Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

This page is for statements, not discussion.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=503105193"

Hidden category:

Noindexed pages

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}
-== Nenpog vs. Guy Macon, Doc James, and Yobol. ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Nenpog|Nenpog]] ([[User talk:Nenpog|talk]]) '''at''' 15:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Nenpog}}, ''filing party''
-*{{userlinks|Doc James}}
-*{{userlinks|Yobol}}
-*{{userlinks|Guy Macon}}
-*{{userlinks|IRWolfie-}}
-*{{userlinks|AndyTheGrump}}
-*{{userlinks|Ytrottier}}
-*{{userlinks|Avanu}}
-<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->
-;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
-* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmh649&diff=502974070&oldid=502955644
-* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yobol&diff=502974252&oldid=502061267
-* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy_Macon&diff=502974386&oldid=502954560
-* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyTheGrump&diff=502974531&oldid=502720605
-* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avanu&diff=502974725&oldid=502782444
-* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ytrottier&diff=502975058&oldid=501493821
-* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IRWolfie-&diff=502975119&oldid=502966024
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
-#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=497838714#X-ray_computed_tomography DRN case #1 Nenpog vs. DocJames mediated by Guy Macon about sources].
-#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=497799865#X-ray_computed_tomography WQA case#1 Nenpog vs DocJames on DocJames conduct].
-#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X-ray_computed_tomography&oldid=502328076#IP_adding_unsupported_content Talk:X-ray_computed_tomography discussion sections 5 to 19].
-#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=499896960#X-ray_computed_tomography DRN case #2 Nenpog vs. DocJames and Yobol, Guy Macon also joined discussion about ICRP draft source, statement source, and use thereof].
-#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=500050431#Adverse_effects_to_CT COIN case, Nenpog request editors to disclose COIs related to CTs].
-#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=501678102#Uncivil_behavior WQA case#2 - Nenpog vs. Guy Macon on wikihounding] .
-#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avanu&oldid=502782444#WQA Continuation of WQA discussion at Avanu talk page, subsequent to closure of discussion by IRWolfie- who seems to be a friend of Guy Macon] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IRWolfie-&oldid=502831550#A_kitten_for_you.21 see kitten gift]).
-#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=501793216#User: Nenpog case at the AN/I].
-#The discussions that the references of Nenpog's statement links to.
-=== Statement by Nenpog ===
-About a month ago, two editors disputed my contributions.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&offset=&limit=250&action=history History since the beginning of the dispute. Note Doc James, and Yobol edits, on one side of the dispute, and IPs editor, that later became Nenpog on the other side of the dispute.]</ref> These editors were tendentious, biased, and at least one of them<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=499992381&oldid=499990273 DocJames work as an ER doctor, and thus he and his employer rely on CTs for work, send patients to be scanned, and are affected by information questioning their past or future clinical decisions in the matter. Despite statement regarding socialized medicine, AFAIK the only difference between the systems is the source for the funds being the tax vs. private, where in both systems each medical procedure is financially compensated.]</ref> work in a field related to the article, and thus has a COI. I have opened a DRN case in hopes to resolve the dispute, only to find that the volunteer at the DRN also work in a field related to the article,<ref>[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=496941104&oldid=496937671 Guy Macon stated "I am an engineer with experience with other kinds of medical diagnostic equipment"]</ref><ref>[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=497355523&oldid=497350164 Guy Macon stated "I can easily answer these questions from my own expertise designing equipment for producing radiation cross-linked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene"]</ref> and thus have a COI as well, and was biased.