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 Parishan[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Steverci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Parishan (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and a lengthy block :

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

1. February 14, 2015 Following 4 are violations of WP:3RR
2. February 14, 2015
3. February 14, 2015
4. February 14, 2015

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 14 February 2007 First time blocked for 3RR
2. 20 February 2007 Second time blocked for 3RR

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. [1]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Parishan has recently violated the three revert rule by edit warring on the Shusha article:
[2][3][4][5]

Parishan has also shown a tendency to stalk and edit ware my edits on the Khaibalikend Massacre, Shusha massacre, and Shusha. articles.

Parishan has even more recently violated 3RR on the Blue Mosque, Yerevan by harassing two other users, User:EtienneDolet and User:Ninetoyadome:
[6][7][8]

According to WP:3RR, violating the rule guarantees a block.

He has also been edit warring User:NiksisNiks's contributions across several articles, usually without explanation:
[9], [10], [11]

Parishan continues edit warring across multiple articles and exhibiting a battleground mentality and making controversial edits without reaching consensus with other editors. He has made multiple reverts in violation of 3RR on a range of highly sensitive articles, and has previously been blocked for violating the 3RR on Armenian-Azeri articles not once, but twice. Because he continues to violate the 3RR, I believe it is time for him to be disciplined for the rule once again. --Steverci (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTICE Parishan has accused me of breaking the 3RR on the Shusha article. I would like to point out that the 03:08 edit was not a revert in any way, and the 03:28 edit was me fixing an error of his. Thus, he remains the only one who violates 3RR. --Steverci (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Parishan[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by EtienneDolet[edit]

Seeing that I am mentioned in this case, I feel that I have to make a comment to further elaborate as to why I've been mentioned. I will also comment on a few things to help further inform those involved with this case.

I have found myself at talk pages with Parishan several times. During these discussions, the user displays an aggressive tone that is almost always unnecessary. Above all, his belligerent approach to these discussions often gets personal with discourteous remarks. In this recent discussion, Talk:Araksi_Çetinyan#Ozgur, Parishan was quick to say "You are inventing grammar as you go along, which makes me seriously doubt the level of your command of Turkish" and that "it is quite legitimate on my part to express concern with regard to your understanding of that language." I find these remarks as bad faith, and I really don't understand how these comments can help the discussion. I felt as though I'm viewed more of as an 'unintelligible opponent' rather than someone he can work with. Other discussions where I have concerns was at Talk:Kars/Archive 1#Azeri_presence_in_Kars, where bad faith assumptions were made against me just because I made a late response, even though I apologized for it beforehand.

As I can see from his contributions, the user has been displaying an increasingly disruptive editing pattern, particularly on Armenian related articles. Almost all his edits either:

• a.) publicize the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh's unrecognized status or that Armenians occupy the land ([12][13][14][15][16])
• b.) remove, at times, any sort of mention of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in related articles ([17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25])
• c.) remove Armenian presence and history in Armenian populated villages, sometimes deleting them in the form of a redirect ([26][27][28][29])
• d.) add strong POV wording or claims that are not backed by RS sources ([30][31][32][33])

The diffs I provided highlight the user's vehement determination to make a WP:POINT: that Armenians occupy Nagorno-Karabakh, or that the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh is unrecognized. Wikipedia, as we all know, is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it a venue to promote the personal opinions. At any rate, given that I did not have much time to formulate my comment, I merely had to present the diffs I happen to come across. Most of his edits do not contain edit-summaries, making it even more difficult to pinpoint concerns found beneath them. I've also refrained from adding diffs pertaining to the recent problems at Shusha, Khaibalikend Massacre, and Shusha massacre since they're already being discussed in detail in the related cases above.

As for Sterveci, I really don't know much about his editing pattern. But I do see that he has engaged in edit-wars himself. But this is without to say that Parishan hasn't been edit-warring at Shusha massacre, for example. The Revision history of Shusha massacre looks like what a talk page should be, but in the form of edit-summaries. The reverts appear problematic on both sides, and I think action should be necessary for both users. Given that Parishan has been topic-banned for similar behavior, while continuing to display a tendentious editting pattern I highlighted above, I personally believe he merits a more extensive ban. As for Sterveci, I think 1RR on all topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan seems more appropiate. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The AE enforcement Parishan received was a 1RR restriction on topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan (see case here). As you can see, the case is similar to the one that has now brought him here, suggesting that the user is continuing the same disruption since then. Also, no one here is arguing whether the Republic of Karabakh is recognized or not. But to stick the word 'unrecognized' in multiple leads and infoboxes across multiple articles would be a clear sign of a tendentious editing pattern. After all, as I previously mentioned, the Wikipedia project is not a venue to right great wrongs, even if you find them to be self-evident. As for the rest, I don't think the other points were convincing, but I'll leave that for the admins to decide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even after such a lengthy response, I believe Parishan still fails to address the core problems at hand. On the one hand, he has admitted that there's a general consensus to have both de jure and de facto in articles related to villages in Karabakh. But then does edits like this, where the de facto status of Karabakh is entirely removed. I do not understand how one could blame other users for this. He then states that some of these villages fall outside the Republic of Karabakh's boundaries, but that still doesn't mean it's not under the de facto governance of the Republic of Karabakh. Removing such information, as he did here, renders the village as solely Azerbaijani, without provide any inkling of fact about its de facto Armenian presence. Changing Nagorno-Karabakh Defence Army's name to simply "Armenian forces" is also another attempt to conceal the independent status of Nagorno-Karabakh's army [34]. To top it all off, the removal of native names of villages mostly populated by Armenians is also deeply troublesome [35]. In any case, the diffs are plenty and one does not have to dig deep into his contributions to find a problematic editing pattern. However, if anyone involved with the case still needs them, I can provide more. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not only does Parish remove the word Karabakh from these articles, but he also removes the de facto Armenian presence of such and such village controlled by Armenian armed forces. He admits that Armenian forces do control areas outside Karabakh, but his editing pattern shows that he removes that too in its entirety. This makes it appear these villages are entirely Azerbaijani, and that there's no Armenian presence in them. He removes native names claiming that they've been spelled 'wrong', but doesn't bother to add the correct spelling (might I add that the spelling was initially correct). Nor does he make that obvious in the edit-summary of the edit in question ([36]). As you may have noticed, these edits don't contain edit-summaries for the most part. I've observed that controversial and problematic edits either don't contain edit-summaries, and when they do, they're simply deceptive. And again, one does not have to dig deep into his contributions to uncover many other similar problems. For example, this nationalist editing pattern is not only limited to Karabakh, Parishan has removed large chunks of information from other separatist movements found within Azerbaijan ([37]). In this particular edit, he deletes the entire The National Talysh Movement section because it's unsourced, even when there are four other CN tags in the article dating as far back as 2008. At any rate, I feel that I have said enough, even though there’s still much more to be said. But to sum it all up, what I see here is a consistent POV stemming from a desire to maintain the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan within Wikipedia. As documented above, this is most obvious in the form of edit-warring, tendentious editing, removal of Armenian native names, and other forms of disruptive editing. In light of all this, I expect admins to come to a fair and balanced judgment. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The SPI is unrelated to the problems and issues I have outlined here. As we all know, the misconduct of other users shouldn't excuse the misconduct of another. This means, specifically in this case, that the results of that SPI should not be an excuse any user to edit-war. It's also important to note that the users blocked for socking weren't even the accounts Parishan has engaged with. Bottom line: I don't believe we should be conflating the two. As for Parishan's comments: he continues to blame other users for his edits, and claims that he simply reverted to the original version before NiksisNiks edited. But, in one such example, if he wanted to revert to an original version, he could have easily reverted to this version ([38]), which indeed was the original version right before NiksisNiks edited. But he didn't. Parishan removed more than just NiksisNiks' additions. Please keep in mind that the original version included a reference to an Armenian military presence, whereas Parishan removed that too in its entirety: [39]. Also, the removal of Armenian native names are not limited to that article alone [40]. I really don't see any harm in leaving Armenian native names in the lead, especially considering that they're Armenian populated today. Parishan also states that his edits aren't guided by Azerbaijani nationalism because he's a Canadian national. But Azerbaijani nationalism is not limited to Azerbaijan, and neither is it inconceivable in Canada. Someone in Canada can make the same edits than, say, a nationalist in Baku. His userpage states that he supports territorial integrity, and opposes irrendentism, but in view of his more recent edits, I don't see any of it being directed against Quebec. It's the territoriality of Azerbaijan which provokes him to delete, censor, and manipulate separatist movements found within the country. No need to go over again as to how and why, I have already outlined it above. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just don't see these edits by Parishan exemplifying a good faith effort to improve various articles in the AA2 topic area, and I haven't retracted any of my aforementioned reasons as to why. I also have not reduced my reasoning to just two diffs, as he claims. All my comments above should be taken as a consolidated inquiry concerning the user's concerning editing pattern. His rebuttals still haven't been convincing for me, and they change with every response. With this recent example, in regard to this edit, he initially stated: I did not add any content. I reverted back to the original version after a bad-faith editor had removed mention of Azerbaijani personalities born in the village. However, when I raised the issue about him deleting information about the Armenian military presence from the original version, he refurbished his response by saying he deleted that original sentence only because its source contained a dead link. This new explanation for his edits were never included in the initial response here at AE, or in the edit-summary of the edit in question, which leads me to believe that his responses are filled with half-truths, and that the counterclaims were not and still not made in good faith. Besides, an editor who has been editing for eleven years should be aware of dead link or CN tags (and evidently so [41]). Instead, the user seems to employ flimsy excuses (i.e. dead links) to delete information not suitable to his POV, while displaying a disregard of Wikipedia policy which strongly prohibits you from doing so. He'll delete unsourced information when it doesn't suit his POV, but will add a source when it does. On that note, it is of course the admin's inevitable decision as to whether these edits were made in good faith, and not of a user who seems to push a certain POV in a spirit that is contrary to the basic tenets of the project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Parishan[edit]

I admit I was, perhaps, a bit too vigorous in reverting, but I do not consider the very first revert of User:Hayordi an example of engaging in an edit-war. A newly registered user with barely 100 edits appearing on the article and removing (without a word on the talkpage) sourced information that has featured there for at least five years, has survived the most heated discussions without being addressed once and included in the consensus version of this article - this can be viewed as vandalism, especially given that the removal was one-time and the editor never reappeared on the article. Reverting vandalism, as I know, does not count within the reverts that violate 3RR. Concerning the other diffs claiming that I violated 3RR on Shusha and Blue Mosque, Yerevan, I had a total of three reverts in each and not more, and the rule of WP:3RR states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period", whereas it was User:Steverci went overboard with four reverts: [42], [43], [44], [45]. His ill-intention motivating him to push his POV becomes obvious from the fact that soon after the article got protected, he ceased participating in the discussion on the talkpage - once the article was not 'revertible', he was no longer interested in it. The user is talking about being stalked; whereas note him referring to my reverts as 'harrassment' and using a block record from eight (!) years ago in an attempt to prove that I have habit of breaking rules.

As for the claims of User:EtienneDolet, I do not see a 'personal attack' in questioning someone's level of command in a specific language (especially if it is not mentioned on his userpage, as it is on mine) if that person takes up the task of interpreting academic sources written in that language and that his interpretation, on which he vehemently insists, seems far from being perfect from the point of view of someone who does have some knowledge of the language. Similar in the case of Talk:Kars: when a user silently reverts a page and appears on the talk page for the first time only two days later, he or she must understand that given the ongoing discussion (following reverts on both sides), such behaviour is counter-productive and can be initially interpreted as meatpuppeting, regardless of whether he or she apologises afterwards or not.

EtienneDolet's claims of me having 'bad faith' are baseless if we take a closer look at his arguments:

1. (a) Nagorno-Karabakh is unrecognised and it is occupied by Armenian forces; this is not my invention, and this wording features in the consensus-based neutral version of dozens of articles, such as the one I provided above. It is much less POV than something like this [46].
2. (b) The mention of Nagorno-Karabakh was removed from the villages where its independence was not proclaimed, or where it simply does not belong. Examples: the Topkhana Forest is not mentioned in Armenian sources, and being under threat in the 1980s, it may even not exist any longer, so there is no evidence to say that it is "located in Nagorno-Karabakh"; and "Republic of Artsakh" is not acceptable wording for any AA2 article.
3. (c) The mention of Armenians was not removed in the first and fourth diff, while the second and third diffs were obscure articles consisting of a single line of unsourced information lingering for five years.
4. The first two cases listed in (d) are reverts to the original versions; I did not add a word of my own, so claiming that I was making "a very strong POV statement" in inaccurate. In any event, the word 'occupied', for instance, is nowhere near as POV as 'liberated' in the case of Armenian-controlled Azerbaijani villages. The third and fourth cases were citing a source provided thereby.

