitals00 (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @El C: you can see that there's mass disruption by Mar4rd and none of us have enough time to revert and argue just to let him carry on disruptive editing on daily basis, and he fails to stand his own argument. For example he claimed that "some of the events attributed to Pakistani armed groups during the 47 war didn't actually occur inside Pakistani territory"[53], and when he was shown source[54] against his argument, he started removing the entire mention of Pakistan on main article.[55] That's why he needs to be topic banned. He also misrepresented my edits and self-reverts as WP:3RR violation over here, how can someone expect him to edit collaboratively with such long term problems? Capitals00 (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    Seems like Mar4rd doesn't understand what is WP:REVERT, since he considers normal edit and self-revert, language like "Please stop, you are digging yourself deeper into the cesspit", is just another proof of WP:BATTLE.[56] Capitals00 (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • @RegentsPark: Have you seen the diffs of 1RR violation, gaming with citation needed tags, POV pushing, calling normal edits a vandalism, misrepresenting sources, etc.? such issues are conduct dispute, not content dispute. It would be tiresome for a user to try content resolution methods when enough amount of concerning user's edits are disruptive. That's why these sanctions are installed, to just seek sanctions against the editor engaged in misconduct. Capitals00 (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @RegentsPark: He was revertingon Great Bath, which didn't included the removal of citation needed tag, that's how his removal of citation tag seems intentional. What about WP:NOTVAND? I went ahead to correct a bunch of his edits that had been pointed as problematic here. We will see how it goes. Although the 1RR violation that I had pointed out, as well as the misrepresentation of my reverts (Mar4rd) claims I "made 5 reverts", when they were 2 (rest were edits or self-reverts), such conduct constitute WP:BATTLE since he further assured that he is still going to claim them as 5 reverts. I believe that if not sanction, something else would be surely preferred in order to avoid creating a feudal environment. Capitals00 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @RegentsPark: [57] Capitals00 (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    @RegentsPark: this seems better, furthermore, it seems that Fowler[58] has suggested a much better proposal and laid out a better argument than what we were having since the article creation, I am sure there is hope for better now. Capitals00 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Mar4d

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Looks like there was a 1RR violation on April 5. I realise it's stale now—however, I also note that, although sanctions are not meant to be punitive, there is the matter of deterrence. Basically, how do we prevent this user from violating 1RR in the future as he did a few weeks ago? As well, it seems the user never responded to the 1RR notification (although I don't believe the consensus clause applies to ARBIP/Ds). El_C 08:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • The issues raised in the request seem to be mostly content disputes. To the extent they have a conduct aspect, I don't see sufficiently serious issues to warrant sanctions. I would take no action.  Sandstein  10:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • I suggest closing as no action as well since the list of issues raised are almost entirely content related. I'd also suggest adding a mild reminder to the filer that they shouldn't be bringing content disputes to AE but should seek other mechanisms for dispute resolution. --regentspark (comment) 13:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
      @Capitals00: I went through the list provided by the filer. 1, 3 and 5 are purely content issues that are clearly being already debated. 4 is a neutrally worded message about SPI notification which the filer, incorrectly and improperly - in my opinion, takes umbrage at. 7 would be a blp violation only had Mar4d persisted, which they did not. About the Great Bath, I'm not sure why the cn tag got removed but Mar4d was reverting vandalism that definitely needed to be removed. Lots of editors have biases in they way they edit content but that doesn't mean that everything they do is suspect. In this case, the issues presented look like a list cobbled together with a '.. smoke there must be fire' approach. --regentspark (comment) 14:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
      About the 1RR (@Capitals00:. I'm trying to find when and where this restriction was applied to Gilgit-Baltistan. --regentspark (comment) 17:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
      Thanks @Capitals00:. Yes, that is indeed a violation (22 hours) and, since it is in an edit notice, hard to see how it could have been missed. I'd still recommend no action with a warning to Mar4d that 1RR is 1RR regardless of whether they are reinserting a talk page compromise or not. (I'll also add the restriction to the Arb enforcement log for future reference). --regentspark (comment) 17:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Agree that a warning would be sufficient. Would take the course proposed by RegentsPark above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