<ref>Guy Macon instead of mediating [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=497838714#X-ray_computed_tomography DRN case #1] took the side of the opponent, DocJames, who didn't even bother showing up at the discussion. During discussion Guy has wrongly accused Nenpog of being [[straw man]], and repeated that accusation at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=497799865#X-ray_computed_tomography WQA case#1], despite Nenpog's refutation of that accusation.</ref> Subsequent to a request that  COIs related to the people in a subsequent DRN discussion or to their benefactors would be disclosed, that volunteer has erupted, with a refusal to disclose, advised others not to disclose, which is against [[WP:COI]] guideline,<ref>[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=499579871&oldid=499578218 Guy Macon stated in reply to my request to disclose COIs: "No. You don't get to ask that and I advise others to not answer it."]</ref> and started to wikihound me and to followed my posts with post of his own containing false accusations, that I was tendentious, and that I was forum shopping.<ref>[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources_%28medicine%29&diff=500271428&oldid=500222033 Guy Macon made the accusation that Nenpog was forum shopping and tendentious at the MEDRS talk page ]</ref><ref>[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research&diff=prev&oldid=500754332 Guy Macon made the accusation that Nenpog was forum shopping and tendentious at the NOR talk page ]</ref><ref>[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=500271415&oldid=500244651 Guy Macon made the accusation that Nenpog was forum shopping and tendentious at the NPOV talk page]</ref><ref>[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=500077085&oldid=500056847 Guy Macon made the accusation that Nenpog was forum shopping and tendentious at the COIN talk page ]</ref><ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AX-ray_computed_tomography&diff=501001592&oldid=500992770 Guy Macon accused Nenpog of being ineducable and disruptive at the CT talk page]</ref><ref>[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANenpog&diff=501117953&oldid=501117234 Guy Macon accused Nenpog of edit warring at Nenpog talk page]</ref><ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X-ray_computed_tomography&diff=500570390&oldid=500518646 Guy Macon made the accusation that Nenpog was forum shopping and tendentious at the CT talk page]</ref><ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=501212347&oldid=501211944 Guy Macon made the accusation that Nenpog was forum shopping and tendentious at Jimbo Wales talk page]</ref> Subsequent to these false accusations, an other editor has opened a case at the AN/I against me.<ref>[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=501591428#User:Nenpog Nenpog case at the AN/I]</ref> At the AN/I discussion and decision, not a single quote from my contribution was presented as evidence that the allegation against me are true. Instead the discussion was about the appropriate punishment against me, with the underlying assumption, that all the allegations against me were true. That discussion followed the guilty until proven innocent assumption. The administrator who presided over the AN/I case made a decision to topic ban me due to the consensus with regard to my punishment at the AN/I discussion, while no discussion regarding my guilt or innocence has ever took place. Subsequent to the decision I have requested the deciding administrator to provide such evidence quotes, however he was not able to do so, and none of the other supporters of the ban decision were able to provide such a quote either.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nenpog&oldid=502528835#Appeal.3F Nenpog request quotes of his statements to be provided, in order to show him the reason for the AN/I decision, however none are provided.]</ref> This include supporters who were well versed in the complaint against me such as the DRN volunteer who orchestrated the assault,  the editor who filed the complained against me at the AN/I, and a friend of that DRN volunteer all of which have commented at my or the administrator's talk page<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MastCell&oldid=502646353#Nenpog IRWolfie try to help MastCell to find evidence against Nenpog, by presenting a statistical analysis of Nenpog contributions. However, this show that IRWolfie could not find a quote of Nenpog as evidence. ]</ref> in this regard. I believe that the reason for which no evidence quotes were presented, is that there weren't any, because I was just a new editor, trying to figure out how things work in Wikipedia, and asking relevant questions in appropriate locations.
-Further evidences regarding the bias of the two editors include, but are not limited to, formatting decisions which reduce the odds that the matter they oppose would be noticed, such as shoving an opposed section to the end of the article,<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&diff=prev&oldid=498332937 CT article version after Yobol pushed the adverse effects and the scan dose sections to the bottom of the article.]</ref> and shoving a section's content inside an other section where that information is less likely to be noticed<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&diff=498902682&oldid=498902613 DocJames move the hair loss side effect from the adverse effects section to the bottom of the scan dose section under a subtitle excess dose, which doesn't convey a side effect.]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&oldid=496795977#Adverse_effects A version with adverse effects subtitles of 'Extensive DNA damage', 'Hair loss', 'Cognitive decline', 'Immediate Death', 'Pseudo-allergic reactions', 'Kidney damage', 'Thyroid pathology', and Cancer adverse effects, where in current version DocJames aggregated 'Immediate Death', 'Pseudo-allergic reactions', 'Kidney damage', under the non informative name "Contrast", and aggregated Cancer and a small part of the DNA damage under the name Cancer, and moved Hair loss to a non side effects section named Scan dose, and deleted the rest. ]</ref>; and opposing mainstream science content with arguments of undue weight<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X-ray_computed_tomography&oldid=502328076#Extensive_DNA_damage_-_Adverse_effect Yobol refuse to accept mainstream science with undue weight arguments.] Search weight in this section, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X-ray_computed_tomography&diff=497758289&oldid=497758076 see example diff] and search weight in ref#1 in Yobol edit summaries.</ref>; and opposing all primary sources under the pretense that their use is against the [[WP:MEDRS]], when in fact such sources can be used if sufficiently new, and their lower weight is disclosed<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X-ray_computed_tomography&diff=496972231&oldid=496972112 Doc James stated "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss."] Also, search ref #1 for the keyword primary in Doc James edit summaries.</ref>; and deleting links from the see also section<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&diff=498328737&oldid=498269967 Yobol removes links from the see also section.]</ref>; and opposing numeric values quoted from an already accepted source.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:X-ray_computed_tomography&oldid=502328076#Typical_scan_dose Yobol and DocJames opposed stating the absorbed dose numbers (in mGy) as stated at the same source from which the effective dose numbers (in mSv) were taken.] e.g. see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&diff=498078372&oldid=498076899 diff1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&diff=496819833&oldid=496817676 diff2]</ref>
-I ask (1) that the topic ban against me would be canceled, and (2) that appropriate steps would be taken against the orchestrator of the attack on my account, and (3) that appropriate steps would be taken against the biased and COIed editors.
-<b>Reply to Newyorkbrad:</b>
-::* The procedure that led to the sanction was fundamentally unfair because no evidences of any wrong doing on my part was presented, possibly no such evidence exist. Subsequently the accused party (me) had no opportunity to present any defense regarding the (not presented) evidence, which is also not fair.
-::* The topic ban sanction was unwarranted, because I did not do anything that warrant it.
-::* Additionally requests #2 and #3 are independent of request #1 regarding the topic ban.
-<b>Reply to Guy Macon:</b>
-::* All the links that you provided are not proof of anything beyond the fact that different discussions were held in different venues.
-::* You have failed to provide quotes from these discussions that supported any of your allegations.
-::* The only topic that is common to many of these discussions is your interruption of these discussions, with your off topic forum shopping for people interested in your accusations.
-<b>Reply to Jclemens-public:</b>
-::* My #3 request regarding biased and COIed editors (Doc James, and Yobol) was that appropriate steps would be taken. In my view that could translate to forbidding them from editing side effects to medical procedures, except for adding side effects. I didn't requested this against all medical professionals, but against these two who have demonstrated their bias on numerous events. In my view, this is analogous to a car manufacturer who systematically remove data on car accidents. They shouldn't be allowed to perform such edits directly, just like any other entity that has a COI regarding some topic. I don't see any reason that justify that medicine professionals' COIs would be dealt with any different than any other entity.
-::* Regarding the fairness of the sanction against me - is it fair to sanction someone for nothing?
-::: As much as I know, it is very possible that I am being sanctioned for nothing. If there was some quote of my comments e.g. at noticeboard N1 you said "X", at noticeboard N2 you also said "X", so you raised the same issue twice on different noticeboards, thus you forum shopped; then I would have known, what I did that people thought was wrong. But no one presented any such quotes. So I don't know what I did, you don't know what I did, no one know what I did, maybe I didn't do it, maybe I did, we just don't know.
-::: You ask me to articulate in one sentence why I think that the sanction is unfair, unfortunately without being told what I did, none of us can know if the sanction is justified or not. So my argument is that the process that led to that sanction was flawed, and not fair. This process has ended without that anyone know what <b>I did</b> that justify the sanction. It is possible that I did nothing wrong. It is possible that I did something that was misunderstood. And it is possible that I did something wrong (though I don't think so) and deserve the sanction. In any case, a sanction that is decided without determining that <b>the did was done</b> has to be canceled. If people think that they can present what I did, I will welcome an other discussion at the AN/I where this time, they will have to present exactly what I did to deserve a sanction.
-::: In summary, I think, that it is not fair to sanction someone without proof that he/she did something wrong. Maybe in WikipediaLand fair has a different meaning. I am beginning to think that this is the case.
-<references/>
-=== Statement by IRWolfie- ===
-I think what is said by Mastcell says it all [[User_talk:Nenpog#Appeal.3F]] here, and the comments at this ANI thread: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=501793216#User:Nenpog]. This editor just doesn't "get it", no matter how often it is explained to him. That he still maintains that doctors have a COI on articles about CT scanners after all this time, boggles the mind. [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 15:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-=== Statement by AndyTheGrump ===
-Entirely without merit. Nenpog is a SPA who is clearly either unwilling to work within Wikipedia policy, or incapable of understanding it, as is self-evident from his/her edit record. I'm not prepared to waste any further time on this nonsense. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-:I note that Nenpog is now abusing this page as a soapbox, and engaging in entirely unwarranted personal attacks on contributors: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=503019763&oldid=503013519]. Could I ask that  such attacks be redacted by an uninvolved party, and that Nenpog be warned that any continuation of such behaviour is likely to result in their being prevented from posting further here. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-::And further, can someone please point out to Nenpog that this is supposed to be an appeal against a topic ban, and that calling for actions to be taken against others here is utterly inappropriate - none of these issues have been raised elsewhere, by anyone but Nenpog. This is not a forum for discussing anything but the issue at hand - which is whether the ban was appropriate or not. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 22:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-:::How many times has he been warned not to accuse other editors of COI without evidence? Yet here he is again, '''smearing the good name of a medical doctor''' -- an M.D. who told me in an email that the harassment made him want to quit Wikipedia. IMO, that behavior alone deserve an indefinite block --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-::::If someone uninvolved does not delete those [[WP:NPA|false accusations]] of COI against someone who chooses to reveal their real name, I will [[WP:IAR|do it myself]]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 00:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Yobol ===
-This editor has been an enormous time sink for the community. I also refuse to waste further time dealing with this. Their topic ban and response since then on their talk page says enough. [[User:Yobol|Yobol]] ([[User talk:Yobol|talk]]) 16:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Maunus ===
-I think that {{user|Nenpog}} has provided strong evidence that they are indeed disruptive and tendentious and forum shopping. I hope that Arbcom will consider their evidence.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 17:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Guy Macon ===
-Previous AN/I discussion: [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#User:Nenpog]]
-Previous discussion on Jimbo's talk page: [[User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 109#Alert !]]
-Topic ban: 17:48, 10 July 2012 (MastCell): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nenpog&diff=prev&oldid=501592049 NenpogDiff1]
-Expansion of topic ban: 19:24, 10 July 2012 (MastCell): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nenpog&diff=prev&oldid=501607012 NenpogDiff2]
-Reiteration of topic ban: 22:08, 15 July 2012 (Elen of the Roads): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nenpog&diff=prev&oldid=502509289 NenpogDiff3]
-This is a clear case of [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]] and [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING|forum shopping]].
-Nenpog has taken his "complaints" (which are actually attempts to bully anyone who opposes him) to:
-#[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine]],
-#[[Talk:Ionizing radiation]],
-#[[Wikipedia talk:No original research]] (twice),
-#[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]],
-#[[Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view]],
-#[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]],
-#[[Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance]],
-#At least one IRC channel,
-#[[User talk:Elen of the Roads]],
-#[[User talk:S Marshall]],
-#[[User talk:Jaeljojo]],
-#[[User talk:Avanu]],
-#[[User talk:Paul Siebert]],
-#[[User talk:RexxS]],
-#[[User talk:Jimbo Wales]],
-#[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests]]
-#and now [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]
-The discussions at ANI and Jimbo Talk say it all. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 18:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Jorgath ===
-Although I am only peripherally involved, I must urge the Arbitrators to decline this request as it is currently formulated. I would urge the Arbitrators to accept a request to examine Nenpog's behavior, but no RFC/U has been attempted with them yet and I do not feel the case needs to bypass that process. I feel that I do not need to add any further evidence than what has already been provided by others. That said, the evidence submitted by all parties so far, including Nenpog, shows that Nenpog is in fact the one who is tendentious and disruptive, that Nenpog demonstrates a consistent [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality, a [[WP:HEAR|refusal to listen]], a refusal to [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]], and serious [[WP:COMPETENCE]] issues. As such, I urge the Arbitration Committee to decline this request, but I also urge my colleagues who have been named as parties to consider opening an [[WP:RFC/U]] on Nenpog in light of this development. - [[User:Jorgath|Jorgath]] ([[User_talk:Jorgath|talk]]) <sup>([[Special:Contributions/Jorgath|contribs]])</sup> 19:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-:'''Done'''. See [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Nenpog]]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-:Jorgath is entitled to an opinion on Nenpog, but I believe the community has already spoken with regard to Nenpog's previous conduct and has duly enacted a measure that was considered appropriate to deal with that behavior. Nenpog has filed this appeal in line with allowed process, and while some may not agree with it being here, it is his right to appeal. I believe it is premature to suggest that any further action be taken in opposition to Nenpog unless some violation of policy can be shown to occur. A single user simply filing an appeal is not really an action that should be considered 'battleground' or 'tenditious'. Wikipedia policy has a clear escalation process, and regardless of whether we agree with the appeal, it is perfectly in line with policy. Until such time as new actions by Nenpog show themselves to be out of line with policy, I suggest that the RfC/U just initiated be summarily closed. -- [[User:Avanu|Avanu]] ([[User talk:Avanu|talk]]) 01:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-::'''DONE'''. Good thinking. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-=== Statement by MBisanz ===
-I'm sorry, but this is very silly. I understand the formalism Arbcom and the clerks must go through, but disruptive behavior is disruptive behavior. I'm blocking Nenpog indefinitely for disrupting the project with his edits. I will unblock him when he agrees to abide by the topic ban, agrees he will not seek review of the topic ban for a period of at least one year, and agrees to not seek dispute resolution against people previously engaged with him at ANI and this RFAR. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 01:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-:'''REQUEST THAT ARBITRATORS WEIGH IN ON THE BLOCK SPECIFIED ABOVE''' - Does the Arbitration Committee feel that this is an appropriately timed and appropriately exercised use of administrative power? Thanks for your comment either way. -- [[User:Avanu|Avanu]] ([[User talk:Avanu|talk]]) 03:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-::Oh joy. Avenu steps in to invoke another layer of bureaucratic waffle, in pursuit of some agenda or another which has sod-all to do with the subject under consideration. Since self-evidently nobody thinks that Nenpog should be let within a mile of Wikipedia editing, what exactly are you trying to achieve here, Avanu? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 04:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-:::It isn't about Nenpog, Andy. I think I have a good answer for the question you just asked back over at AN/I in my response to Kirill. -- [[User:Avanu|Avanu]] ([[User talk:Avanu|talk]]) 04:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-::::If it isn't about Nenpog, what is it about, and why are you raising it here? And why should anyone care? If you want to discuss the intricacies of Wikipedia's systems of sanctions and appeals, do so - but not in the middle of an ongoing case, where the result is a foregone conclusion, and all you can possibly achieve is to delay the inevitable, and make your own case weaker. Endless sniping at admins isn't going to change anything, as long as you fail to offer a constructive alternative - and this isn't the place to do it. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 04:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-:::::I recognize the grumpiness that you're going to have, and so I'll tone down your comments in my reading of them to seem less aggravated at me. First, I believe this case was a foregone conclusion before it even came here, which is why I chose not to weigh in at all. Second, I don't wish to delay anything. If Nenpog is going to stay hardheaded, that's his choice. My point in the request here was not to "snipe" at MBisanz. In fact, I made sure to let him know this isn't really any particular attack on him, and my impression is that he fully recognizes that. If anything, rather than a snipe, it is a nod to the sanctity of the ArbCom process. I think a term like 'inviolate' might be a bit strong, but I think that given the amount of time and effort the community puts into choosing Arbitrators and reviewing cases, it makes sense to allow this process to play out without our administrators taking ownership midway through a dispute to impose ArbCom-related sanctions. If the Committee felt immediate sanctions were needed, they would have said so clearly. They did warn Nenpog to change the path he seemed to be on, but the committee simply seemed to be saying, "We decline to hear this", nothing more. They had not formally closed the case, nor given a specific directive to Administrators for action. I think it undermines this carefully thought out process and undermines the Arbitrators to have an Administrator step onto their lawn and begin to trim the weeds. It certainly is a nice thing to do, and its typically a welcome thing, but ArbCom should have been consulted, at the very least. Unilateral independent sanctions don't make sense when the Committee is supposed to have the say here. -- [[User:Avanu|Avanu]] ([[User talk:Avanu|talk]]) 04:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-::::::Since forum posting is apparently ok I will mention that, by definition, an arbitration committee cannot make fast decisions in other than emergency circumstances—arbcom has to be seen to be reasonable and has to allow everyone to state their case, however feeble, and should only in the most egregious cases follow up with a block of the instigator. By contrast, admins are requested (''implored'' actually) to occasionally cut Gordian knots and give good editors some respite. MBisanz deserves thanks, not bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 05:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-:::::::I'll try and make this my last post here on this topic, but I would simply ask, what is the emergency that was being addressed here? Nenpog's last 28 edits were all dedicated to opening this case and replying to it. I see no emergency present and no need for any action to be taken except to simply shut him up. Again, it isn't about Nenpog, it is about us actually having principles that we respect and adhere to whether we agree with someone or not. While I agree with [[WP:IAR|Ignore All Rules]], I don't believe this is a legitimate exercise of that exception. If rules actually matter, and I assume they do since many editors are asked on a daily basis to abide by them, then we should respect the rules and allow even open and shut cases to run their course. To claim an emergency exception for an editor who edits show them to be solely focused on the appeal process is to simply ignore what is right and base our opinions simply on an expedient and consequently unjust outcome. If the Arbitration Committee feels that intervening in their process is acceptable in this fashion, then it should be made clear to editors that appeals are not necessarily encouraged(allowed?) if 1 admin opposes it. -- [[User:Avanu|Avanu]] ([[User talk:Avanu|talk]]) 05:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-::::::::He ''does'' have a point... --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 10:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-=== Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/0) ===
-*'''Decline'''. Although ordinarily I would wait for the accused editors to provide statements before voting, here the necessary outcome is clear.  We would only accept a case to review a community sanction (here, the topic-ban) based upon a showing that either the procedure that led to the sanction was fundamentally unfair, or the sanction is clearly unwarranted or disproportionate. I don't see any basis for reaching such a conclusion here. In fact, the outcome of the ANI discussion&mdash;a topic-ban, with a firm warning that a full site-ban will soon follow if the topic-ban isn't respected&mdash;is almost certainly the same as the one this Committee would have imposed if this editor had been brought to arbitration. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-**Nothing in Nenpog's reply to me changes my opinion. Once this request is closed, Nenpog's choices are to edit articles on other topics than the ones from which Nenpog has been topic-banned, in full compliance with our policies and guidelines; to walk away from Wikipedia and to pursue the subject of ionizing radiation on another website; or to persist in pursuing this topic on Wikipedia and to wind up blocked for disruption without further warnings. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline'''. Concur entirely with Newyorkbrad. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 15:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' I see nothing to indicate that this topic ban was placed inappropriately. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 17:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per the above. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 17:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' if you can't articulate in one sentence why a sanction ''is'' unfair, then you're just wasting everyone's time asking for arbitration.  If you're appealing to us against a duly-enacted sanction, you have to establish not only that a duly-enacted sanction is wrong, but that it so grossly wrong that the community can't possibly have meant to sanction you in good faith.  There are ways I think Wikipedia is wrong, but part of working on a collaborative project is to understand where the community consensus model doesn't adequately deal with minority arguments, correct or not; be able to judge when consensus is against you; and move on to other things when you're not convincing other people.  I will note that the misunderstanding of COI would demand (if the filer's view were adopted) that we not let doctors edit medical articles, which ''is'' a patently absurd result. [[User:Jclemens-public|Jclemens-public]] ([[User talk:Jclemens-public|talk]]) 20:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' and suggest to the filer that they need to change their behavior or the topic ban will soon be replaced with a site ban. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 22:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per above. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 00:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per omnes supra, &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 11:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)