Finally, I have never been topic-banned, as EtienneDolet claims, hence this argument cannot serve as a basis for bad faith on my part. Parishan (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must apologise; I assumed that since we are on an arbitration page, I did not need to be overly specific in justifying my actions for every diff that has been provided here. However, since I have been told that my addressing of those issues did not seem convincing, I will take the time to treat each of them in a separate manner. EtienneDolet's selection features cases where most of the changes, in my opinion, were reverts of bad-faith edits of one specific disruptive editor. Certainly, when fishing for discrediting evidence on a user without taking a moment to look at what the article resembled just prior to that revert and what exactly prompted it, it would not take much effort to present every contribution as 'bad-faith'. With this biased strategy, it would be possible to find 'examples of disruptive behaviour' for every user who is involved in this case. Let us take a closer look at EtienneDolet's diffs:

(a) "Publicising the non-recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh"

• [47] - I did not add any content in the article. I reverted an edit by User:NiksisNiks who had removed information under the pretext of it not being sourced. I restored the information and provided a neutral source to back it up. Note also the malicious unexplained removal by NiksisNiks of the sourced information about the existence of a public school in the village.
• [48] - I did not add any content in the article. I reverted back yet another edit by NiksisNiks who had removed a statement on the de jure status of Nagorno-Karabakh from the lead of the article Nagorno-Karabakh, ridding the lead thus of any reference to the region's relation to Azerbaijan whatsoever. I leave it to the admins to decide if NiksisNiks was indeed motivated by good-faith and NPOV in doing so and if I was wrong in reverting that.
• [49] - I replaced the awkward wording "a village in the Hadrut Province of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Azerbaijan put it in the Khojavend Rayon" by NiksisNiks by the wording "a village in the Khojavend Rayon of Azerbaijan (de jure) or the Hadrut Province of the unrecognised Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (de facto)". I do not see anything wrong in the use of the word 'unrecognised' in this case; if anything, it would spare the reader from wondering why there are two countries listed for the same village. Note that I did not revert the page back to the version that mentioned the village's occupation.
• [50] - The user had redirected the article under a POV name used only by Armenian sources. I did not add any content, but I did remove an unsourced statement added by NiksisNiks whose lack of good-faith had already been obvious to me.
• [51] - I did not add any content. I reverted an unexplained edit which rid the article of any mention of Azerbaijan back to the original version. I fail to see how EtienneDolet considers the use of the word 'unrecognised' tendentious and makes a point of it during arbitration, yet he does not mind it at all when someone removes every mention of Azerbaijan from an article about a landmark de jure located in Azerbaijan. If there is bad faith here in this specific case, it is certainly not on my part.

(b) "Removing mentions of Nagorno-Karabakh"

• [52] - The village of Zülfüqarlı is located in the area outside of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, thus not covered by the 1991 Nagorno-Karabakh independence referendum. While it is still controlled by the Nagorno-Karabakh military forces, the latter consider this region to be in the Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Hence it was up to the user who added "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" as the village's location to provide a source which lists this village as located within the boundaries of the self-proclaimed state.
• [53] - I did not remove references to Nagorno-Karabakh; they are found all throughout the article. I removed one from the lead where it was mentioned that the Topkhana Forest was a state reserve. The forest is, in fact, considered a national reserve, but only in Azerbaijan; no Armenian source makes any mention of the forest under any status, so saying that this state reserve was located in Nagorno-Karabakh would not be accurate. In any event, I find this wording much more acceptable than the wording "an imaginary forest claimed to have been located near Shusha" left by the previous editor.
• [54] - Again, I did not remove a reference to Nagorno-Karabakh. I simply precised its pre-war status as an autonomous entity. The region was officially and uncontestably known as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of the Azerbaijan SSR at the time of Arkadi Ghukasyan's birth.
• [55] - I did not add any content. I reverted back to the original version after a bad-faith editor had removed mention of Azerbaijani personalities born in the village.
• [56] - I shall let admins decide whether it is right to consider the wording "the Republic of Artsakh" NPOV. If you ask me, the edit that I had to revert falls under every possible AA2 restriction.
• [57] - I reverted yet again the same bad-faith editor NiksisNiks who had removed every reference to Azerbaijan from the information box.
• [58] - I reverted an edit where not only references to Azerbaijan had been removed, but the village had been referred to as being located not just in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic alone, but also "in Armenia"; a gross violation of AA2.
• [59] - I reverted an edit of the NiksisNiks who had stipped the article of every mention of Azerbaijan, including the DEFAULTSORT template and even the stub tag at the bottom of the page, replacing it with "Armenia-stub".
• [60] - Stepanakert was a city in the Azerbaijan SSR at the time of Serzh Sargsyan's birth; the Nagorno-Karabakh Oblast was not a Soviet republic and did not subordinate directly to the Soviet government, with Azerbaijan occupying the intermediate position in the hierarchy. I felt the need to precise that.

(c) "Removing Armenian presence"

• [61] - The village of Gülüstan is located outside of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is controlled by Azerbaijan both de facto and de jure, and since the break-up of the Soviet Union has never been under the control of any other state or military force, recognised or otherwise, except Azerbaijan. Its status is undisputed, unlike the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions. Claiming that is it located in such-and-such province of Nagorno-Karabakh (when it is not from any point of view) would require at least a source and a word on the talkpage. It surprises me to see that refusing to accept such controversial statements at their face value constitutes an example of bad faith. Note that contrary to EtienneDolet's claim, I did not remove mention of Armenian presence in the village - it is still there.
• [62] and [63] - These two articles were started back in 2008 by then-newly registered user who created about a dozen articles on villages in the non-disputed Azerbaijani region of Nakhchivan, but under their Armenian names. Not only were these articles forks (for most of those villages, articles already existed under the official Azerbaijani names), blatantly POV (accompanied by the category "Villages in Armenia") and badly worded in English, but they also consisted of only one or two short sentences each and without any source, not even a partisan one. I redirected most of those articles to the ones that correspond to the said villages nowadays. For what was claimed as villages in these two diffs, I did not find a modern equivalent, so I redirected them to the page of the region where they had supposedly been located. The user reappeared two years later, undoing my redirect, but not improving the content one bit, and not even bothering to replace the red-linked obsolete category. The articles about villages whose existence could not have been attested anywhere thus remained unattested for for the next five years until recently when I redirected them back to the articles about their respective present-day geographical region.
• [64] - The Armenian spelling and transliteration are given in the lead, and I did not modify that part. I also kept the Armenian name in English letters in the information box above the Azeri one, simply removing the spelling in the Armenian alphabet, because it had already been given in the introduction, making it redundant and not much useful for the bulk of readers who cannot read Armenian, and had already been taking up too much space in the information box.

(d) "Strong POV wording"

• [65] - I did not add any content. I reverted an edit by NiksisNiks who used the POV wording "liberated" with regards to a village that passed under the control of the Armenian forces during the war.
• [66] - I did not add any content. I reverted the page back to the original version which NiksisNiks changed without discussing, claiming that he "did not find the information in the source". When he was given the exact reference in the source, instead of taking it to the talkpage, he reverted again, saying "the author was biased". I wonder why EtienneDolet tolerates such a frivolous editing habit, but critisises me for appealing to an academic source which uses the word 'unrecognised'.
• [67] - I did not add any content. I reverted the page back to the original version, distorted by NiksisNiks in the manner described above and a claim that "all sources were biased". Note that the discussion concerning the neutrality of the sources was touched upon on the article's talkpage, and those considering it biased refrained from pushing this issue further and let the article feature this wording back in 2007. How acceptable is it for a user to appear and, in lieu of making a good-faith attempt to add his/her two cents to the discussion, to go ahead and take trouble over the content, and not neutrally (placing a reliability tag, for instance), but in a blatantly POV manner - by removing information?
• [68] - I simply expanded the text with a quotation that was found in the already cited third-party source. I did not add a word of my own. Parishan (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With regard to EtienneDolet's response to the above comment, where he claims that before making this revert I should have understood that "it's under the de facto governance of the Republic of Karabakh": honestly, I do not believe that this is not how Wikipedia works; good faith is one thing, but taking bold statements in sensitive articles at face value is another thing. The burden was on the user who added that highly controversial information to accompany it with a neutral source stating that Zülfüqarlı was "de facto located in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", because according to the sources cited in the article Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, everything that falls outside of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and the Lachin corridor is regarded by the Armenian side as the regime's 'security belt' to be passed "to the control of Azerbaijan in exchange for Azerbaijan recognising the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", meaning that the regime does not claim sovereignty over villages like Zülfüqarlı. I believe this is enough evidence to at least doubt that the wording on the "location of this village within the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" would be accurate.

The wording "Armenian forces" in this edit is not POV; in fact, this is the wording used by third-party sources, such as the United Nations and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and even the word 'Armenian' in the title of the article Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh suggests the same. Note that I linked the phrase 'Armenian forces' to the article Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army, and not to the Army of Armenia, hence the argument about me ignoring "the independent status of Nagorno-Karabakh's army" is baseless.

The removal of the Armenian name in this edit was motivated by the fact that there had not been any source provided for the given spelling, which would be expected for a village that is uninvolved in the conflict; Armenian sources appear to feature varying spellings, including Գուլիստան, Գյուլյուստան, Գեուլիստան, which are all different from the spelling inserted by the editor. In addition, there has not been any Armenian population in the village in the past quarter of a century and, unlike the Azerbaijani villages in the Armenian-controlled zone, the status of this particular village is undisputed, rendering the name irrelevant from the point of view of the village's current population. By that logic, the once majority-Azeri capital of Armenia should get an Azeri name in its lead. It is especially strange to see this accusation coming from EtienneDolet who himself has been making a go of removing Azeri names from articles about cities which currently have a large Azeri population. EtienneDolet also refuses to acknowledge that the same user who added the unsourced Armenian toponym had earlier redirected a page about an Armenian-controlled Azerbaijani village under its recently invented Armenian name used only in the Armenian media. Nor does EtienneDolet raise the issue of bad faith on the part of NiksisNiks involved in most of the above disagreements, when the latter removed en masse all alternative names of villages in Armenia that sounded Azeri [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] (this are just a few examples of many, see the user's edits from 13 February). I think it is quite obvious that EtienneDolet's criticism of my contributions stems from his personal take on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, hence the fact that controversial edits which conform to his POV remain unnoticed, ignored or even justified, whereas a logical response to these edits aimed at preserving NPOV is presented as 'bad faith' and 'tendentious'.

He claims to have more examples of my "problematic editing pattern". I must say I am very curious to see those, hence I would kindly ask EtienneDolet to please cite some.

Additional note to administrators: In the course of my participation in this project, I have created a number of good-faith articles (unrelated to the war) about the historical presence of Armenians in Azerbaijan, such as this one and this one. I have also contributed substantially with good-faith edits to already existing articles about Armenians in Azerbaijan, such as here, here and most recently here. Therefore I view attempts to portray me in this arbitration case as a contributor with nonyielding anti-Armenian bias - as unsubstantiated and seemingly motivated by factors alien to Wikipedia's community spirit. Parishan (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The latest comment from EtienneDolet confirms that he has been unable to pick and gather much from the rest of my edits to blame me for POV. We went from "displaying belligerent approach" down to "not using edit summaries" as an argument to have a sanction imposed on me. When other users on the same page make much more substantial and controversial edits without using the edit summary, EtienneDolet does not see a problem in that; he only sees a problem when a controversial edit is reverted back to the original version. The argument of me "not bothering to add the correct Armenian spelling" here does make much sense in light of me wondering till now exactly which of the four spellings was correct and why I had to trust EtienneDolet and User:Tzir-Katin who had not provided a single source for the spelling they had proposed. Removing three lines for which there has not been any proof for over six years does not constitute violation of Wikipedia rules either, and blaming me for 'nationalism' for that edit (what nationalism are we talking about here, given that I am, in fact, Canadian?) is yet another example of bad faith on the part of EtienneDolet. Parishan (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, the behaviour of certain uses does have directly to do with my edits because had it not been for their disruptive interference, EtienneDolet would have not raised the issue of 'POV' and 'nationalist wording' in the articles in question, for some of which I never made a single contribution of my own; for which the said wording had been part of a consensus version or had featured for as long as seven or eight years. The evolution of EtienneDolet's criticism of my activity on Wikipedia here speaks for itself: from over 20 diffs that he originally provided as evidence of my allegedly tendentious editing, he is only able to comment on my rebuttal about two of those.

In this article, I removed any additional text besides the location of the village because the source provided to support the village's being under the control of military forces since 1992 led to a dead link, which was likewise removed.

In this article I did not remove anything either; I simply reverted an unsourced bad-faith edit erasing references to Azerbaijan back to the version by Ali al-Bakuvi which, unlike NiksikNiks' edit, mentioned both entities in the infobox: [75].

My contributions to articles about Quebec separatism are not quite as active because users editing those articles manage to remain remarkably NPOV and balanced, which is not the case in the domain of AA2 articles, even in this very arbitration case. In any event, I do not believe I should explain myself as to why I choose to edit a series of articles on a certain topic, and I do not believe that my interest in the given topic suffices to refer to me as a 'nationalist'. Parishan (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is certainly always easy to say one has not been "convinced by someone's argumentation" while sparing oneself the trouble of precising exactly what did not sound convincing. EtienneDolet's concentrating on insignificant reverts in one specific article, in turn, does not seem as a very convincing way to argue that I deserve 'an extensive block', as he requested earlier.

I did not use a 'flimsy excuse': I stand by my original statement that I reinserted the names of the village natives that NiksikNiks had deleted. The source leading to a dead link was not removed by me, but by NiksikNiks himself [76]. I simply did not restore it because all it referred to was a dead link that I could not replace with an NPOV source (I suggest EtienneDolet run a Google search looking for neutral references on the occupation of Asgaran), and I do not see a violation of rules in that. EtienneDolet's argument does not make much sense: if I were a 'bad-faith editor', why would I maliciously delete references to Nagorno-Karabakh in an article about one village, but add them in an article about another village (that he provided as evidence)? I fail to see a 'bad-faith' pattern in these seemingly contradicting cases. Parishan (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Grandmaster[edit]

From what I see, a lot of edit warring concerns the statements regarding the status of the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but de-facto controlled by separatists. I see that there are attempts to remove any mention of the de-jure status, like here: [77] I don't see why the legal status of the region should not be mentioned in every article concerning the region, as otherwise it creates an impression that it is some sort of a internationally recognized country. I think there should be a certain formula agreed by the wiki community for the de-facto regions, which should be enforced. In that case a lot of edit warring over de-jure/de-facto status would be eliminated.

Here an edit war started because of the insertion of a totally inappropriate category: [78] Same here: [79] Note that the region in question has never been a part of the state of Armenia, nor it is now, so the category clearly did not belong there. Yet Steverci inserted it and made numerous reverts to keep it there. That is the problem with this user. He adds inappropriate content, and when other editors disagree, he keeps reverting to keep that content in the article. Of course, Parishan should have shown more restraint. I think that Parishan should be strongly warned to demonstrate more restraint and take any problematic issues to the appropriate forum. But considering that he has no history of blocks for 8 years, and that is 8 times longer than the user who filed this report has been here, I do not think that any stronger measures would at this point be really necessary. In fact, the equal punishment might be even seen as an encouragement for the party that was adding the inappropriate content. Grandmaster 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked at the editing restriction mentioned by EtienneDolet, and it dates from around 6 years ago. I don't think that block logs and sanctions from so many years ago have any relevance now, as the AE report form requests only the warnings made within the last year. Grandmaster 13:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this request needs to be closed in light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steverci, as Parishan has been baited into an edit war by a sock account, and this request was made by the same sock account as well. Grandmaster 22:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Parishan[edit]

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

• Two blocks for edit-warring from eight years ago do not provide any great cause for concern. The edit-warring is concerning but the article was fully protected, so there's nothing actionable on that front. EtienneDolet's evidence of POV pushing is concerning, and I don't find Parishan's rebuttal to be very convincing. I'd like to hear from other people who know the topic area well, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Per the above comment by User:EtienneDolet about the recent history of the Shusha massacre, I can see the logic of restricting both User:Parishan and User:Steverci. For Parishan to remove from articles mention of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, as here in EtienneDolet's diff, sounds to me like nationalist POV pushing. In a previous AA enforcement case, somebody had replaced mention of 'Nagorno-Karabakh forces' from a newspaper report and converted it into 'Armenian forces' in the article text. I have not yet determined whether Parishan's efforts to make the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic disappear are quite that blatant. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @HJ Mitchell and EdJohnston: I just resurrected this from the archive so it could be closed properly. Are you two happy for me to close this without any action, you guys know the background better than I do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 MarkBernstein[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MarkBernstein (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/GamerGate#Recidivism
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions
MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indef topic banned in November 2014 and it appears that his behavior avoided scrutiny. During the ArbCom case, he was blocked multiple times for an Indef Topic Ban violation in January 2015. It appears that these actions saved MarkBernstein from direct ArbCom sanctions. After the decision, the indef topic ban and the block were lifted on promises that he wouldn't return to the behavior that led to the sanctions. Since then, he has returned to the exact same behavior and has been blocked for exactly the same issues. Per the case, enough is enough.

Participants in the case were sanctioned with this remedy for arguably less disruption. Per below, it doesn't appear that MarkBernstein will abide by the rules put forth in the ruling despite numerous promises, excuses, and breaks.

While the enforcement section allows and indef block, MarkBernstein will most likely cease disruption with the standard Topic Ban outlined in the case.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Scope of standard topic ban(I)

Please enforce the rulings in the case with the Standard Topic Ban.

@Guettarda: It's not about his latest block. It's about his entire history of not being able to follow civility rules and the ArbCom ruling. The latest block is a culmination of all the other items. How many editors would come of a topic ban, a 1 month block and then return to the contentious topic and be warned multiple times and blocked again within two weeks and not have the topic ban restored? 2 days, a week, then a month block followed up with 2 warnings and another block within 2 weeks of having the block lifted early on a good behavior promise. --DHeyward (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Guettarda:I chose only to list those comments that an admin deemed warnable or sanctionable and only since the TBAN. The questionable edits are embedded in those links below as part of the ban or block notice. I didn't go and search for additional evidence as most editors in that topic area have come across w bit sniping. I did this for three reasons: 1). it's highlighting a pattern severe enough that admins are attempting (and failing) to correct; 2). I don't follow GamerGate enough to correctly categorize every slight so I relied on Patrolling admins; and 3) if I were to bring a myriad of diffs from actual behavior it would be like bringing the GG talk page here. The pattern of conduct is what is disturbing with all the warnings and a block coming 2 weeks and it's noticed. He has 8 "official" warnings, bans and blocks related to specific topic areas and he has been able to accomplish this in less than 3 months and despite being Tbanned and/or blocked that entire time. --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Guettarda: It seems you must not see the links in the admin comments. Also your dates are wrong. He was blocked until Feb 12, which was about two weeks early. All the below comments were since then and identified by admins as problematic, not me so please refactor your casting aspersion. This is simple documentation of what admins have already said and the aspersions belong to them.

• editwarning
• edit warning (also discusses his research into another editor)
• edit block

In addition, he characterizes other editors, though broadly [80], WP is battleground, choice is between an MarkBernstein or a barbarian horde of internet trolls. And that's just from his talk page. Other editors have articulated further. And since this is a cumulative list of behavior that resumed almost immediately after his block was lifted, previous history is very relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Strongjam: The ARCA request was closed and MarkBernstein was given the benefit of the doubt. Since then he's been warned and blocked. Everyone seems to have said to take these issues to AE as the proper venue so here we are. --DHeyward (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gamaliel: Please note that I was not against you lifting your topic ban which is clear from your talk page. Nor do I want to see anyone restricted based on ideology or "sides" or what not. It's as simple as what kind of editor is constructive for the topic area. If they are more disruptive than helpful, intervention is necessary. MarkBernstein, so far, hasn't demonstrated that he understands how to collaborate. A block two weeks after an indef topic ban and block for the same reasons as those given for the TBan and the previous 2 blocks on a topic covered by ArbCom sanctions means it shouldn't surprise anyone that it is at AE. No one is looking to put his head on a pike but he seems bent on putting it there himself.

@Gamaliel: Which editor are you referring? I saw one that had a clean block log and no warning (not that it is required) and it was also an account that seemed to focus solely on GG. If admins are topic banning before an AE request, all the better. There's been no request to unban the editor I am aware of. This issue isn't that too many TBans of disruptive editors. Bring it here if you do not wish to perform the block yourself. --DHeyward (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gamaliel: Also, please re-read the ARCA request. The committee did not weigh any evidence about MarkBernstein during the proceedings despite his TBan and block (or perhaps because of it). Either way, they simply didn't review it and said AE is the proper venue. He wasn't "vindicated" in the ARCA request. --DHeyward (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gamaliel, Dreadstar, Guettarda, HJ Mitchell read MarkBernsteins response[81] to this and please review WP:CIV, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. When he assured you of his behavior upon return to get his ban rescinded and block ended, was it really a promise to fight "barbarian hordes?" Again, it's demonstrated that he can't work and play well with others. The ultimatum of essentially "let MarkBernstein edit GamerGate so women aren't physically assaulted" is rather extreme view of what the encyclopedia is. Jimbo's comment carries the view of the encyclopedia and it isn't MarkBernstein's. --DHeyward (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Note that these are only the violations he was warned about. Four separate admins have issues either topic bans or blocks regarding GamerGate conduct by MarkBernstein.

1. Nov 28, 2014 Indef topic ban for personally directed comments
2. Jan 3, 2015 Blocked 1 week for topic ban evasion.
3. Jan 24, 2015 Blocked 1 month for topic ban evasion
4. Feb 7, 2015 Indef discretionary topic ban ended while block still enacted based on "promises."
5. Feb 12, 2015 Unblocked early with "promises" of no more personally directed comments
6. Feb 18, 2015 Another final warning about personally directed comments
7. Feb 22, 2015 Another personally directed comment gets another warning.
8. Feb 24, 2015 Blocked for 24 hours for yet another personall directed comment.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• 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.
• 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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I didn't bother with diffs showing his awareness of sanctions as it is more than obvious that he is.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified of discussion.[82]

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

Before this cunningly-contrived midnight trial in absentia concludes, perhaps I might review the choice that is offered here. On the one hand, you have an editor whose poor vocation as a knowledge seeker should be plain from his eight years of work here and his publications elsewhere. On the other, you have a barbarian horde of nameless trolls, openly colluding for months to exploit Wikipedia as part of a public relations campaign to threaten, shame, and punish women in computing.

“Next time she shows up at a conference we … give her a crippling injury that’s never going to fully heal … a good solid injury to the knees. I’d say a brain damage, but we don’t want to make it so she ends up too retarded to fear us.” -- Simon Parkin, “Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest”, The New Yorker, 9 September 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest

Wikipedia's official response has been ineffectual and infamous.

“I (and Wikipedia) neither support nor oppose [software developer Zoe] Quinn. Wikipedia is not a battleground.” – Jimmy Wales

Impartially to support or excuse a conspiracy notable only for threats of assault, rape, and murder, is to support those threats. Wikipedia can be a hobby or an entertainment, but for those against whom Wikipedia is weaponized it is neither. They cannot drop the stick and walk away; they can only submit to its repeated blows and hope that you will eventually raise your hand to restrain their assailants.

That’s the choice you have. But it’s not your choice alone: there are higher courts than yours, and in one tribunal you have already been taken to AN/I and sternly censured. With thought for Wikipedia's defenders and care for the damage Wikipedia has done, you can resolve to amend your behavior and return to productive membership in the community of ideas.

This is, of course, entirely consistent with -- and indeed mandated by -- Wikipedia's core principles. We are building an encyclopedia; we do not, and should not, employ that encyclopedia to attack blameless individuals, to intimidate people considering a potential career, or to improve the image of a so-called “movement.” Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public-relations platform for the use of shadowy and shady causes. We are neutral, but that neutrality never extends to promoting falsehoods or excusing -- much less abetting -- criminal mischief. We follow sources; we never seek (as so many have been seeking on these pages) to "rebalance" them in light of an imaginary and universal conspiracy among the media. We seek consensus, which is incompatible with repeating the same failed proposals incessantly for months on end in the vain hope that something may have changed from the previous week, and with the fervent quest to sanction the five horsemen -- and me, and anyone else who stands in their way -- for defending the Wiki.

The problem is not insoluble or even difficult, but it does require resolve, hard work, and thorough sweeping. It’s time for you to choose. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Cullen328[edit]

Although I found Mark Bernstein's participation problematic before the ArbCom ruling on Gamergate, I believe that his contributions have been generally positive since then. Yes, he is forceful in defense of our BLP policy, but certainly such diligence is justified because of ongoing disruptive trolling of this group of articles. Any mistakes he has made recently seem minor, and should be corrected by a few words from other editors, rather than more serious sanctions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]

I've been nothing but impressed with how stringently Mark Bernstein applies wikipedia's policies in editing articles. My interaction with his has been after his banning and subsequent reversal, and has been pleasant. I do note that there are editors who have directed rather pointed comments towards Bernstein since his ban from directing comments at other editors[83][84]- that Bernstein has received prickly behaviour such as this and been as stoic as he has is admirable to the utmost extent. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by starship.paint[edit]

Enough is enough. MarkBernstein clearly feels very strongly about protecting women in computing, but that is no excuse for repeatedly casting aspersions on other editors. This recent diff shows bright as day that MarkBernstein has no problem attacking and assuming the worst in other editors, therefore contributing to a hostile editing environment in spite of repeated warnings, blocks and a topic ban. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for those of us who aren’t part of the secret society, what was "Masem’s Talk"?

• [85] It could certainly be construed that the "secret society" includes Vordox, Orlando (otherwise why is this post on on Orlando's talk page instead of Vordox?) and Masem. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Guettarda: - please read through Bosstopher's statement, which provides diffs on the MarkBernstein's history of casting aspersions. He sees a vast conspiracy by established editors and even an admin to attack women in computing. I think Masem, Orlando and myself (there may be others as well) have contributed enough to Wikipedia that being grouped as part of a conspiracy or "secret society" is plain insulting. We're not redlinks. If MarkBernstein has a problem with established editors, he can come up with the evidence and report us right here. Otherwise, he needs to stop talking about established editors as such. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 23:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Guettarda:

There is no remaining NPOV issue, merely a vocal group of POV pushers, openly collaborating a campaign on 8chan to make this page more favorable to GamerGate

this is precisely what one small cadre of editors, aided by off-wiki organization, insists we must do

some of our number appear to be in a desperate hunt, coordinated on-wiki and off, for any source anywhere that casts the misogyny in a less vivid light

[88]

MASEM ...  : (Do you have a bunch of good rape jokes you'd like to share with us?)

Hate to be a sourpuss, but I'm not sure that I join with MASEM in thinking Wikipedia should be "amoral" when it comes down to raping game developers.)

MASEM and his (fortunately shrinking -- DSA is about to be topic banned for last night's escapade) band of merry editors try to insinuate that Zoe Quinn's sex life ...

[91]

With respect MASEM, I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the pattern of your edits on the page in question which ... (c) have facilitated a coordinated POV attack on this page and its talk page which is known to be coordinated offsite, and where your aid is specifically cited as an important asset.

[92]

... you might have been supporting more favorable coverage of the planning to rape and beat women in computing because you personally support it, or for other reasons. That some editors are colluding is certain; your own part is not clear to me at this time

... in the course of a Wikipedia discussion orchestrated to deter women from pursuing careers in computer science

[94]

kthxbye

From an 8chan thread ostensibly planning ArbCom strategy and coordinating how to deploy Orlando, DSA and Logan but largely venting at me

I supposed that TheRealVordox referred to something of a similar nature that Masem had delivered. ... I see Vordox is active on Twitter, where they have 129 tweets to their 3 followers and conversations with TotalBiscuit, Masem, CH Sommers,and SargonOfAkkad ; say hi for me!

• Of all these accusations, where is the evidence against myself, Orlando or Masem regarding collusion? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Guettarda: - look, I'm sorry for wasting your time. My second post wrote about the "history of casting aspersions". I thought you were asking for diffs on that, which is why I provided those. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Thargor Orlando[edit]

I fully endorse this request, along with the diffs that have been provided. I'm still puzzled as to why he was left out of the initial ruling, why his topic ban was ever lifted, and why he was ever unblocked early given his continued behavior. Hopefully this can put an end to this continued abuse. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Guettarda: if this were an isolated incident, you'd be right. The fact of the matter is that this is a pattern of behavior, both before and after his lengthy block and topic ban, and if he's not topic banned from a space he is unable to remain civil and collaborative in now, it's inevitable that it will end up here again in the future. Warnings don't work, blocks don't work, so we're here. No, the behavior is not as bad as it was when he was first topic banned, but the basic intent (casting aspersions, trite dismissals, disruptive commentary toward other editors) persists. Enough should be enough. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher[edit]

I agree with Thargor insofar as I dont get why he was left out of the Arbcom decision and had his topic ban lifted. HOWEVER, now that his topic ban has been lifted, I'm not sure it has yet reached the point where he requires a new one.

These are the kind of commments MarkBernstein got topic banned for originally: accusations of being pro-rape,[98] false accusations that an editor (no indication could be found of Thargor's participation at all) was coordinating against him on 4chan and threatening his life,[99][100] and accusing Masem of being some kind of GG mastermind offsite.

Compare this to the lackluster comment that finally got Mark blocked this time round,[101] I cant imagine anyone other than Mark being blocked for a comment like this.

I think there is no reason to topic ban him based on his recent block and his comments have been toned down since his original topic ban. BUT, (and this is a big but) keeping his past behavior in mind, some of his recent comments have been veering dangerously close to his old ways. This includes comments implying Orlando is part of some offsite collusion[102][103], as well as implying that THE BOSS User:Masem, is the evil mastermind behind everything.[104] This was merely someone tweeting at Masem and not a conversation (Mark corrected his comment on request).[105]

So while I think the recent block against Mark was unfair (if admins had topic banned/blocked him for earlier comments instead of giving him a final warning I would have been ok with it), he should probably at the very least be given a 1 way interaction bans with Thargor and Masem. Bosstopher (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Strongjam[edit]

Dr. Bernstein has been productive in the topic space. His presence has only been made disruptive by other editors who insist on make much ado about every edit. Editors who re-add warnings that Bernstein has removed from his talk page, and who's goal on their talk page seems to be to get as much admin attention as possible. Claim rather mundane comments are "vitriol", then when hatted, repeatedly refactor the hat over Bernstein's comment (leaving other editors signatures on the reasoning.)

The talk pages of Dreadstar and Gamaliel have plenty of examples of editors talking about MarkBernstein, and there has already been an ARCA. At some point this has to be considered WP:POINTy behaviour.

@Bosstopher: If there is an interaction ban with Thargor it should be two-way in my opinion. — Strongjam (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also of note, DHeyward's collection of diffs that violate this sanction or remedy include 0 edits by MarkBernstein. — Strongjam (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite[edit]

Dr. Bernstein is being held to a standard of behavior that the people doing the holding could not reach in their best of days - that he reaches the standard on any day is a miracle. Wikipedia is offered here the choice between a bunch of brand new sock puppets and ressurected accounts who are members of a mysoginistic hate movement and a dedicated professional with decades of experience. Don't make the wrong one. Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the other side, however DHeyward does appear to have a pointy, harassment, civility problem. He's taken to harassing Dr. Bernstein on his talk page by reinserting comments legitimately removed by Dr. Bernstein, and calling users who tell him to stop doing that "Daft." Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kaciemonster[edit]

I agree with those who are pointing out that Dr. Bernstein is the only editor being held to this higher standard of behavior. While I can understand how past behavior might put his edits under greater scrutiny, we should consider that he's also made productive contributions, and brought valuable insight to the Gamergate talk page.

If I'm remembering correctly, an editor was banned from talking about Dr. Bernstein, and considering the open hostility he's faced from other editors I think he's handling himself pretty well. He's already been blocked for 24 hours, and from the looks of this request, no new evidence has been offered up. If he continues the personal attacks after he's unblocked, maybe a topic ban is something to consider. Right now, I think anything else would be excessive. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Liz[edit]

While Mark Bernstein can appear zealous at times, it is always to uphold Wikipedia policies like WP:BLP. He has edited fairly and engaged in productive discussions on article talk pages in the face of off-wiki harassment and on-wiki baiting. Right now, editing in the GamerGate area, we have a balance of editors with different points of view (that one might crudely identify as pro-GG, neutral and anti-GG) and the loss of Bernstein's participation would mean that newly created accounts promoting GamerGate as a ethnically neutral "consumer movement" would dominate the discussion.

Bernstein has a POV but so does everyone editing in this area or they wouldn't have ventured on to these talk pages. If Bernstein crosses the fuzzy line of civility, he, like any other editor, can receive limited time blocks. While no one editor is indispensable on Wikipedia, I think without Bernstein's participation, the articles could easily slide into smearing the good names and reputations of living people who are involved with this controversy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope admins weighing in look at the dates of some of the examples of Bernstein's comments (some of which are not provided with a diff!) and see if they occurred before or after his topic ban was lifted. Some of these examples are stale indeed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by MONGO[edit]

With all due respect...perhaps nine lives only applies to cats? Or shall we change the rules depending on which side of the coin one sits?--MONGO 19:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by EncyclopediaBob[edit]

I'll reserve direct comments about Mark's behavior until he's able to respond.

@Gamaliel: In defense of your initial decision to lift his topic ban you offer assurance to concerned editors that a reasonable mechanism exists to ensure his positive contributions:

He will be closely watched by many people when he returns to editing, so I am confident that if he steps out of line again he will be quickly dealt with by myself or another administrator.

I've made it abundantly clear to Mark that he will be closely watched by a large number of people, including myself, and that I will be the first one in line at the block button should he engage in further disruptive behavior.

I'm having difficulty reconciling these statements with your apparent criticism of exactly that mechanism here:

Mark Bernstein is being watched by everyone: friends, enemies, administrators, the press. This campaign to get rid of him is doing more damage to the atmosphere of collaborative editing than Mark Bernstein himself possibly could.

Further you state:

If the edit histories of those other editors were subject to the same hyper-scrutiny that is applied to Mark Bernstein, they would not do well here.

but those other editors are not subject to the very specific condition on which HJ Mitchell removed his block:

Hi Mark. As we discussed by email, I've unblocked you with the sole condition that you avoid personally directed comments

which the diffs above show he was unable to abide.

The pattern here seems to be that we give this editor leeway contingent upon special scrutiny but when an attempt is made to apply that scrutiny it's criticized for being special! I'd hope instead for general and consistent application of policy, especially in such a contentious space. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Drseudo[edit]

Based on the preliminary comments from admins below, I'm hopeful that this request will be seen for what it is: an attempt to drive Mark Bernstein from the project at any cost, for any or no reason. Issue him a ban on discussing other editors, if you must, and then send this request back whence it came. drseudo (t) 21:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway[edit]

Enough is truly enough. An editor who feels compelled to describe those who disagree with his edits as, variously, "the armies of Mordor," "a barbarian horde of internet trolls," and "a barbarian horde of internet trolls" (again) and Wikipedia as "a battleground when they tell you it's a battleground" cannot and should not be accomodated in a contentious topic area.

What, short of actual sanctions, is going to dissuade this user from his current behavior if warnings from no fewer than four admins will not? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing[edit]

As the editor who initiated to ARCA request recently, I accept that the committee didn't take my view of the case history and the situation surrounding MarkBernstein. I don't have a horse in this (GG) race; I'm here because I see an editor being continually disruptive.

I think problems are clear. @Dreadstar:, if you can't support a topic ban for MB then why did you say One more comment about another editor on the article talk pages and I will ban you from all GamerGate related articles??? Less than two days later he's back at it, so you decide a 24-hour block is sufficient.

I sort of agree with Hipocrite (and others) that MarkBernstein is being held to a standard higher than others; but there is a significant difference: Those others have not had a topic ban removed on the assurance that personally-directly comments would not reoccur. Those other editors have not been warned One more comment about another editor as you did here and I will sanction you. Period. Those others have not been warned One more comment about another editor on the article talk pages and I will ban you from all GamerGate related articles. Those other editors haven't made a gentleman's agreement to avoid personally directed comments.

The problem (or at least a problem) here is that admins want MarkBernstein to stop making personally directed comments but aren't willing to use the tools to make it happen. So far this month, he's given Gamaliel assurances by email; made a gentleman's agreement with HJ Mitchell; given a 'final' warning by Dreadstar; and given another warning by Dreadstar (what's the point of a final warning if you're going to follow it up with another warning?). When it finally becomes clear that none of these warnings is going to do anything, what's the result? A 24-hour block. What earthly good is that going to do anyone with an editor who ignores warnings, gives assurances then goes against them, makes agreements then goes against them? GoldenRing (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hard to disagree with DHeyward here; MarkBernstein's response is the perfect example of BATTLEGROUND. He is not here to work collaboratively and says so. If this is his avowed attitude, how is it not siteban time? GoldenRing (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (anonymous)[edit]

@Cullen328: You say: Although I found Mark Bernstein's participation problematic before the ArbCom ruling on Gamergate, I believe that his contributions have been generally positive since then.

Quite frankly, I'm boggling at this. Exactly which contributions do you have in mind? It seems to me like his edits are overwhelmingly in talk space. He has also repeatedly claimed (example) to be explicitly WP:NOTHERE, except to WP:RGW. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact, I decided to dive in, and on the very first article space edit I examined from MarkBernstein, I found that it flat-out misrepresents the source material, even while the relevant quote is right there in the source. It asserts that "the threats claimed to be affiliated with the Gamergate controversy", but the article refers to two threats and only connects one of them to Gamergate. The edit replaced perfectly valid phrasing that accurately represented the article's phrasing; and gave the matter undue weight by moving it to the beginning of the section when only one, less significant source talked about this second threat. I'm willing to WP:AGF when it comes to motivations here, but this cannot reasonably be called quality editing. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Guettarda: If violating an explicit warning from an admin doesn't merit a topic ban, exactly what response does it merit?

@Gamaliel: The fact that other editors under topic bans during the case were sanctioned by ArbCom proves that this theory is inaccurate. It does no such thing. It merely suggests that policy may have been applied unevenly. Which, you know, is a thing that not only is known to happen on Wikipedia on a regular basis, but is explicitly endorsed in multiple policies and essays (I am particularly thinking of IAR, OSE and POINT). Also, I don't understand how you can hold yourself free to comment in the section "for uninvolved administrators only" when you are the one who lifted the topic ban in question. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the "explicit NOTHERE claim" diff I provided above as evidence, I would also to note that the discussion in question was in reference to this diff, wherein we see MarkBernstein claim that A group of supporters of a fringe movement openly have coordinated to silence their Wikipedia critics and to take control over the process of revising pages concerning their movement and those it seeks to target. This is presented as though it's not in reference to Gamergate (as he even claims I write this most reluctantly as (a) I am topic-banned from GamerGate, which is a subtext here (as, it seems, in much of ANI these days), but which I have taken care not to otherwise allude to at the end) - which I honestly can't interpret as anything but disingenuous, given his well-known series of blog posts on the topic referring to Gamergate in the same way, and the absence of any other plausible "fringe movement" that could be referenced here. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by OccultZone[edit]

I am hopeful that MarkBernstein has the ability to find himself out of the sanctions, only if he would really want to contribute again. For now I would endorse this request. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by USchick[edit]

I am uninvolved in Gamergate and only became aware of it through news articles. I see this issue as one article that spilled over into real life as a result of a bigger festering Wikipedia problem that was allowed to happen simply because the bullies go unchecked and no one cares about content, especially not ArbCom. If it escalated to this point, what's next? Right now it's only threats, are we waiting for crime statistics before we start enforcing policy? Unless the original problem is addressed, the community can expect more of the same. This article happens to be about gaming, what if the next article is about international terrorism? Is ArbCom prepared to handle a threat like that? None of this is Mark Bernstein's fault. The people making these decisions need to look in the mirror and then have a meeting with board members, the Foundation, and Jimmy Wales. These are the people who set the standard for Wikipedia. When it spills over into real life and real people get hurt, you can't say you had nothing to do with it. USchick (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by HalfHat[edit]

Can I just point out that he is continuing to make vague unsubstantiated attacks is his statement. '"you have a barbarian horde of nameless trolls, openly colluding for months to exploit Wikipedia as part of a public relations campaign to threaten, shame, and punish women in computing."' He has made it quite clear how deeply involved he is and that he is here to right wrongs, I'm assuming that diff has been supplied.

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning MarkBernstein[edit]

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

• @Starship.paint: - What's the problem with the link you provided? I'd be very curious about a brand new editor making a comment like that. Guettarda (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: - Diffs? Guettarda (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Starship.paint: Umm...what the heck? You provide a 12 diffs and 11 of those 12 are from before the topic ban was lifted? So, other than wasting my time looking at a pile of irrelevant diffs, what are you trying to convey? That you're acting in bad faith here? Guettarda (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @DHeyward: - Can you point to some diffs showing a pattern of violating WP:CIV since the topic ban was lifted? Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Looking at Dreadstar's warnings and blocks, I suppose "the new editor must think we're morons" (to paraphrase MB) is, in fact, a violation of Dreadstar's "don't comment on other editors" warnings. But I fail to see how that warrants a topic ban. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Complaints not backed up by relevant diffs (i.e. post Feb 7) demonstrating the behaviour being complained about would seem to amount to "casting aspersions". Which isn't acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• At this point, I can't support a topic ban for MB; in my view, all he needs to do is quit talking about other editors on the article talk pages. Dreadstar ☥ 15:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @GoldenRing: yes I did threaten a ban, but after further consideration I decided the best course was to start with a block, then escalating from there if warranted. I am hoping the block is sufficient to deter MB from making further comments about others on the article talk pages. I echo the concerns raised by Gamaliel below, which factor into the change to my approach. Dreadstar ☥ 15:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• First, I have to address the mistaken idea that Mark Bernstein somehow "escaped" ArbCom sanction by being topic banned during the proceedings. This was rejected by the Committee last week. The fact that other editors under topic bans during the case were sanctioned by ArbCom proves that this theory is inaccurate.

• Bernstein has voiced complaints to me that comments about him by other editors have gone unsanctioned. I have told him that he should strive to move on and attempt to treat those other editors as collaborators. It is apparent that those other editors are in need of the same advice. This is part of an incredibly disturbing trend by those editors and others to get Mark Bernstein sanctioned for absolutely anything they can. When I lifted the topic ban, numerous editors demanded, cajoled, and insulted in order to get him sanctioned, regardless of policy, precedent, or the fact that he hadn't even made any new edits yet. Mark Bernstein is being watched by everyone: friends, enemies, administrators, the press. This campaign to get rid of him is doing more damage to the atmosphere of collaborative editing than Mark Bernstein himself possibly could. If the edit histories of those other editors were subject to the same hyper-scrutiny that is applied to Mark Bernstein, they would not do well here. Gamaliel (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• One would also hope for the general and consistent application of policy when it came to deciding which editors to file grievances against. Note that another long-standing editor on these pages was topic banned yesterday for openly insulting other editors. Instead of constantly demanding action against this editor in every talk page and noticeboard available, there was silence from the usual suspects. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm chiming in with Dreadstar and Gamaliel. That latest block, on the surface, seems harsh, but I suppose Mark Bernstein had been warned--I'd hate to make that kind of block, though, since the comment in itself wasn't all that bad. But that's neither here nor there, and I'm happy to see that Dreadstar is their usual objective self, who isn't looking to rake an editor over the coals. And they're perfectly right: no topic ban is warranted for anything presented here. I myself think that Bernstein, whom I don't think I know very well, seems to combine gravitas with levity in a topic matter that's lacking in both, though in different places of course. (Wait--Gamaliel, I'm reading over your comments again: Bernstein is celebrity? maybe I'll finally get tweeted!) Really, I think we're done here--no arbs or admins have posted since Gamaliel's comment, and that's indicative of one thing only: no interest in enforcing anything. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 Gouncbeatduke[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

WarKosign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gouncbeatduke (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

WP:ARBPIA

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

1. 17:21, 18 February 2015 After a sockpuppet vandalized Gouncbeatduke's talk page and made some death threats, Gouncbeatduke decided to accuse me. Note that Gouncbeatduke wrote that they did not have a chance to actually see the vandal's posts.

In fact I reported the socks, twice. I also tried to convince the sock to stop on their now revdeleted talk page.

2. 17:42, 19 February 2015 Even after Tokyogirl79 explained Gouncbeatduke the severity of their accusations, they stated again their lack of doubt, and intentions to continue removing my "pro-Jewish/anti-Arab non-NPOV edits from the Israel article".

I tried to open an SPI against myself to have a proof that Gouncbeatduke's slander is baseless, but Mike_V decided that "there are no reasonable grounds to consider a check".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

05:42, 11 February 2015 I previously opened an arbitration request regarding the user and it was found that there was a problem "with how they approach discussions and issues they disagree with". It was decided to offer the user informal advide "and escalate if it becomes necessary.".

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
• 05:42, 11 February 2015 Previous arbitration request

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I do not believe this user wishes or is able to collaborate with editors whom they perceive as "anti-Arab POV-pusher". The user exhibits battleground mentality and is not here to create an encyclopedia.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Gouncbeatduke[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Gouncbeatduke[edit]

At no time did I state that User:WarKosign was the sockpuppet that left death threats on my user talk page. I did ask him if he was the sockpuppet, and I kept asking because I found it strange that he refused to answer. If I am not allowed to do that, I will not do it again. If an editor ask me if I made death threats, I would not mind and I would simply say "No." and that would be the end of it, so I didn't see anything wrong with asking.

Wikipedia administrator Tokyogirl79, who reverted the death threats on my talk page, suggested both User:WarKosign and I stop reading and commenting on each others user pages. I found this to be good advice, and I have followed that suggestion since the time she made it. Unfortunately, User:WarKosign has ignored it, and is now claiming that statements I made on my user page about the person who made death threats are directed at him. As I have said repeatedly, I do not know who made the death threats. I do suspect who it might be, but I do not know.

As far as User:WarKosign's false claim and personal attack that I "exhibits battleground mentality and is not here to create an encyclopedia", I invite anyone who is evaluating this to look the Talk:Israel page. I believe I am normally on the side of the majority of editors, as most editors want a NPOV. I think User:WarKosign editing behavior would be described by most NPOV editors as non-NPOV.

Regarding User:WarKosign reporting the sockpuppet making the death threats, I think it is clear these edits would be quickly reverted, and I find his claim that this proves he is not the sockpuppet ridiculous. While I do not know who made the death threats, I do believe their intentions are the same as User:WarKosign in opening his multiple complaints, that is, to stop me from reverting edits I see as anti-Arab non-NPOV edits from Wikipedia articles.

I did say I plan to continue reverting edits I see as anti-Arab non-NPOV edits from Wikipedia articles, as I do not want anyone who makes death threats to be successful with intimidation tactics. I did not see the death threats made by the editor on my user page before they were reverted. According to a Wikipedia administrator, the threats included "== You deserve to ₫ie for your support of genocidal Islamic settlers. == I will make sure you suffer greatly." and "== You deserve to die ==I will make you suffer greatly." and "I can arrange for you to die in Gaza. Keep it up, raglover." If anyone has better advice on how to deal with such threats, I am happy to listen. I do not see anything unreasonable about stating I plan to continue reverting edits I see as anti-Arab non-NPOV edits from Wikipedia articles, as I do not want anyone who makes death threats to be successful with intimidation tactics.

I have relatively little desire to see Wikipedia admins block User:Gouncbeatduke will be burned alive. or any of it's currently known socks, as I would be happy for them to continue to fire away on my user page. I would far rather Wikipedia admins use their time counselling User:WarKosign, who has a history of opening specious complaints against at least one editor because he reverts User:WarKosign POV-pushing edits in an effort to create a NPOV Wikipedia. I see the Israel article as far more important and in need of a NPOV than my user page. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston - Much to the contrary of what User:EdJohnston claims, I in no way feel "free to revert all edits that he perceives to be anti-Arab on the grounds that he must not allow a particular sockpuppet to win". I feel the best way to deter whoever is making death threats is to continue to revert extreme anti-Arab non-NPOV edits in the same careful, selective manner I have been doing, and always observing the one revert rule, to demonstrate the death threats have had no effect. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by WarKosign[edit]

In case you missed it, this is how the user "at no time" stated "that User:WarKosign was the sockpuppet that left death threats".

Also note that the user claims that they followed Tokyogirl79's suggestion not to make indirect comments while in fact the second accusation was made after the suggestion. “WarKosign” 21:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I do not believe I had a good option. Trying to reason didn't work. Denying the accusation would be dismissed as a lie. Silently ignoring would be taken for admission. I tried to take a third option. Best case: CheckUser determines I couldn't be the sock. Worst case: an SPI clerk rejects the request. Did I violate some policy or hurt anyone ? “WarKosign” 07:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cailil: I would be perfectly happy not to interact with the user anymore, it would take care of their repeated personal attacks on me. It would not however take care of the user's unwavering conviction that their opinions are completely neutral and that one editor's opinion can be considered NPOV while everyone disagreeing with them must be a "pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pusher". Most of the arguments the user made at talk:Israel lack any specific information but instead are repetitions of the same mantra:

• "This is typical of the editing throughout this very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab non-NPOV article."
• "Unfortunately, the POV-pushing editors will never allow this to happen unless more people stand up to them"
• "The Jewish Virtual Library is a very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab web site that should not be cited in any NPOV article"
• "The Wikipedia editors that control the Israel article only allow pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pushing original research to be included in the article, any NPOV citation of NPOV secondary sources is immediately reverted"
• "Looks like the POV-pushing edit warriors are no longer going to allow this discussion"
• "Pro-Jewish/Anti-Arab groups in generally push a point of view ..."
• "PointsofNoReturn has suggested another NPOV way of stating the facts. Like all NPOV statements, it is unlikely to make it into the article as the Israel article is an non-NPOV Anti-Arabism narrative"
• "The Israel article contains a great deal of pro-Jewish/anti-Arab WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and needs work to move to a NPOV"
• "The article should note that the definition of Israel's borders throughout the Israel article is an ever changing line depending on which pro-Jewish/anti-Arab narrative the current paragraph is trying to sell"
• "I reverted the removal of the tag as I believe this is just more pro-Jewish/anti-Arab WP:TENDENTIOUS editing"

The user made a clean start. Wikipedia:Clean start says "Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start". The user claimed having no special interest in the WP:ARBPIA subjects, yet this seems to be the only subject of their edits. “WarKosign” 18:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cailil and Callanecc: A two-way IBAN implies wrongdoing by both sides. If you think I did something wrong towards Gouncbeatduke I would like to know what so I can avoid doing it in the future.“WarKosign” 14:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cailil: I do not intent to interact with the user anyway (just as I did before this incident) so I do not object in the slightest to the sanction. However, a sanction is supposed to be preventing something - what is it preventing in this case ? If I did something wrong please explain me so I won't inadvertently do the same to another editor.

Also, I would like a clarification - does !voting in an RfC posted by an editor (without replying to the editor's own !vote/comments) constitute interaction ? “WarKosign” 21:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Huldra[edit]

I´ve had no interactions with User:Gouncbeatduke before, but from what I can see, s/he has recently come under attack from this fellow, and has become a bit unnerved by it. Also, to Gouncbeatduke: I´ve seen User:WarKosign around for a bit, and I´m 100% sure s/he is not "that fellow". "That fellow" typically goes "ballistic" in a short while (he has got a *very* short fuse). Also: there are loads of pro-Israeli socks, but at least 90% of them are *not* "that fellow". "That fellow" have some specialities, like death threats and vulgar, sexual language. Making harassment-accounts is another speciality. (I´ve had this and this, just for starters.) Sending abusive email via wiki-mail is another speciality (I had to disconnect my email-account again, as I about a week ago got emails promising to "rape me to death" and "kill your husband"). Death-threats on your user-page is another speciality. (My talk-page is now thankfully semied, after endless attacks.)

To User:Gouncbeatduke I would say this: firstly, if you cannot deal with the behaviour from "that fellow", then don´t edit in the Israel/Palestine area. Yes, it is as simple as that. He has been behaving like this for 10 years now, and is not likely to stop soon. Also, never, never, never, accuse anyone with an edit-count of say, above 100 of being him: it is virtually certain it is not, as "that fellow" have a tendency to go ballistic long before they reach such a number of edits. If you have in any way indicated that you thought an *established* editor was this fellow, then you should humbly, (and I mean humbly) apologise to them.

Also to User:Gouncbeatduke: this fellow is still a student, but yeah, he knows how to use TOR ( and scripts). Get your talk-page protected and unlink your wiki-mail will help enormously, I´ve found. Forward any abusive emails you already have received to this guy, who is collecting info. The best policy is to give "that fellow" as little (public) attention as possible. He loves attention, so why should we gratify him? Huldra (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Huldra, for the information about "that fellow", . When I contacted emergency@wikimedia.org and ask about proximity, they assured me they were 100% certain my death threats were originating from a location outside the USA, and "that fellow" appears to only appears make threats from Los Angeles, CA, USA. I suppose maybe he has become more sophisticated about hiding his location, but it could also mean it is someone else. and his history of masking IP addresses to appear outside the USA. I agree he is the most likely suspect, so I have opened a SPI on him. I continue to find this all very confusing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest to revdelete the self-outing of location above to minimize the risk. “WarKosign” 20:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Plot Spoiler[edit]

Is it not already apparent that Gouncbeatduke is largely beyond reform in the IP area? The user believes that there is some "pro-Jewish/anti-Arab" camp operating on Wikipedia [106]. And it's been mentioned here before, Gouncbeatduke has said that s/he has edited before under a different username but started a new account for a WP:CLEANSTART. As a single-issue editor, Gouncbeatduke does not seem to be abiding by the recommendation that "it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start." Given that Callanecc has already warned this user at AE (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive163#Gouncbeatduke), it would be wise to see if Gouncbeatduke can edit constructively outside the topic area. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Gouncbeatduke[edit]

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

• Even by the usual standards of the I/P area, one of this editor's assertions about how he plans to edit appear to cross into WP:BATTLE territory. He feels free to revert all edits that he perceives to be anti-Arab on the grounds that he must not allow a particular sockpuppet to win. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This request is an example of a user spiraling out of control. Tokyogirl79 has valiantly tried to get through to Grouncbeatduke, but apparently to no avail. BTW, WarKosign is not looking that great, either, when they filed an SPI against themselves to "clear their name".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Would other sysops support for a two-way interaction ban here? It seems to me to be least harsh solution--Cailil ^talk 17:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Cailil: That looks like a good outcome to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Unless there are substantive objections from other uninvolved sysops within the next 24 hours I'll enact the following, and close this thread with the result: "User:Gouncbeatduke & User:WarKosign are banned from interacting with one another as per policy described at WP:IBAN, for three months, per this AE request."--Cailil ^talk 11:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So closed. Responded[107] to User:WarKosign's question re: RFCs on their talk page--Cailil ^talk 09:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 DungeonSiegeAddict510[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

DungeonSiegeAddict510 (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/GamerGate#ArmyLine.2C_DungeonSiegeAddict510.2C_and_Xander756_topic-banned :

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

1. February 21st Unprompted reference to a Gamergate discussion forum ('Kia') on my talk page.
2. February 21st Continues to discuss this forum on my talk page after making a statement on this request.

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I was initially unsure of what the comment related to, but I've been informed that Kia is a discussion forum for Gamergate. I'm not sure why he saw it pertinent to bring up on my talk page, but it's not welcome or relevant to anything I've been doing. Searching for 'kia gamergate' returns it as the first result, and I don't know what else it could be reasonably concluded that he was talking about.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[108]

Discussion concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by DungeonSiegeAddict510[edit]

I really shouldn't edit Wikipedia in the dead of night. I'm UTC-8 after all. Maybe I confused OP for someone else. Moo --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 18:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: the term is subreddit. Am I not allowed to correct others? --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 00:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I should apologize. It was very late at night and I wasn't thinking straight. I will restrain myself from night editing talkpages, from now on. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 00:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll have a thing written up soon, however, I have some other business to attend to so I can't write a thing right now. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

KiA (the final "A" is capitalized") is KotakuInAction, a reddit subforum where GamerGaters organize their attacks. (It is also the acronym for "killed in action"; the coincidence might conceivably be accidental.)

Here, for example, is a thread (currently 98 comments long) about whether Anita Sarkeesian’s Twitter statements can be excluded from the Gamergate article:[109], a topic being actively discussed at the moment on the talk page. . Various commentators discuss strategy (adding tweets from Gamergate supporters) and tactics (topic-banning me, bringing complaints against Gamaliel, calling me names, etc). At least 11 tweets in my Twitter stream this morning are sea-lioning this particular thread. The originator of this thread, shares a name with one of the topic-banned parties in the ArbCom case, but surely this is a coincidence.

Brianna Wu recently published [110] a call for Reddit’s CEO to close down the forum. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Avono[edit]

To be added to Evidence: [111] subject also referring to 8chan & ArbitrationGate controversy Avono (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite[edit]

This edit alone needs a serious explanation or a one-way interaction ban between this user and PeterTheFourth. It appears to be pure, unprompted talk page harassment. Hipocrite (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Liz[edit]

Considering that this mention links to the car Kia, not the GamerGate messageboard, it seems like a pretty trivial misstep. I'd feel differently if there had been a substantial remark about the controversy but this wasn't one. I think the apology from the editor should be sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterTheFourth: I didn't look at the entire conversation and DSA510 shouldn't have been on your talk page participating in it. But I still think it was a marginal participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: I think I will just bow out of the discussion at this point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: Hello. Regarding you correcting others on my talk page- your topic ban means you shouldn't be talking about the topic at all, and I'm not impressed that you've decided to continue to do so on my talk page after I've filed this report. I initially filed it because you were discussing it for seemingly no reason on my talk page. I'm not a fan of unwarranted questioning about Gamergate as you did, especially given that I haven't interacted with you before.

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: Would be perfectly okay with accepting an apology, but I'd like to know what it is you meant to discuss and why with me? I'm not a user of the KiA forums. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz: His further statements on the matter make it clear that he wasn't talking about the car manufacturer, despite his initial link to it. If I had to guess, I would say linking it would either be a joke or a means of plausible deniability ('I really only meant to ask you what trade secrets you were keeping about automobiles!') PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz: Thing is... he kind of started the discussion. He wasn't so much a participant as the person who brought it up (still don't know why.) As an aside: Should I be pinging every time I respond to something, or is it sufficient just to ping once? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Strongjam[edit]

Maybe this is stale by now? Seems to have been overshadowed by other reports. I'd say block DungeonSiegeAddict510 for 3 days or so for violating his topic ban. They're productive editing KDE articles, but for some reason Gamergate brings out the worst in them. They need to take HJ Mitchell's instructions to avoid the topic space like the plague seriously. — Strongjam (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Frosty[edit]

I don't understand the big deal on this one. You aren't dealing with an editor who spends 100% of his time doing things like this. I will agree that he did break his restrictions, but what he has been doing doesn't warrant any serious action. In fact it barely warrants this discussion. You know how this should have been handled? A friendly but firm reminder of his editing restrictions or at the very most a 1-3 day block for being a pain in the neck.

He received no attempt at a warning after ArbCom made it's decision. A simple: "Hey don't do that" would have nice, if he kept doing it then I'm all for coming to this page. —Frosty ☃ 23:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510[edit]

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

• This doesn't seem like that big of a deal. I think a trouting would do. - the Great Lord Gamaliel 00:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• There was substantial support for banning this editor in the arbitration decision itself, based on his failure to abide by his topic ban, but the Committee, with my concurrence, decided to give him a final chance. His behavior since the case closed has been unimpressive, and I perceive his edits on PeterTheFourth's talkpage as blatant harassment. I would impose a siteban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This post by DSA510 is indeed a violation of his topic ban from Gamergate. I suggest a one-month block, instead of the indef that might also be considered. Arbcom did entertain a motion to indefinitely block him as part of the case. The Committee made a Finding of Fact:

  3) DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in soapboxing on talk pages (e.g., [5][6][7]) battleground conduct ([8][9]), broken their topic ban twice (block log), and has provided inappropriate commentary during the case ([10][11]).

We assume that Arbcom hoped that his behavior after the case closed would show he was on a better path, but I don't see that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• For a violation of the TBAN the most we can do is a one week block for the first offense (that is, this is the first time they've violated the ArbCom TBAN), alternatively we can bump this over to ARCA and let ArbCom decide what action is best to take. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Huh? The standard enforcement starts at up to one month. T. Canens (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Plus, it's not a "first offense" by any reasonable standard – the Arbcom-imposed topic ban is a continuation of the previously imposed discretionary topic ban, and he had already been blocked twice for breaking that even before the Arbcom finished. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Good point, don't know what I was looking at. Fut.Perf. I guess that's something that whoever enforces needs to consider, that is whether enforcement before it became an ArbCom sanction counts as a violation for the standard enforcement provision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This is clearly a violation of the topic ban, and DSA is obviously not taking the advice and instruction he's been given by multiple people to leave the topic area alone. I think a permaban is a little over the top, but if DSA carries on as he has been it won't be long before we're at that point. I recommend a one-month block, which is the maximum allowable for the first enforcement action arising from the remedy. We could justify a longer block with an invocation of discretionary sanctions or IAR, or do it as an ordinary admin action, but I think a month is long enough to make the point, and any future violations will likely be met with a much longer block. DSA has exhausted the slack he has been cut, and we should come down hard on persistent offenders who don't heed the advice they're given, especially when that advice is backed by an arbitration remedy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with everything you've said, including that a month would be enough. Remembering also that we'll feel the same regarding coming down hard if there is a next time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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 Tgeairn[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Astynax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tgeairn (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/Landmark Worldwide#Discretionary sanctions (January 2015)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark Worldwide#Parties reminded

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

Tgeairn apparently has a serious WP:COI, possible socking incidents (according to at least one functionary) and has continued to edit/blank Landmark-related articles from a POV stance not based in sources, ignoring the Arbcom injunction to edit from sources. Tgeairn has noted that there is off-Wikipedia information regarding his COI, where I also encountered this information, and seemingly acknowledges that it contains at least some validity,[112][113] though it has not affected his behavior in blanking referenced information at odds with Landmark advocacy. He continues to deny any COI[114][115]

Blanking information cited to sources, mischaracterizing the reliability of sources and mischaracterizing what sources say, all violate both the Arbcom remedy and both the letter and spirit of WP:V and WP:OR. The rationales for blanking, etc. lie in personal POV or editor syntheses, not in sources. Apart from the Landmark Worldwide article itself, he has been running what looks like a campaign to Afd articles on people and subjects which are Landmark-related and which have offered (see diffs). His editing history at these articles has often followed a pattern of first deleting information and citations, tagging, then nominating for deletion. Finally, this Afd activity has extended to articles with a relationship to subjects which deal with new religious movements (sociology, psychiatry, etc.).

• Activity at Landmark Worldwide
  • 19:02, 29 January 2015: removed a peer-reviewed, academic reference on invalid grounds
  • 19:54, 29 January 2015: removed on the basis that a report by a government commission was "intentionally not published" when it is published on the government's website
  • 20:00, 29 January 2015: deleted citation information for an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal
  • 10:57, 29 January 2015: blanked a statement backed by multiple references, using an invalid interpretation of WP:PRIMARY
  • 10:52, 29 January 2015: removed a referenced statement, characterizing a reputable mainstream scholar as "Fringe"
  • 18:33, 29 January 2015: removed cited information, mischaracterizing it as "original research"
  • 18:59, 27 January 2015: latest in a series of disputed deletes of this statement in the lead summarizing cited material in the body

• Activity at Afd on topics with a relationship to Landmark
  • [116]: Afd for Michael Langone, a highly notable psychologist and researcher in his field. Article was redirected, even though the decision had been to Keep, then restored with a Merge tag; Tgeairn has continued to blank information there.
  • [117]: Afd for Catherine Picard, French politician involved in government investigation and interviewed in reference to Landmark, Tgeairn tagged for notability, was informed of the reasons she was notable[118] then proceeded to blank information and finally nominate for Afd regardless.
  • [119]: Afd for Mikael Rothstein], a notable academic who has written or edited works presenting est-Forum-Landmark as a single entity and tied to religion.
  • [120]: Afd for Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change, a notable book which mentions est/Landmark.
  • [121]: Afd for Union nationale des associations de défense des familles et de l'individu, a notable French organization critical of Landmark.
  • [122]: Afd for Geri-Ann Galanti, an anthropologist who has been critical of Landmark.
  • [123]: Afd for Watchman Fellowship, notable organization which has been critical of est/Landmark.

Many other Landmark-related diffs can be provided on request, but by my count I have reached the limit here and below. Per recommendations, I have a lengthy listed additional diffs illustrating the efforts of this editor in violation of the Arbcom injunction to base edits in sources here.

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months,17:46, 27 January 2015 see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tgeairn has a serious COI with regard to Landmark-related articles and, despite this, recently removed a COI notice posted by another editor.[124] The POV editing behavior and mischaracterizations in disregard of sources are perhaps explicable by this COI. Arbitrators and clerks should already be aware of this matter, and I will supply updated details, as removal of COI information has occurred on websites immediately after this matter was first posted to them. I request that functionaries contact me privately, as I will not discuss this here due to outing policy.

As Tgeairn seems to have a serious problem objectively editing topics related to Landmark Worldwide, a topic ban may be warranted. As this same behavior has extended in several instances to topics related to the broader category of new religious movements (e.g., the egregious Afd for Margit Warburg), a ban for NRM-related topics might also be considered.

• Reply to HJ Mitchell and Cailil: I am unsure why you have continued to speculate about the emails here, when it might be more productive to ask a functionary about the matter. The evidence for COI is beyond reasonable doubt. That this COI is known to others is confirmed by Tgeairn's acknowledgement of "combinations of accurate and inaccurate personal information in conjunction with my Wikipedia identity" to Callanecc.[125] That would have had to have come from other quarters, unless Tgeairn had somehow been made aware of my first email to functionaries. But as the matter was independently discovered by at least 2 editors here (aside from myself), Tgeairn was more likely aware that the cat was out of the bag off-Wiki, though his denials have continued here. Until after filing this case, I had no knowledge that my first message regarding COI had not been distributed to the list. I sent a second message containing updated information and asked for confirmation that it had been received, and only at that point received a response that the first message had been held up somehow and was being released to the list along with the updated second message. I initiated this case under the assumption that no action had yet been taken because a formal complaint had yet to be filed regarding Tgeairn's misbehavior in a) repeatedly and categorically denying that any COI whatsoever exists, b) continuing to misrepresent sources and what they have said in activity attributable to the COI, and c) blanking and editing based in COI advocacy. The speculation that this filing is some sort of tit-for-tat revenge in response to another editor's (certainly not Tgeairn) recent filing that went absolutely nowhere, is unwarranted and insulting. I hope that those with access to the fuller story will come to a decision, and will respond to them should they require further information. • Astynax ^talk 18:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reply to HJ Mitchell: Please go through the list of diffs once again. The diffs illustrate instances of deletions/blanking of material cited to reliable sources, including highly regarded academic works, on purely trumped-up or WP:OR grounds. This is a violation of the arbcom remedy. Tgeairn has not edited (i.e., in his activity in blanking cited material) based upon reliable sources to show that the cited material related to Landmark is invalid and should be removed. This activity following upon arbcom's decision and imposition of DS is a direct violation of the arbcom injunction to keep the basis "in reliable, independent sources" and not to "revert on sight". Detecting POV is something that would require cracking some books to look at what they say. Deleting cited statements, without a basis in reliable sources, is POV, and does not adhere to Wikipedia's policy that "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" be reported. Rather than providing additional content based in reliable sources that give any alternative views, Tgeairn has simply blanked sourced statements (and sometime the references themselves) repeatedly on nothing more than his say-so, in spite of the arbcom remedy. The arbs in the case did not directly address POV as it involved content-related material. In the Afd arena, the same sort of deletions were made in Landmark-related content covered by the Landmark DS, with some of these nominations being made apparently in blatant disregard of WP:BEFORE. Moreover, Tgeairn has repeatedly, blatantly and categorically misrepresented his COI, his latest and more carefully parsed statement notwithstanding, which should be troubling in itself even if those with a fuller picture have yet to comment here. This filing was to provide a case upon which to act upon that information, rather than to provide details which fall under the outing restrictions. • Astynax ^talk 20:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Tgeairn[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Tgeairn[edit]

This filing is yet another in a string of bad-faith attempts to use Wikipedia to promote the novel theories of a small group, and to discredit attempts to note or correct that promotion. I also note that the filer has declined mediation on this content, which further demonstrates that they are not here to improve the articles in question.

The filing party is making accusations, including saying that a functionary (presumably Callanecc from the diffs provided) is in some way backing those accusations, without any supporting evidence whatsoever. Further, despite other editors recently being blocked for the exact same behaviour, the filer appears to be stating that they are a part of the off-wiki harassment that I am currently enduring. Also, the filer appears to have knowledge of material that was sent off-wiki by yet another editor and does not appear anywhere on-wiki. Either Callanecc forwarded that material to Astynax (highly unlikely), or there is some form of off-wiki collusion occurring that includes Astynax and at least one other editor. This off-wiki activity is unacceptable by any stretch of our policies. It is threatening, harassing, and a demonstration of like-minded editors acting together in disputes.

As for the diffs of my activity (and noting that there are duplicate diffs provided), I stand behind each edit with a clear edit summary and/or talk-page link that describes exactly why the edit was made. If any reviewers here have questions regarding the edits, I am happy to answer - but I believe they stand clearly by themselves.

Regarding AfD filings, most of the AfDs provided were well discussed. Some were solidly kept, some were narrowly kept, and one of the AfDs listed resulted in delete. One was withdrawn by myself once the relevant notability guideline was found, and a couple were narrow (and contested by others) closes. While I disagree with some of the arguments made and some of the results, AfD is the exact right place to resolve those issues and that is why I ultimately nominated those articles. The result was better articles and clearer consensus on the issues involved.

If it is necessary to respond to this filing with a more extensive defense, I will do so. Given that Astynax is making essentially the same unfounded arguments here that they made in their original Arbcom filing, and that the committee did not find those arguments sanctionable (nor did they even include them in the findings of fact) at that time, I doubt that much further is needed on my part.

I do not believe that I have made any edits that are sanctionable, nor has my behaviour as an editor been in any way sanctionable. I also believe that the filer has demonstrated a long-term commitment to their ideas on the subject and a repeated willingness to harass and attack others who may not agree. I appreciate Cailil's call for WP:BOOMERANG, and I respect their time and effort to review this. If necessary, I intend to prevent archival of this thread until a definitive resolution of these unfounded accusations and ongoing attacks is reached.

I respectfully await the finding here. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding AfD nominations

Seeing that there is a continued effort to misrepresent my edit history by cherry-picking AfD nominations to list, I'll help Astynax. Here are my last 50 AfD nominations, here is my PROD log, and here is my CSD log. Reviewers here will notice that the selection provided by Astynax is a misleading sampling and yet another attempt to quell the use of appropriate venues for resolving concerns. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding John Carter's continued commentary

• @John Carter: Astynax has brought this frivolous and frankly malicious filing rather than engage in collaborative editing of the articles under question, rather than dispute resolution, and rather than mediation. I am under no burden to prove anything, that rests with Astynax. I generally respect your editing, but your continued "one more thing" digs do not appear to be designed to forward the resolution here, but rather to impede it. You have already lost your sysop bit, been blocked twice in the last seven months, and are subject to a number of different editing restrictions. You might consider letting someone else fight this one. For clarity's sake, yes - I have been in communication with Arbitration committee members, Callanecc, and members of the Arbcom Audit Subcommittee regarding this matter. It is up to them whether they will weigh in here, and I would welcome their guidance. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @John Carter: I believe that you have misremembered the AE request history here. It was me, Tgeairn, that brought an enforcement request against Theobald Tiger on 31 January. Contrary to your recollection, Callanecc said

  "that there is evidence on wrong doing, specifically incivility and personal attacks (1st sentence, [126], [127], "It is crystal clear...", [128]), edit warring to make a point ([129]), and edit warring generally [130], [131], [132], [133]). I'm considering whether to go with a final warning or a three month topic ban, though I have to say that this edit is pushing me towards a TBAN.

The request ended with a warning that further disruption would result in a Topic Ban. As a side note, I see that Theobald Tiger is right back to that same behaviour, so the warning didn't last very long. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @John Carter: Stop making personal attacks. Saying that my statement raises Dunning-Kruger effect questions is a personal attack, unless my incompetent reading of that policy is wrong too. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding Astynax's additional list of diffs

I appreciate Astynax compiling this list and linking it above, it is obvious that they put a great deal of effort into it. I very strongly encourage all parties to read the list and click on the links provided. For convenience, here is the list Astynax compiled to demonstrate my "serious COI", "POV editing", sock-puppetry, misuse of sources, etc, etc. Remember, this is a cherry-picked list of my supposed worst edits. For further convenience, I'll provide a sampling here:

• 26 January 2015 - I remove a passage that is sourced entirely to "hometown.aol.com/carol2180" noting that it is a SPS, and I explained thoroughly on the article talk page. Astynax calls this "blanked an entire section referencing the controversial Landmark-related "The Hunger Project"." (which Landmark has nothing whatsoever to do with the Hunger project either).
• 30 January 2015 - I remove a reference to a paper by a grad student, where other references exist for the material already, and which was found at RSN to be insufficient for the claims made. I explained clearly on the talk page and in the edit summary why I removed it. Astynax calls this "removed a reference to a work often cited in academic literature as "unreliable"". It is unreliable, it's a paper by a grad student. The paper (as explained repeatedly at talk) is a first-person appraisal, the author is a student, the author explicitly says that she discarded sources that did not match her experience when writing it.
• 30 January 2015 - I remove a reference to "shambook.blogspot.com", explained in edit summary and on talk page. Astynax calls this "removal of an arguably RS online article by a journalist and author in the field of self-help programs". Note that no one ever argued for this as a RS, despite my repeated requests at the talk page.
• 25 February 2015 - I remove a reference to "noseweek.co.za", explained in edit summary that NoseWeek is not reliable for anything beyond the author's self-statements. Astynax says is "removal of citation information, mischaracterizing another source as non-reliable "for anything beyond their authors' self-statements"."

Obviously, the list Astynax provides is long and I could go on explaining each edit. However, instead, I encourage everyone to go to the list right now. Please, read and click on the diffs Astynax provides. If after doing so - if after reviewing this cherry-picked list of what Astynax says is evidence of COI, sockpuppetry, POV pushing, and more - if after doing that there is anyone that thinks I should be banned/blocked/sanctioned/warned/trouted/anything then please do so immediately. There is absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing there at all. None. I can, in fact, promise a few good laughs though. In fact, I think that I could not come up with a better defense than this list. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding timing of this request

• I see that John Carter and Astynax are trying to figure out who emailed who and when, and how that relates to this case. First, I don't see how it relates at all. However, there was absolutely no mention of any of this until John Carter encouraged this frivolous AR filing and Astynax replied with a complaint about no way to resolve content issues, despite having just declined to participate in mediation. There is no mention whatsoever in that dialogue about email or sending anything to arbs. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Perhaps if the timing of the emails can be sorted, John Carter, Astynax, and Manul can figure out how Manul supposedly received some kind of information from Callanecc on 26 February. Is that the goal here? Because right now, I can't figure out how Manul, Astynax, and John Carter all started referring to some email that Callanecc received, which was sent on some date by someone - all without Callanecc or anyone else having made anything about any such email public. Something is very, very fishy here. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding WP:COI

• It appears that I must, again, respond to accusations of COI editing. WP:COI is a behavioural guideline. I am crystal clear about what it says. I have not edited, am not editing, and will not edit in any way whatsoever that contravenes that guideline. This has been asked and answered repeatedly (as Astynax is aware, and even linked to a couple times). This continued accusation and harassment over a period of many months must stop. That there is some off-wiki communication occurring between parties in this discussion is obvious by the timeline. That the communication is being used to hunt, gather, and share supposed off-wiki evidence of violation of an on-wiki behavioural guideline is senseless. It is stalking, bullying, hounding, whatever you want to call it. Again, this needs to stop. My editing has been seen and reviewed by admins, arbcom members, functionaries, and even members of the foundation. In NO CASE have ANY OF THEM found that I edited in a way that contravened the COI behavioural guideline (although at least one pointed out that it is a guideline, not policy). This must stop. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by John Carter[edit]

In response to the enforcers below, I think it may well be worth noting that Astynax said he would supply evidence, but that as per OUTing he would prefer to not post it here, but e-mail it. I cannot fault someone for not violating policy directly but seeking to provide the relevant information privately, as he has indicated he would like to do here. I also note that some of Tgeairn's comments on his own talk page, regarding deletion of the comments, as well as similar comments by Tgeiarn and others on User:Callanecc's talk page at User talk:Callanecc#Puppetry accusation may well be relevant and that Callanecc may be able to provide more information not available publicly. Although it might have been not a bad idea to wait a few days more until Callaecc got his footing back, as it were, I don't see any real reason myself to jump to conclusions about the privileged information which is apparently available to at least some editors is somehow presented to the AE enforcers for their consideration. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Personally, I wouldn't in the least mind seeing all the directly related articles fully protected for a while to allow the appropriate dispute resolution processes to take place. And I would love to see this go to DRN with some sort of "code red" call for the input of as many uninvolved individuals as possible to help resolve the concerns. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I would be very interested in seeing evidence of the off-wiki harassment @Tgeairn: refers to, as it also seems at least possibly to me to be a misrepresentation of fact unless clear evidence of same is given to at least one or more of the admins involved in this request or the functionaries or someone else to review, possibly under the circumstances Callenecc. I have no information one way or another regarding what this alleged harassment is, and I don't expect Tgeairn to provide evidence of it on this site, but as it is I am not sure that his claim of harassment is any more substantive than the claims he is himself deriding. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we are going to consider the last two AE requests, I think it would also be reasonable to consider the first two as well. So far as I remember, in the first DaveApter raised a rather clearly nonactionable request and at the same time made clearly unsupportable personal attacks against Theobald Tiger which led to that editor at least temporarily retiring. I believe there may be some basis for considering WP:CIR regarding that matter. Also, for the purposes of information, it would be I think useful to have clear evidence as to when Astynax sent the e-mails relative to when he posted here. I don't know that I have seen that to date. Taking into account the activity of some of the previous AE's, I think it might not be unreasonable to offer final warnings rather broadly, with perhaps use of the COI template regarding any editors who may be seen to reasonably be described as having such, and trying to drag in as many outsiders as possible. I have dropped a message at the talk page of WikiProject Religion asking for as much additional input from as many people as possible, and if anyone can think of any other projects which might have enough activity and topically relevant sources to get similar messages, please feel free to let me know or add them yourselves. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Astynax has indicated here that he first sent the e-mail to the list a month ago, without any apparent response. It seems to be the lack of any response which seems to have been at least in part the filing of this more visible request, given the failure of any action or response there. Frustration with both likely COI editors who may not unreasonably be seen as regularly engaging in edits which in some way promote their POV, and few if any which do not, as well as with a administrative system which apparently has failed rather dramatically in this instance, is also something I think could and should reasonably be taken into account. With this information, I would have to assume that any complaints or actions regarding Astynax's personal history here should take into account the fact that he has, apparently with the best of intentions and in accord with established policies and guidelines, been, more or less, left without the support he could and reasonably should expect when doing, basically, as much as he can within the system, and any actions which at this point might be perceived as being beyond the established bounds of propriety should perhaps also be seen as being at least in part due to the apparently complete failure of the system for about a month now. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it very reasonable to point out that Tgeairn's most recent comment seems to once again raise serious Dunning-Kruger effect questions regarding his seemingly absolute conviction that in some way he has a better grasp of policies and guidelines than Astyanx, who, unlike Tgeairn, has raised so far as I can tell 16 articles to FA status and 13 to GA status. So far as I can tell, Tgeairn himself has been involved in the development of no content which has ever received any sort of particular recognition. But, apparently, he doesn't let his own at best poorly demonstrated grasp of relevant content policies and guidelines interfere with his pontificating to others who have a much better record in developing content about the relevant policies and guidelines. Although I realize relative WP:CIR questions are not necessarily anything which can be dealt with effectively in AE, I think it is perhaps a serious issue in this matter anyway. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding Tgeairn's latest comments[edit]

@Tgeairn: might perhaps be interested in reading the comments of the admins below in their section. The fact that he apparently hasn't continues in my eyes to raise perhaps serious questions regarding his ability to contribute in a knowledgeable and productive way in this matter. Caili has specifically said below that he thought the e-mail was sent "after" the request here was filed. As Astynax has pointed out, the e-mail was sent a month ago, and that there has apparently been neither response or even acknowledgement of it in that time. While I acknowledge that perhaps Tgeairn might be less interested in the comments of the closing admins here than in perhaps other things, I think it is both reasonable and appropriate to point out that the conclusion Cailil made in the results section, based on the evidence available to him at that time, is apparently inaccurate. I believe any reasonable person would believe that it is reasonable to advise the admins involved of all the information apparently available, particularly when they may be drawing conclusions which are at least in part based on flawed information. The fact that others may not be able to understand that is perhaps interesting on its own. John Carter (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I am more than a little amused that in his most recent comment TGgeairn seems to once again be attempting to draw conclusions for others, particularly in the statement that this claim is "frivolous." I wonder whether independent editors would say the same about his removal of a COI template to the talk page of Landmark Worldwide on the basis of OUTing, and his subsequent comments at Callanecc's talk page. Once again, I regret to say that I am seeing some serious issues regarding whether his grasp of policies and guidelines, or perhaps lack of same, may be a serious issue here. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess the edit summary here could reasonably be applied to Tgeairn himself, considering that his comment there seems to be bringing in a number of matters completely unrelated to the previous discussion but, somehow, he is incapable of recognizing that. I honestly have no clue how Manul was told anything, and I very strongly resent what seems to me to be an implication that I would. Callenecc might, and I would presume does, know about that, but I cannot see how anyone could rationally link that editor's comments with anyone else's without evidence. Once again, I see a pattern here of attempting to raise irrelevant points perhaps in an attempt to distract from the main ones, while at the same time engaging in unsupportable insinuation. While that is, perhaps, not uncommon at AE, it does raise to my eyes serious questions regarding the motivations of individuals involved, as did DaveApter's completely unsupported apparent "declarations of fact" regarding Theobald Tiger in the first of the series of AE requests regarding this matter. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Closing admins: So far as I understand, it is considered a COI problem to perhaps disruptively nominate articles which have rather clearly already demonstrated notability, to remove sections of material from articles for less than sufficient reason, and to perhaps argue less than competently that material might not be suitable if one of the perhaps primary reasons is that the content in question is critical of the topic with which one has a COI. I am also thinking, among other things, of a recent comment on the Landmark talk page by Tgeairn to the effect of, "just because policy doesn't rule something out doesn't mean we have to include it," here which demonstrates to my eyes perhaps a tendency toward wiki-lawyering and other problematic behavior. Also, taken into account with the fact that there seem to be other editors who have a rather clearly established COI, in the eyes of seemingly everyone but themselves, such as DaveApter, there may also be perhaps reasonable concerns of some form of collusion and/or conspiracy and/or collective attempts to create a seriously flawed consensus. Granted, it may well not be reasonable to sanction one person alone in matters which seem to be perhaps involving more than one editor, but I don't think that it is necessarily in the best interests of the project to not try to actively do something to prevent or limit the impact of such cooperative POV pushing. Some of his more recent comments on that page, which seem to my mind to rather slanderously accuse others of "edit warring" against consensus, also seem to my eyes to be seriously problematic behavior. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this edit by Tgeairn above, in which he says my indicating that I think he indicates he thinks much more about his own level of knowledge than is necessarily shown by the evidence is somehow a personal attack, may well itself show (1) that his understanding of NPA may be as flawed as his knowledge of several other policies and guidelines, such as OUTing, which has already been mentioned, and (2) that, for whatever reason, he seems to be extremely sensitive to any degree of criticism. I do not think any reasonable person could say that "raises serious ... questions" in any way necessarily indicates that it achieves answers. I believe this extreme level of sensitivity to anything remotely less than laudatory from others, and the unsupportable, almost dogmatic, statements regarding what he has a "right" to, as with his demands for reverse deletion on the basis of alleged OUTing, cannot help keep preexisting concerns regarding WP:CIR alive. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by DaveApter[edit]

This is just the latest in a sequence of attempts by Astynax to abuse Wikipedia's disciplinary processes to gain leverage in what is essentially a content dispute. This had been going on since last September when Astynax filed a frivolous Request for Arbitration in a move to try to silence three editors who did not share his viewpoint (and none of whom were sanctioned). The appropriate mechanism is Mediation, which Astynax refused to engage with. I cannot see anything tendentious in the diffs above. The allegation of sockpuppetry was rejected for lack of evidence by the Checkuser [134] DaveApter (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note by Thryduulf[edit]

This is just to confirm that Astynax has sent an email to the functionaries list regarding this enforcement request. I personally haven't got time to read it (or the evidence presented on this thread) so I offer no comments on its contents. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Tgeairn[edit]

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

• No comment re: this case yet. However this recently archived case is relevant since it was filed by Tgeairn about Astynax in this topic area, and Tgeairn was one of 3 editors arguing for Astynax being sanctioned--Cailil ^talk 12:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ok having taken a moment to review the "evidence" here I'm calling WP:BOOMERANG on this. The last request was ridiculous and this is worse. Claiming someone has "possibly" a COI or a past of socking without evidence is casting unfounded aspersions. References to offsite outing is not a good idea. If and only if there is substance to the COI then evidence of that should be conveyed to an Arbitrator in private, not bandied about as fact on AE or other community fora. Furthermore this looks to me like a revenge filing (given the farce that was the above case) and I'm beginning to think the topic would be best served with all the most heavily involved editors in these two filings indefinitely topic banned rather than wasting the rest of the community's time on their personal battles and agendas. The fact that one side is misbehaving (or is possibly misbehaving) does not give licence to the other side to disrupt this site to make a point. I'd like to see more sysops commenting here before commenting further but I take cognizance of John Carter's points in the last case--Cailil ^talk 12:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm inclined to agree. Repeated repetition of statement does not increase its accuracy. The only evidence cited of a COI is Tgeairn's repeated and strenuous denials. Frankly, this looks like an attempt to remove an opponent from a content dispute. I'm not at all convinced by the evidence presented. I see a legitimate content dispute in which Tgeairn is using clear edit summaries and taking issues to the talk page. The AfD nominations are not problematic—I see no evidence that Tgeairn has not accepted the outcomes, some of the articles were kept only narrowly (in which case it's not inappropriate to think about merging/redirecting), one was closed as delete, and Tgeairn withdrew one himself when he realised he'd made a mistake. In none of them does he argue with opposing editors nor continue a debate long past its usefulness because he didn't get his way, as one would expect of a tendentious editor. I would, though, like to hear from Callanecc, who seems to be more familiar with this dispute. I'll also repeat my suggestion from the last AE thread of a lengthy spell of full protection to force warring parties to gain consensus in advance for their edits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I've seen some evidence which indicates that Tgeairn has an offwiki COI however I've not seen evidence of a ToU violation (paid editing) nor have I seen onwiki evidence (especially in light of HJ's comment above) that the COI is problematic. I've also seen some evidence that Tgeairn has made similar edits to an IP. Also just noting that an email was sent to the functionaries mailing list with some content and evidence regarding Tgeairn.

I agree that lengthy full protection might be the best option to force those involved to discuss. I think preferable to topic banning a bunch of users, though I'd have no objections to final warnings being issued so that there is a lower bar for issues in the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I tend to agree with Callanecc and HJM on most their points above but my problem here is the double jeopardy approach to filing a VERY vague AE request and then using the email. Doing so makes private confidential proceedings public BEFORE any issue has been determined (i.e prejudice) and smacks of mud slinging. I'm rarely inclined to "kick the can down the road" with disputes that have wasted other people's time to this degree. Full protection is fine as a temporary measure but does not address the behavioural issues not related to article editing. This looks personal to me (as did the last AE filing) and that kind of belligerence needs to be stopped. So to my mind unless there is strong (iron clad) evidence of COI and povpushing, I would maintain that Boomerang applies here and a reasonable analysis of the 2 recent AE filings[135][136] relating to the RFAR Landmark (neither of which ended with anything more than a warning) should be done to assess the cost/benefit to the project of leaving editors who are abusing AE and the RFAR to win content disputes--Cailil ^talk 12:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree with you. Filing a vexatious AE request and using it to cast aspersions against an opponent is abhorrent. It's the sort of dirty trick we've just about stamped out (after many years) in the Israel-Palestine topic area. Even assuming that Tgeairn has a serious conflict of interest, his edits do not appear to me to be those of a POV pusher or a tendentious editor (and we deal with plenty of those on this board). I'm proposing the full protection in addition to any sanctions we might want to consider against Asyntax. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just noting re: emails above. It would have been helpful if Astynax had stated here at AE that a first email was sent to the functionaries list a month ago. However, in the statement John links to[137] it is very unclear about that first email. It remains that this request was opened simultaneously with sending that (second) email (the one that got distributed to the list), and so to my mind it's still "double insurance" or "double jeopardy" territory. I'd advise all parties above to disengage and await feedback from teh Arbs re: the substance of Astynax's emails--Cailil ^talk 10:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Astynax: You've missed the point. Having a conflict of interest (assuming you're correct for the sake of argument) is not against policy. More to the point, I have no interest, less than no interest in fact, in what Tgeairn does in real life or elsewhere on the Internet provided his edits abide by the letter and spirit of policy. It is my assessment and Cailil's that they do, and Callanecc (who has presumably read whatever you've sent to the functionaries list) has stated that he does not believe the COI to be problematic, especially in the light of my assessment of the diffs you've provided. Ad it's the edits that matter. Even if you provided cast iron evidence that Landmark Worldwide wee hanging Tgeairn upside down by his toenails to get him to make these edits, I still can't imagine that I'd find them to be problematic. All this talk of COI completely misses the point: if somebody is pushing a POV, they can be deal with for that, COI or no COI, paid or unpaid; if they're not, there's no need to take any action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm old and sleepy. I am giving up my nap for this--yet more Landmark words. These guys can't say anything in just three sentences; it has to be a million words. Anywayz, this email business, I can't follow it, and I see no smoking gun. A COI does not by itself invalidate an editor's work, and I see no evidence "beyond reasonable doubt"--in fact I see no evidence at all. I looked at the Landmark diffs; those accusations about a person AfDing this and that are easily made, even cheaply.

  Some removals are OK--of course an Academic paper is not acceptable, unless it's agreed that it is. Removing that Routledge book is not, and I saw a few other removals that I find questionable. What's noteworthy, and this gives me pause, is that Tgeairn would remove a Routledge book (used as one of a number of sources to verify one single statement, if I'm not mistaken) but leave a half a paragraph sources to a Swedish newspaper; as I just noted on the Landmark talk page, such editing is undue and places too much emphasis on the less reliable sources. Whether that's worth a DS sanction is up for discussion, but I do think (sorry Tgeairn, but I am an equal opportunity offender: in the past, your opponents have tried to make me out as a Landmark defender) that the editor is not always neutral enough in their editorial decisions. I also think that all of these editors, as a group, should find something else to do. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]