    Request concerning Tyler Durden

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Tyler Durden (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/India-Pakistan :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Prefers to use edit summaries for discussion and avoid using the talk page.[59] More edit warring and use of edit summaries for discussion, while no input on talk page: 1 ([60][61] - [62]) 2 ([63][64][65] [66] 3 ([67] [68] - [69] (nothing from 16 March - 7 april)
    2. [70] Censoring any mentions of Pakistan[71], and clear WP:HEAR found at:[72][73] where he repeats the same rejected argument.[74][75]
    3. Page move war,[76] despite opposition[77], and claims on talk page that he needs no consensus to make controversial page moves, but others need consensus to revert his page moves.[78](see the last sentence)
    4. WP:COPYVIO violations[79][80]
    5. Used WP:PRIMARY sources[81] and after getting reverted he started to WP:BLUDGEON the talk page[82] in place of finding the WP:RS.

    Diffs show that he is already edit warring, censoring, POV pushing, violating copyrights across South Asian subjects. It seems he doesn't understand consensus building, he would rather edit war, page move war in order to WP:OWN the article per his wishes. His problematic attitude has been pointed out in lengths before[83](then known as Vamsee614) as well, but all he does is repeat himself, in this diff he went further to claim that " I'm very much shocked that you, of all the people, are meaninglessly accusing me of 'POV pushing' and 'endorsing Pakistani deeds', when all I did was merely add relevant and reliable facts. This is outrageous!". D4iNa4 (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Date Explanation
    2. Date Explanation
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    [84]
    • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
    • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
    • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    [85]

    Discussion concerning USERNAME

    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 Tyler Durden

    • Regarding the change of username, its my personal choice. The character Tyler Durden in the movie Fight Club is a favourite of mine, and so I changed my previous username to the present one. How is that suspicious? And I will do/stop editing in whichever time-periods I wish. I don't think I have to give any further explanation in this regard. Its quite funny that this's even pointed out.
    • The rest of the allegations are also filed one-sidedly in bad faith by the user, taking bits and pieces, out of the contexts of various issues.
    • What happened in the talk page of Rape in Kashmir Insurgency is all present there,[86] and it is open to be viewed and verified by the committee. I have broadly described what has been happening there and gave reasons for all my actions elaborately in this post of mine.[87] The filer is unnecessarily attacking me here for merely taking a position there, in spite of me, reasonably explaining it thoroughly, multiple times on the talk page.
    • I sincerely appreciate the filer's strenuous efforts to dig up content from my talk page to cherry pick issues to target me, although they come under WP:HOUNDING.
    • Regarding the copyvios pointed out, they are clearly silly issues. One doesn't take action on editors in Wikipedia for being a newbie the first time, and being lazy the other time. That's common sense. Anyways I myself corrected those mistakes and reinstated content, in both the cases.[88]; [89]&[90]
    • The rest of my conversations on talk pages and edit differences listed out are old stories, and did not take place with the filer or the other user complaining here. One of them was with Owais Khursheed who raised no issue about the affair, after it was over. The remaining all of them were with Kautilya3. He also, never has raised a so-serious problem, in any of them. The committee may take his opinion, on whether there is any actionable issue to be dealt with.
    • On a side note, if I were really here on Wikipedia to censor material related to Pakistan without an WP:NPOV, I wouldn't take time to write and make edits like these — [91]; [92]; [93]; [94].
    That's all I would like to say on this unproductive case. Thank you everyone. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by Capitals00

    Apart from above and WP:CIR issues. I should note that I find this account to be suspicious. It was created on November 25, 2016 as Vamsee614. Made no edits in December, January, and started making few edits on daily basis since February this year. Capitals00 (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    @El C: I think original complaint details enough amount of WP:CIR issues, that the editor is eager to edit war and avoid making discussion. Do you think that he was correct to do page move war and flood the talk page with wall of text[95] to claim one needs to gain consensus to revert his controversial page move?
    He violated WP:3RR on this article as well.[96][97][98]
    Because of his inability to collaborate, we are having this mess. He is WP:GAMING the system, because he first agreed "you can feel free to add any content regarding the conflict-related sexual abuse in Pakistan administered Kashmir"[99] and then he went to remove the information because he didn't expected it and finally disliked its existence.[100][101] Capitals00 (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Tyler Durden

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • The more I look at this, the more it looks like the impetus for these two reports (this one and the one above) is the content dispute at Rape in Kashmir Insurgency. Hopefully, having applied ARBIP/Ds to the article, will help matters. All the users seem to be involved in discussion on the article talk page. El_C 08:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply