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 Ashtul[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :

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

1. 12:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC) revert removes paragraph
2. 11:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 1RR violation -- removes a paragraph again, <24 hours after the first time

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Previous block notice for 1RR violation: [1]
• I/P topic ban: [2], subsequently lifted by HJ Mitchell, [3]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Report originally posted at AN3; moved here on suggestion by another editor.
• Ashtul continues to insist (on ever more bizarre grounds) that the edit violating 1RR was okay. This does not bode well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Re Ashtul's claim not to be a POV-pusher -- since other admins have already noted that POV-pushing is exactly what is going on here, perhaps it's not necessary to specify it, but just in case: consider this edit, which adds a claim (co-existence, side-by-side) that uses a source not meeting WP:RS and another one (Y-net) that does't support the text. The POV is that the occupation is good for the Palestinians -- they don't mind it, they benefit from it economically, they work "side by side" next to Israelis in "co-existence" -- and yet the only source that supports those claims is one that quotes the head of a settlement regional council. The claim to this effect is nonetheless added without attribution, as if it were fact. This sort of editing is pervasive in this editor's contributions -- and so the claim that he is not a POV-pusher is especially troubling because it shows unwillingness to own up to what is perfectly evident. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Ashtul[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 Ashtul[edit]

Claims for my POVPUSH or WAR[edit]

I do have a strong POV but I don't push it. Some of my statement might need moderate work but I believe I contribute more on that field then do damage. Much work is needed on many pages.

An example for a change I've done recently is this. Two following sentences from the same source but the date is attributed only to the second part. As of September 2010, only a small minority among them is violent. - ridicules. I haven't followed who put it this way to begin with but it is an obvious POVPUSH which I have corrected.

On Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015, I have tried to bring some NPOV to the table but Nishidani wouldn't hear it. If you compare the lead to that of Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 you can see the lead grew from decent NPOV to a political manifesto with multiple sources criticizing Israel. Two pro-Israeli sources introduced to lead for WP:DUE were removed by Nishidani b/c "(3) removed false and unnecessary lead tags". I have asked him about items on the list that doesn't fit the category at Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015#Confiscation notice but over a week later he didn't even bother answering. A great source by Shin Bet I introduced with talk page entry was move to the very end of the monthly lead stating "This is a useful source and I will use it on a monthly basis. However unlike every other source, it has no details" but a simple look shows the first part is by no-name group that provides even less details then my source, not to mention, detainees aren't covered by the definition in the lead.

Blaming me for POV discrepancy when Nishidani is in the picture is nonsense. I didn't go to war over those b/c he took control over those pages and won't hear anything from new editors. On Skunk (weapon) he would resist any change until Cptnono just chopped of one third of the article. His rollback on CS is exactly the same behavior. He didn't even go through all the changes to check whether they should stay in or not. Returning the part on which we all spending our precious time here can be considered unintentional WP:VANDALISM but in hundreds of word and 2 days Nishidani didn't even stated once that he disagree with my action of removing it and as I stated before, I can't see how 1RR rule can be applied when there is no WP:Content dispute. Ashtul (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Huldra: Let look at an RfC on a content conflict lasting over a month now between me and yourself, Nishidani and Nomoskedasticity on Carmel, Har Hebron. The 4 replies as for now support my position and here are parts of them -

1. Those editors who argue in favor of it because it shows a contrast between Carmel and the ruins are actually arguing that we should push some POV with this image.
2. is rampant POV-pushing and totally unacceptable
3. the tangential POV laden picture does not belong in this article as outlined above
4. that does not belong in an encyclopedia

As per PMW, there are 7 results about them. This one list major media outlets which use their translations. Even the one you pointed at concluse if it used by 3rd RS it is OK, which I provided. This isn't even an opinion piece but a translation. If there is any doubts about that, please prove it. The fact they choose to translate pro-Israeli material doesn't make them unreliable. To top this all, I actually contacted them after I couldn't find the original and I added the link they send me as well. Then I invited you to question this on WP:RSN.

So let's sum this up, while 4 editors used some strong language on your editing on Carmel, I facilitated a conversation, provided a source, a 3rd party unarguably RS and the original in arabic then invited you to use WP:RSN. You really got some Chutzpah. Ashtul (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston:,@Cailil: and @Callanecc:, please note my comment above. Ashtul (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A final word[edit]

I was confused all along as for why Nomoskedasticity went for a 'revert' which was not part of any content conflict as I have made total of over 20 edit in two series and how come I mixed up the time. It finally came to me -

I worked on the article in two sessions. The first until 12:00 where I have made numerous changes to the content Nishidani added and a second session from 14:01 none of which was sections Nishidani wrote. In between I edited several other articles (TaxiBot, ‎Palestinian stone-throwing, Bil'in, Wikipedia:Third opinion). There are more then 24 hours between the edits I have made on Nishidani's edits and the revert in question is material that Nishidani doesn't even claim is content dispute, basically admitting him putting in back in place was a mistake. I truly believe I have done everything to keep the rules. Nomoskedasticity have filed the 3RR request within 1 hour of this uncontested 2nd revert and posted on my request to HJ Mitchell in a short time as well. Obviously he is trying to eliminate me as an editor. This isn't just WP:Hound, I think for this a new policy need to be call WP:hunt. Ashtul (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OMG, WP:HUNT actually exist. "A witchhunt is an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred". I think this is more than enough to dismiss this as Nomoskedasticity is obviously after me, sorted through dozens of edits in which he wasn't involved and immediately filed a request as if he just won the lottery. Ashtul (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston:,@Cailil: and @Callanecc:, HJ Mitchell have decided to sit this one out so I guess it is time for your decision. I have hidden much of the conversation and left the main points which are -

1. I have waited 24 hours between my edits on Nishidani's work.
2. I'm NOT POVPUSHer.
3. Nomoskedasticity timing is clearly WP:HUNT and the 'revert' in question isn't 'already obvious that such has occurred' but required digging and hairsplitting. (This is how an obvious one looks like).

I would like to ask you to refer to these points in your final decision. Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

500 words[edit]

Nishidani's statement in 500 words summery doesn't include one word about the revert in question. Why? B/C there is no case.

Nomoskedasticity wrote about Barkan but prior to introducing 'Demotix' I searched for it and it has currently 186 results thus seems as RS. Just to be safe, I later added an ha'aretz source. Both Haaretz and Ynet speak about good working relationships "They work shoulder to shoulder with Israelis. If you don't like this one word, why remove the whole paragraph? It seems as if Palestinians daily suffering is NPOV and well being is POVPUSHING. Why?

• On his first edit to Community settlement (Israel) Nishidani's edit summary reads - This is all undocumented. So let's source it.. But when I did work on it...
• After thousand of word of back and forth I worked on the article in two sessions. The first until 12:00 where I have made numerous changes to the content Nishidani added and a second session from 14:01 none of which was sections Nishidani wrote. In between I edited several other articles. I have waited 24 hours between my edits on Nishidani's work. It came after a lengthy conversation here.
• Nishidani gave it so little thought before rolling back over a dozen edits (with no proper explanation as required), he left one transfer of content and reverted the rest of changes including reintroducing duplicate section (History vs. History and today), outdated/false information and a new source introduced.
• In over a week, Nishidani didn't claim once there is a dispute content which is basically admitting rolling back the content into the article was a mistake. To then go after me for it is not only childish but dishonest.
• This a typical WP:Witchhunt (A witchhunt is an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred). There was no WP:WAR, not even WP:DISPUTE and the my edits had to be studied to find the one closest to a revert (even the one found is only partial revert). Just trying to eliminate an editor with different POV.

So in one (long) sentence - Nishidani is fully aware part of his revert was wrong on an article that needed a lot of work but he wants me gone so bad he will WP:HUNT me with a policy which came to prevent WP:WAR when not even WP:Content dispute exist but only a faulty WP:ROLLBACK. Ashtul (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to Nishidani

• Nishidani Blaming anyone of POVPUSHing is a Chutzpah. I will reiterate my favorite one - He edited this which I brought back to NPOV here. He changed Israel Maintains into Israel sought to justify. 'Maintains' is NPOV. 'Sought to justify' is POVPUSH as would be 'praises itself' (to the other direction).
• He writes two editors of long experience have questioned... but when asked about it the response was The problem is that it is a "premium" article from Haaretz: unless you subscribe (which I don´t) you cannot see the whole article. Seriously???
• Any why remove the whole statement? WHY? Haaretz is RS and it says "people are working side by side". Why would experienced editors remove this? TWICE???

Thank you for allowing me to highlight the fact I'm not in the wrong here! Ashtul (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What make this whole conversation even more absurd is the statement in question - "At Barkan Industrial Park, thousands of Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in many of the factories in coexistence". The Ynet and Haaretz articles support this but obviously the wording is mine. Israelis and Palestinians interact many millions of times a day. Apparently for Nishidani, all is important is when those go wrong (~200 edits on Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015) but when someone writes about the 99.999% of the times where everything is great and people work together and have normal working relationship Huldra, Nishidani and Nomoskedasticity just can't stand it. When articles such as Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir or 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers explode to every possible angel and aspect both sides contribute to, it is normal, but when someone write - Let's not forget this is not the whole picture, not even a big part of it, it is POVPUSHing.Ashtul (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to mention on the same article, Barkan Industrial Park, pollution isn't about the environment or mother earth but a sophisticated Israeli biological weapon meant to cause cancer to Palestinians in villages around. That article is WP:UNDUE and none of those editors have edited it before I have. I think it is time for WP:ARBPIA3 where it should discussed what should go to what articles. As it stands, Barkan is just an example for the BLACKWASHING Nishidani and Co. practice on Wikipedia. Apparently, BDS movement found another battle field. Ashtul (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]

As I said over at the AN3 report in response to the user saying their timezone settings made them inadvertently revert before the 24 hours were up, the user appears to be waiting for the restriction window to end. They did so without discussing the edits in the meantime. It's gaming to just wait for the instant the 24 hours are up. To quote WP:3RR for the sake of the user, not the reviewing admins: Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ashtul: 1RR always applies, even if the revert was on a different topic, it's still a revert. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 22:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ashtul: The Pack? Anyway, WP:3RR is clear that it does not need to be about a content dispute. To quote: There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of other editors. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit wars are over content disputes. 3RR is a bright line regardless of the natures of the edits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 22:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ashtul: The 3RR is independent of edit warring. I myself found this out the hard way. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by IjonTichyIjonTichy[edit]

It seems Ashtul has learned almost nothing from his blocks and topic ban, and is repeating the same behaviors that led to the blocks and ban. He is gaming the system and editing in a highly partisan way. He appears to have made an effort to familiarize himself to some modest extent with the letter of WP policies, but his understanding, and more importantly his acceptance, of the spirit of the policies are very poor. He still does not understand or accept the culture of WP. He still does not have a clue. Ashtul's disruptive editing significantly reduces the work output of productive editors.

Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not believe an interaction ban is a good option. To Ashtul's credit, it seems he has made a few edits that are neutral. But regretfully most of his contributions are not neutral. Ashtul appears to (not always, but almost always) edit in a highly partisan fashion, and exhibits battleground behavior. He seems to behave as if Wikipedia is an ideological war zone, and as Nishidani has shown (in two specific examples out of many) Ashtul has twisted, slanted and warped citations from reliable sources in order to serve Ashtul's own ideological bias. We all have personal biases but most of us are able to set-aside our biases most of the time and edit neutrally based strictly on what reliable sources say. In contrast, Asthul does not yet appear capable of setting aside his biases and thus he is not yet able to edit neutrally - his own ideology is far too powerful to allow him to accept the evidence provided by, and the views expressed in, reliable sources which strongly disagree with Ashtul's personal point of view. IjonTichy (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

Ashtul, while depicting me as some hounding monster, part of a hunting pack of POV pushers (the sprawling defamatory screed above after my attempts to keep this polite violates WP:AGF), insists I renege on my undertaking not to comment here. All I can see is any comment I might make being an occasion for a massive expansion of erratic counter-charges. Of the huge wall of text and embedded charges above I'll give but one example of how unreliable his reportage is.

Nishidani made a quick WP:ROLLBACK revert(kept one change and added some content)

What did I do in that innocuous edit?

• (1)I retained an important item Ashtul had added.
• (2) Resupplied a source for a passage that read:

also in the Galilee as part of the aim of establishing a 'demographic balance' between Jews and Arabs, and thwarting the development of a Palestinian state.

This had been removed by Ashtul with the edit summary: 'Removed WP:OR statement in the lead which is WP:EXCEPTIONAL)' These are both spurious. I introduced 4 academic sources, three of which say this in various ways:

(a)Weizman pp.81-82,pp.120-124, immediately before his specific section on 'community settlements' writes of a double planning policy to incentivate massive settlement in order to normalize the occupation and make it permanent, while ‘placing every conceivable obstacle.. in front of Palestinians attempting to develop their lands’.

(b)Farsakh p.50 wrote:‘The growth of settlements . .paved the way for carving up the West Bank and disrupting the territorial continuity necessary for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state’.

(c)Efrat p.97 wrote:‘Apart from limiting the possibilities for urban and economic development through the seizure of land, the main impact on the Palestinians of the settlements in this strip is the disruption of the territorial contiguity of the Palestinian communities situated along the strip'.

That West Bank settlements, most of which are community settlements were designed to hinder a Palestinian state is known even to Blind Freddy and his dog. Ashtul won't accept that.

• (3)I had first made the edit: ‘by 1989, 115 had been added'. Ashtul erased this on the pretext that:'Source say clearly the figure includes kibbutzim and moshavim which are DIFFERENT.'

That was a false edit summary (Kibbutzim and moshavim were not mentioned in that source). But I made an accommodation to his point, and reintroduced the section with more specific data and sourcing by writing:

‘by 1987 they (comminity settlements) numbered 95,(Kellerman) and two years later most of the 115 settlements established were of this kind'(Farsakh).

• (4) I had written:-

The design of these principles arose out of a perceived necessity of impeding Palestinian Israelis from residing in such settlements

This was based on the source wording:

'The community settlement’ was conceived in this way to avoid the possibility that Palestinian citizens of Israel might make their homes in these settlements.' ( Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation. Verso Books, 2012 p.126)

Ashtul had rewritten this in the following unrecognizable terms:

and monitoring may have a particular shared ideology, religious perspective, or desired lifestyle which they wish to perpetuate by accepting only like-minded individuals.<ref name="Weizman" />

(a) This sentence is totally garbled English. 'Monitoring', cannot be a (human) subject with qualities like a shared ideology: it is a process exercised over people, etc.(b) it radically alters the source language that clearly states the community settlements exclude candidates for residency on ethnic grounds by denying Palestinian citizens of Israel their legal right to live in them, by a euphemism that makes the object of exclusion (Palestinians) into a subject for inclusion 'like-minded individuals'. Whereas the source, and my edit, state Palestinians are excluded, Ashtul twists this into a principle of inclusion, making an ethnic discrimination (against Palestinians) into an ethnic affirmation (of Jewishness). That's typical of his editing all over these articles. He makes Palestinian realities disappear in the face of sources that describe them. His edit summaries are deceptive, his reference to relevant policies incomprehensible, and his respect for the wording of highly reliable sources indifferent.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ashtul. I'm not going to be dragged into an argument by you. If any admin thinks my editing is problematical, they are welcome to ask me to explain. I can't see you managing to grasp the policy and practice issues raised in explanation I have provided at numerous talk pages, including admin talk pages. So it is pointless for me to continue, other than to note you were asked by an admin not to follow me around as a condition for returning to edit, accepted not to do so, and now have immediately followed up a comment I made on an extremely obscure page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Binyamin Meisner) by giving your opinion. Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cptnono. I appreciate your suggestions. I think any editor who's been around the I/P area will have a list of many editors who have found them 'frustrating', not to speak of the hundreds of IP or brief stagers who enter dramatically, cause fuss, and are quickly sent off. I've never had any problems, as you can see in my record, dealing with editors who have a thorough knowledge of the rules, respect WP:RS, look to WP:NPOV and who would thoroughly disagree with me in private. I have exercised restraint from December, I think, by asking an admin (EJ) or two (HJMitchell) to have a word with Ashtul over Skunk (weapon) and other articles, and I've called on your good offices to help out twice (here and here]) at Carmel, Har Hebron. Despite my frustrations, I preferred administrative persuasion rather than recourse to sanctions for infractions (that were multiple), Ashtul is one of only two people I've reported in 9 years, and he's no where as hostile as many I've ignored. His problem is, (a) an insouciance to mastering even the elementary principles of policy and (b) a capacity to cause a major needless inflation of work for fellow-editors because of that. That is what disturbs me. I made no opposition when he asked to come back soon after a suspension; I made no report when I saw further formal infractions. I made one slip, and apologized, in editing with him.

Indeed, yesterday, when I saw Ed's suggestion, I opened this page to request a halving of the suggested sanction. When I did so, I saw his screed. On my page he was being amicable, on this page he wrote out an incomprehensible denunciation of my behavior, and saw a conspiracy afoot among other editors.

I'm still amenable to a reduction of the suggested period. I don't think an interaction ban workable, since it would mean neither he nor I could edit many I/P pages, and it would imply I am half the problem. The problem is simple: this time, he needs a serious rest from the topic, so that, editing other pages, he can learn how to edit, how not to misrepresent sources or policy. 3 months is lenient in this area, but fair. I've sat out that (imposed or self-imposed) on a few occasions, and if Ashtul is committed to working here, it's a strong enough warning to ensure that this area requires scruple in rule observance, care with precisely sourced information, and balance in perspective. Above all he has to learn that we are dealing with two realities, not one.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ashtul. Your additions to me are as incomprehensible as most of your edits or rewrites. I could have made a very long statement taking each of your edits to pieces. I've explained one such example. To avoid WP:TLDR, I'll give another, typical of your 'cleansing' of the text.

10:00, 22 February 2015 Edit summary Ofra is mentioned above. Likud apply to WBS not CS.)

What this removed;

The first community settlement, Ofra, being established only in 1975, and four of the first five were unauthorized.(ref=Kellerman) The reevaluation and recognition of such settlements as cooperative associations was based on the ascendancy to government of the Likud party, which seconded the rapid growth of closed exurbs in which religious nationalists played a dominant role.(ref=Gorenberg)(ref=Kellerman)

The edit summary is absurd, since as my statistics showed, most settlements were CS, and Ofra is alluded to earlier, not discussed. You eventually 'rewrite this' as

From 1977, the Likud led government supported expansion in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and in a few years, community settlements were the most common localities in those regions

I.e. you (a) removed the documentary basis for the text's assertions or facts (b) cancelled reference the date of Ofra's foundation, where you have a WP:COI since your sisters live there (c) erased the fact that 4 of the first 5 such settlements were unauthorized, (d) removed the reference to such closed exurbs as dominated by religious nationalists and (e) in a totally ineptly phrased reworking wrote: 'community settlements were the most common localities in those regions,' confused a settlement with a locality, and worst of all, explicitly state that Israel's community settlements (115) were more common on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip than the several hundred Palestinian villages, which, in this formulation, are, again 'disappeared'.

All of your attempts to rewrite articles show this insensitivity and incompetence, and that is why I wait till your collective edits are done, and revert the damage. To take each edit seriously would mean a huge workload. You keep pestering me to explain an edit, and yet when I show edit after edit, what is wrong, you don't reply but push on.Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ashtul. This has nothing to do with a content dispute, or personal animus to get rid of someone, despite your efforts to make it into one. It is to do with the manipulation, inadveretent perhaps, but consistent, of content and sources to achieve a POV, which is what you did in both the examples I provided.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Igorp (a) if you can't see Weizman stating the Galilee on p.126 then I suggested you reconsult the page or an optometrist. Other than this I can't help you, unless by indicating it is the 56th word in para.1 (b) This is a lead (WP:LEDE) with summary style, and (c) you apparently haven't read the thread above, where the sources amply documenting (as the body of the text illustrates) the reasons behind community settlements, and settlements generally, are provided.

Generally, I am impressed by the amount of niggling examination of details flourished in arbitration as opposed to the disattentive negligance shown in the use of sources during the process of article drafting and talk page discussion. If people learnt to use the scrutiny they display here in the work they contribute, there would be no need for arbitration. I've said enough. This is not about me.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh Keerist, Igorp! If you had actually followed my editing, and looked at my last edit to the article in question, you would have known that I had based my actual edits from Weizman, also regarding the Galilee on, Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation, Verso Books, 2012 pp.125-130, i.e. meaning also p.126. If you look above, you will se3e I cite Weizman twice, the second time on p.126 with a bloody link. Stop this ridiculous barrel-scraping pettifogging.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Igorp. Don't keep asking questions that I have already replied to. Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Igorp. Please reread my comments. I never put anything into this encyclopedia without carefully consulting the source, often the sources, at my elbow. I repeat: the answer to your crazy speculations is already provided above. If you can't see it, drop an email to blind Freddy's dog. It stands out like dog's balls.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nishidani, rather than pass to your boorish "style of communication", I only repeat here my specific question about Galilee what you have not answered below:

• "I do not see there any expression similar to your and "thwarting the development of a Palestinian state" addition (at least, on p. 126, it seems to me that at 125-130 - too). Please point to a specific place if I'm wrong.
• Otherwise, Ashtul was right making his 10:47, 23 February 2015: edit after his 1st such one (09:44, 22 February 2015 ) . --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)"

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ashtul. I've been abroad for some days. On returning the first and only edits of yours I looked because they were on a bookmarked page (Israeli settler violence) are all disputable, beginning with justificatory editorializing. This is an egregious example of POV pushing for example

• like this, where you are grossly violating NPOV by having the text assert as a fact that Israeli settlers deserve(d)(sic) to be part of the Israeli mainstream (apart from the poor English) is this

where you consolidate the received text,

According to B'Tselem 49 Palestinians were killed by Israeli civilians between 2000 and 2010 is settler-related. (Statistics source =B'Tselem)

To obtain the run on line

The majority of them (sic) is (sic) settler-related as a significant portion of the dead were killed while attempting to infiltrate settlements or attacking Israelis. (Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians in the Occupied Territories, 29.9.2000 - 31.7.2010 source=B'Tselem}

Apart from the ineptness endorsement of the use of significant portion as a gloss on 'majority,' and the incoherent grammar, the first link is not specific, and the second for me does not load the names. Did you check the sources for this statement? The statistics 2000-2008, in any case, give 45, not 49 (4 more deaths presumably in two years), and do not bear out the gloss that has been added, in so far as it is grammatically comprehensible.

Can you show us where in those links that change of text, attributed to B’tselem is warranted? Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'I guess you (think) think most settlers are rapists'. Again, if you have this approach to fellow editors, you are frankly in the wrong area of the internet. Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'I guess you think most settlers are rapists'. Again, if you have this approach to fellow editors, you are frankly in the wrong area of the internet. Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your reply illustrates the problem. I asked you two questions: you reply 'LOL' and then ignore policy by (a) defending the presentation of a POV as an objective fact, and (b) ignoring the second request.

The second request highlights the strong probability that you rewrite texts, many of which are defective, without clicking on the putative sources to ascertain whether what you rewrite is source- based or not. The first link fails verification, since it is a generic page with no mention of the data, as does the second, which offers a prospect of a list, but for me, that list does not appear. As far as I can ascertain (I went through the statistics from 2000-2008) 23 of the 45 settlers killings were of unarmed Palestinians. Whoever wrote that text did a piece of WP:OR and attributed it to B'tselem, which then your rewrite endorsed. If that represents the same proportions in the unaccessed data for 2000-2010, then you readjustment is deceptive in pleading a cause, rather than simply presenting the reader with facts. Thirdly, it is apparent from another declaration here that you do not understand NPOV. Worse, editors who encounter just one edit like that, are, if they are careful in their work here, forced to waste 45 minutes searching for the appropriate data not yet available from the page, analyzing it, and then figuring out whether the assumption made is correct or not. 45 minutes of close labour told me it wasn't. In that time you can make a dozen edits. I for one, can't keep up.

I tried to show how you were presenting on wikipedia a single statement by an interested party, the head of the settler council, saying Palestinians and Israelis work in peaceful coexistence, as if it were a statement of the reality, rather than, an opinion. Extensive negotiations followed, which failed to drive home this elementary Wikipedia policy. That is an opinion, the (legitimate) POV of settlers. Why couldn’t you see this when it contradicts what Israeli labour unions report, which I have duly cited?

As far as I can detect, the reason is in what you now state in remarking Nobody claimed the Palestinians enjoy being under Israeli ruling but that doesn't change the fact they work together with Israelis and have great working relationships. I actually worked there a few years back and know if (sic) for a fact.

The massive sprawl of walls of texts with 3 months of grievance and countercharges, quickly hatted, has made this discussion impossible to read. Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

________________________________________ Refactor per Stifle's request. I don't know why this is such a hard call.

• Ashtul has been treatedd leniently over the months, compared to the usual rigour in here. He finally got a topic ban on 27 January. It reads:-

• This restriction is of an indefinite duration, but you may request reconsideration of this topic ban after no less than three months of unproblematic editing elsewhere 22:47, 27 January 2015

• A mere two days later he asked for it to be repealed
• 4 days later he broke the topic ban here, and (and arguably in several other edits) and was quietly counseled re his errors by one of the editors he says forms a pack hunting and hounding him
• he still could not see the obvious
• He did a mere 30 edits, and then 3 weeks later, not 3 months, he asked HJMitchel to lift that ban.
• HJM gave him another chance, on conditions: If you agree to keep a respectful distance from Nishidani, and preferably stick to articles rather than enforcement requests etc, yes I'll lift the topic ban. I'd also suggest you're very careful about sticking to the 1RR.
• His energetic editing has been challenged by several experienced long term contributors, but the focus of his defense is that I, alone, am the problem.
• I'll ignore his obsession with me. He is not very careful about (among numerous other problems) IR

• He cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion (two legitimate but partisan points of view are stated as facts) This was pointed out by User:Nomoskedasticity, (also here) .

• Ashtul reverted Nomoskedasticity at 18:25, 17 February 2015‎.
• He was in turn reverted by User:Huldra
• Ashtul then reverted her at 18:32, 18 February 2015‎
• He waited exactly 24 hours and 7 minutes in order to game the 1R rule. Perhaps he had followed Mitchell's advice to the letter, but not to the spirit. Waiting 7 minutes past the expiry line, when two editors of long experience have questioned your original judgement, and failing to engage them meanwhile in depth on the talk page, suggests he was gaming even that rule. He repeated the practice in the example which forms the basis of this complaint.
• Even with that last revert, as User:Zero0000 pointed out, he had distorted the source in favour of his POV. One could go on for several hours documenting this, but I've hit the refactor limit, I think. In retrospect, his highly confused and confusing divagations above, ever dragging in more complaints, perhaps his return to editing within just 3 weeks of an indefinite topic ban was premature. The 30 odd edits elsewhere show no commitment to the project in general. Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If any of the mud splashed my way in these repeated assertions of poor editing, bad faith and hounding on my part is sticking and raises administrative suspicions there may be more to this than meets the careful eye, I welcome any request to clarify, here or by email. I will not reply to Ashtul's assertions because I find they skew the evidence to the point of being unrecognizable, and replies only provoke more of the same. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (Cptnono)[edit]

Wouldn't an interaction ban be sufficient instead of a lengthy topic ban? It looks to me like Astul is trying but having a hard time working with Nish. Since no one has offered to mentor the user, maybe give the two an extended break from each other. No reverts. Maybe no talking even.

I also still believe that Nish should have been more open to Ashtul's suggestions about settlements but it is hard to collaborate when everyone is off on the wrong foot. Ashtul could bring something good to the project and separating the two like school children (or how about prize fighters) might be all that is needed. Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston: Astul doesn't appear to be a troll inserting the worst of POV. He actually appears to know what he is editing to the point that he brought up points that were surprising to those well versed in the topic area. The problem is that he has gotten worked up about another editor. I am sure I can name a dozen editors who have been frustrated (legitimately or not) at Nish before. Separate those two by not allowing them to revert each other and the problem could be solved.

Would you consider a topic ban? The severity of restrictions has increased dramatically in the last few years and he would not have faced such a lengthy ban for cussing out another editor in the past. I understand that it might be a good thing since enough is enough but a more novel approach could work better. Something like a 6 month ban strikes me as something for the worst of offenders. He hasn't even had that opportunity to screw up that bad yet while he is still making steps (as small as they might be). Is banning him good for the project or is it an easy fix to cutting out drama?Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cptnono, Can you please explain me where was I wrong. I start to feel like I have lost my mind and if I do not understand, indeed I should not be allowed to edit at all and be blocked indefinitely.

How can there be 1RR violation with not content dispute and WP:WAR? Nishidani doesn't argue the content belongs there. Ashtul (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't revert twice in a day. It doesn't matter that Nish didn't see talk (it looks like an edit summary was used at least). I'm not saying that was the best way to go about it but the rule was put in place to reduce the once prevalent edit wars. This may not have been an edit war but things would have been calmer if the talk page was used instead of reverting. Just don't revert twice in a day in this topic area even if it feels like no harm is being done.Cptnono (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is at best a 'partial revert'. Nishidani and I have conversed in length here (I believe ~20k out of ~30k in the thread). Then I waited for 24 hours which were miscalculated b/c of local time (I have fixed that). If there was a 1RR on anything which constituted a content dispute I would say - 'sorry, I f***ed up. Ban me indefinitely' but that isn't the case. This is not Carmel case where I made a mistake. It was a content dispute and I broke 1RR. Ashtul (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't matter what it was a best. You fucked up. Man up to it and give the community an assurance that you will respect the process of using the talk page in the future. I totally agree with you that your revert was within reason. However, the process is in place to assure that things are done at a slower and more collaborative pace. Can you show us that you give a shit (I know you do) and lay out how you could have done it better? Or not. Take the 6 months and come back a better editor.Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Huldra[edit]

You need to have a steep learning-curve if you are to survive editing in the Israel/Palestine area, and Ashtul is behind the curve, so to speak. Besides the 1RR violation, he inserts material from clear activist sources, without stating that it is from an activist source. Over on Barkan Industrial Park he insert material from Palestinian Media Watch. Ashtul claims here that the consensus from WP:RSN is that "There are several conversations regarding PMW with the majority concluding it is WP:RS thus I state 'consensus seems to be'." A quick search of the archives gives me this: "PMW is an Israeli organization dedicated to "exposing" the evil of the Palestinians by careful selection of material from Palestinian media. In other words, it is a political organization not a news organisation," and this. That he wants to pass off material from clear activist sources without attribution, shows to me that he still lacks a basic understanding of editing in the area. Huldra (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Igorp lj[edit]

Nishidani, can you please explain what RS approve this text from the head, quoted by you?

also in the Galilee as part of the aim of establishing a 'demographic balance' between Jews and Arabs, and thwarting the development of a Palestinian state.

I do not find something about Galilee in RS what you placed below your quote. --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, I'd suggest not to jump to conclusions, as it has been not so long ago (:) As far as I can see nobody here insists that the disputed paragraph should be in the article. Then the 1-3RR violations' question itself is questionable too. Therefore, I'd ask someone neutral to check out other arguments against Ashtul.

Now, to the question of "persecution". Not sure that these accusations are true. Any article may be in WatchList of any party, but ... it's no secret that cooperation with Nishidani isn't easy, especially when it concerns the fact that contrary to his personal POV, which for some reason he is considered neutral. I've already mentioned his didactic tone towards beginners and other things that might just discourage anyone to desire & to do something in Wiki.

I think that a problem - isn't Ashtul, who still has the patience and desire to break through the current, not healthy situation. IMHO, it may be a perfect remedy to stop administration in those cases when parties expressed different points of view, but (!) to require from them not to add to an article any text, which wasn't previously agreed on an corresponding Talk page. I'd propose to check this decision for ~ some months' period and after it to see if / how it works.. --Igorp_lj (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nishidani: "I suggested you reconsult the page or an optometrist", "If people learnt to use"... (17:12, 26 February 2015)

That's the pity, but this is exactly what I've wrote above about Nishidani's style of "cooperation".

Somebody wants to use the formal reasons here. Ok, I simply remind: what you mentioned above is (a)Weizman pp.81-82,pp.120-124 (Nishidani, 16:49, 25 February 2015), not p.126

"Galilee" was mentioned only once - in article's head. One may check the version before Ashtul's edit (09:44, 22 February 2015) : "Galilee" not appears in its body.

"I've said enough. This is not about me" (@Nishidani) :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nishidani (20:47, 26 February 2015, mentioning his 13:08, 22 February 2015: "Failure to read the sources or if read, misinterpreting them. Describing as WP:OR statements in the sources, etc. General incompetence" (sic! See above about his "style) --Igorp_lj (talk)) edit)

A pity that I spent my time watching pro-Palestinian product of Weizman, but ... I do not see there any expression similar to your and "thwarting the development of a Palestinian state" addition (at least, on p. 126, it seems to me that at 125-130 - too). Please point to a specific place if I'm wrong.

Otherwise, Ashtul was right making his 10:47, 23 February 2015: edit after his 1st such one (09:44, 22 February 2015 ) . --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* Nishidani (11:11, 27 February 2015) "Don't keep asking questions that I have already replied to."

It only means that Ashtul's was right about your wp:OR. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Ashtul[edit]

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

• If this was a first offence it might be closed with no action. But Ashtul has been previously blocked as long as two weeks for violations related to ARBPIA. I propose a six-month topic ban from everything covered by WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Tend to agree with Ed here. A six month topic ban seems appropriate here--Cailil ^talk 20:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've now gone through the edit history of Community settlement (Israel). There is a definite 1RR violation there. There's no obvious 1RR at Carmei Tzur. Ashtul has an evident POV on these matters, which he is entitled to have if he is willing to edit very carefully. I'm not seeing an adequate level of care, or enough patience in his reading of the sources. So I agree with Cailil that a six-month ban of Ashtul from the scope of ARBPIA will help assure the goal of having these articles be neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• +1 on the 6 month TBAN, the POV and refusal to follow the rules leave us with little choice really. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm going to sit this one out. I have mixed feelings, and I think the issue is best handled by admins who have come to it cold. I'm not sure about the 1RR violation (what edit was Ashtul's first edit reverting?), but there do seem to be other issues here as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Would the parties please refactor their statements to be within the 500-word limit? Stifle (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• A six month topic ban is amply justified on the basis of this evidence and past behaviour, in my view. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 4 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 Steverci[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Steverci (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

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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive164#Steverci – Please see this archived report for the evidence, further info in my comments below.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. [5]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I resubmit my report on Steverci, as the previous one was closed as no action due to the indefinite ban of Steverci as a sockmaster (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steverci/Archive). Since he has already been unblocked, I believe the reason for the dismissal of the previous AE report is no longer valid. In my opinion, in the view of all the disruption caused by this user in arbitration covered areas, BLP articles, and sockpuppetry (see the archived report), this user should not be allowed to edit the Armenia-related articles (covered by arbitration) as if nothing ever happened. Plus, I don't see why anyone would need 5 sock accounts (plus one that was prevented from creation by the system) to edit arbitration covered Armenia related articles, and I personally do not find particularly convincing Steverci's explanation as to why at least two of the sock accounts edited the same articles as the sockmaster account (he claims that that he forgot to log out from socks and log in into main account, see discussion at his talk). In my opinion, Steverci's unblock request should have been discussed at WP:AE, in view of the report that was submitted here just before the ban. I also think that if Steverci is to be granted permission to edit Wikipedia, at the very least he should be banned from AA and related topics. Grandmaster 20:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see the point in Étienne Dolet bringing up here alleged misconduct by another editor. If he believes that the other user's conduct deserves the admins' attention, or the report on that other user was closed prematurely, he is free to resubmit it. But whatever other people do cannot be a justification for Steverci's actions, especially considering that he edit warred not just with Parishan, but with many other editors across multiple pages. In addition, Steverci's misconduct is not limited to edit warring only. Steverci has made serious BLP violations, reintroducing the same POV info multiple times despite the warnings from the admin, and as it can be seen from the info presented by Kansas Bear, that was not the only instance of BLP violations by Steverci. On top of everything Steverci was caught using multiple sock accounts, all of which edited the arbitration covered Armenia related articles. I don't see any other editor mentioned here doing anything even remotely close to that. Grandmaster 13:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Étienne Dolet, I fail to understand how Steverci's BLP violations or sock puppetry could be "entangled" or "interconnected" with Parishan's editing. Steverci's interactions with Parishan are only a small part of the issues with Steverci's editing. For instance, how Parishan's actions could justify edit warring and BLP violations by Steverci at Douglas Frantz, as described by FreeRangeFrog in the archived report? Grandmaster 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning Steverci[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 Steverci[edit]

All I really have to add in addition to my previous statement is to remind that the user who was warring my edits, violating 3RR, and had a long history of AA2 edit warring against multiple users in many articles had only gotten a warning. I see no reason why I should be banned from AA2 besides Grandmaster's obvious battleground mentality against Armenian users. And for those who don't want to backtrack through previous discussions, I had never created a sock, I merely misunderstood the rules for alternate accounts, hence why two admins agreed to remove my block soon after it was placed. --Steverci (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:HJ Mitchell Can you please explain the logic behind why you only gave Parishan a warning despite having a longer history of emotional invested edit warring with multiple users and violating the 3RR (which is supposed to guarantee punishment), or this user I reported only getting a warning despite making personal attacks, 3RR, and a clear emotional agenda on many pages evident by just his talk page, and yet you want to jump right into giving me an indefinite ban? I cannot see any less assumption that they will keep "kicking the can" than can be given to me. What happened to what EdJohnston said about Parishian's nationalist POV pushing? If you are putting to much thought into the sandbox, you should know that as I've said before, it was a rough draft where I put all my sources and text on one spot and planned to trim it down later. I've never actually put something like that on a real article. I'll be the first to admit I have an interest in a certain topic, but I've never added or removed anything without sources to support doing so, and quite frankly for how "invested" you claim I am I can't recall ever being hostile or attacking another user (the same can't be said for warned users). Is there even a guideline that talks about "emotionally invested" editing? If there was, almost all editors would be banned. --Steverci (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Kansas Bear What!? Your links are a perfect example of nitpicking and distortion. There wasn't a reference for that line on Armenian language and I was trying to make it less POV. Over 99% of things listed on List of military disasters are unsourced. There was no source for Tiridates I and ethnicity is usually unimportant; I was discussing it with another editor on talk pages and came to a consensus anyway. I didn't "not like" Hovannisian, I presented a lengthy summary of criticism of his work and false information inside it. Don't put words in my mouth. --Steverci (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:HJ Mitchell Well that is quite curious. I'm not sure if you just read my links or not, but EtienneDolet provides literally dozens of instances where Parishan had been edit warring across many, many articles, all quite recently. If that is not compelling enough to garner any support for sanctions, when considering violating WP:3RR alone is supposed to be an instant block, I don't see how you could support sanctions for me. Also, I noticed your statement on Jaqeli's appeal about loosening things and going from there. Why not consider something similar here? In the first request about me someone mentioned setting a 1RR for Parishan and I. Perhaps we could go that route for me and see how things work? Indefinite sanctions are typically preceded by sanctions that go 24h>1w>1month>etc unless there are personal attacks for blatant vandalism (which I've never done) and seems overly aggressive, especially considering other users are only getting warnings. This could be helpful, it would essentially mean I get a severe sanction if I edit ware again, and if I don't then that would solve the problem. I would agree to not violate it. --Steverci (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kansas Bear[edit]

• Steverci removes wording in the lead of the Armenian language article which changes the meaning of the sentence to the opposite of what the sentence originally stated. The information was referenced in the article. No explanation in the edit summary.[7]
• Steverci twice adds the battle of Avarayr to List of military disasters, no source, either time.[8][9]
• Steverci removes that which he does not like.[10] No explanation in edit summary.
• Steverci tries to have Richard Hovannisian disqualified as a reliable source because Hovannisian's book states something Steverci does not like. He is later warned about possible BLP violations by Stephen Schultz[11]
• Steverci edit wars in an unexplained removal of references and referenced information. Which is finally resolved on the talk page.[12][13][14]
• Steverci is no sooner unblocked than he jumps into an on-going edit war at Lavash.[15][16] Then nearly 2 hours later joins the discussion on the Lavash talk page.[17]

Just from these incidents alone, I am not convinced that Steverci is capable of editing neutrally in the areas of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by EtienneDolet[edit]

@HJ Mitchell: To say Parishan's edit-warring was only an issue in 2007 is not what archived AE reports suggest. The closure of his AE report, which I found premature, has everything to do with the conduct of Steverci here. This is not to say that I am defending Steverci's conduct as an editor, but I feel compelled to say that Parishan's reversions of multiple users across multiple AA2 articles a concern in and of itself. Reverting users en masse is not a proper way to solve any problem, even if those users appear to behave poorly. I don't find it acceptable to place blame upon newly registered users as an excusable justification for misconduct either. For the record, this is not the first time Parishan has been implicated in such matters. In a recent recent AE report filed against him, he was formally warned about concerns almost identical to the ones I have brought forth here. The warning, which was conveyed both in the closing remarks of the report, and subsequently notified on his talk page by admin Seraphimblade, is as stated:

A request at arbitration enforcement with which you were involved has been closed. The result is "No action taken. Parishan is reminded that edit warring with anonymous editors is still subject to revert limitations, and to report editors editing in the AA area (including anonymous ones) who are behaving poorly here rather than edit warring with them."

Even after the formal warning, Parishan proceeds with the same course of action. He hasn’t stopped the edit-warring, nor have I seen him improve his conduct with these type of users since then. It seems that he found it more convenient to edit-war over a vast array of AA2 articles; but this time, he has broadened his scope to include more users (i.e. Steverci, Hayordi, and others), despite being warned about these very same issues in the recent past. More specifically, Parishan along with Steverci have hit the 3RR mark at Shusha massacre, even when he was explicitly reminded about revert limitations and to report editors editing in the AA area who are behaving poorly rather than edit warring with them. How many more warnings should be given for such conduct? Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: My comment does not necessarily have to be directed against Parishan, but I would like to better understand the approach admin HJ Mitchell and others have towards the result of this case. What I see here is a classic case of boomerang, and just because this report was filed by a user who seems to have barely made any interactions with the user in question shouldn't effectively rid another of its consequences. The problems raised here and in the other AE report are not only interconnected, but entangled with one another. Therefore, I simply believe the issues presented here and at the other AE report isn't something that should go unnoticed or overlooked because it has everything to do with the issues at hand. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, for some reason, incidences, such as the edit-warring at Shusha massacre, have been excluded from this report. My comment was to briefly remind admins about such incidents in the hope that they do not go unnoticed. And again, are admins here considering the options to prevent such episodes from recurring in the future? If so, how is banning one editor here a simple solution to that problem? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Steverci[edit]

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

• From this request, Steverci's statement, and the previous request, I get the distinct impression that Steverci is too deeply invested to edit neutrally in this topic area (admins should read the sandbox linked to in the previous request, for example). I recommend an indefinite topic ban. I can't see anything else having any effect other than kicking the can down the road, and I think Steverci needs to focus his editing in a topic area about which he doesn't feel so strongly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Steverci: The reason that AE request was closed as it was was that Parishan's two blocks for 3RR dated from 2007 (ie eight years ago; for context, that's two years before I registered my account) and there was no consensus among admins for any action. The diffs provided gave some cause for concern, but were not compelling enough to garner any support for sanctions. I haven't made any final decision here, anyway. I'd like to gauge the opinions of other admins before anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not sure how uninvolved I am, since I closed the previous AE request as moot, and I also have Shusha on my watchlist, time to time reverting vandalism and POV edits, but the diffs, and, in particular, presented by Kansas Bear, look very much concerning to me. I would support topic ban on everything related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey, brooadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Copied from User talk:Cwobeel per Cwobeel's request via email.] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Cwobeel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – - Cwobeel (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

WP:NEWBLPBAN - 15-day block [18]

Administrator imposing the sanction

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[19]

Statement by Cwobeel[edit]

Background

After disagreement about adding material to the Steven Emerson article, I started a BLP/N thread asking uninvolved editors to weigh in, regarding ChrisGualtieri's opinion that the material was a violation of BLP, and his claims that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE would apply. The thread was started on March 4 [20] .

Several editors weighted in, including Nomoskedasticity, Binksternet, Atsme, and Serialjoepsycho, and after a discussion that lasted until March 6, we arrived to consensus that the material was properly sourced to impeccable publications and not violating BLP.

In Binksternet's words: The text shown above is a fine example of a BLP-compliant, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV-compliant summary of what prominent views are held about Emerson. Many more sources agree with the evaluation, so the above text is arguably too weak, suggesting that only these two sources think Emerson is an Islamophobe. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC). The only editor opposing was ChrisGualtieri (the filer of the AE report that resulted in the sanction). I responded to Binksternet's request for additional sources, as well as added Emerson's rebuttal to the proposed edit, for balance and NPOV.

After a discussion related to the possible need for an admin to close the BLP/N discussion at WP:ANFRC, I stated that ANRFC is for cases in which there is no clear consensus. As there was obvious consensus for inclusion, I went ahead and made the edit at 05:10, on March7: [21]

The edit was reverted by Gualtieri [22]], followed by an AE report [23]

As a result of the AE report, HJ Mitchell blocked me for 15 days, without affording me a chance to defend myself at AE against what I believe was a spurious complaint. I made several requests on my talk page for a review of the block, but there was no response.

Therefore, I appeal the block per my defense as follows:

• I followed WP:DR, starting a discussion at BLP/N after the material was challenged and removed by ChrisGualtieri.
• Consensus was achieved after discussion, with a clear demarcation that impeccable sources can be used to support content about living people.
• WP:BLP was designed to get articles right, but not designed to suppress material about living people, providing that high quality sources are provided to support viewpoints, and provided that there is consensus to override WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.
• After my block, Binksternet restored the material, with an unequivocal edit summary of Revert... this is not BLP-violating material. [24] - Gualtieri does not file an AE report, and no sanctions are imposed on Binksternet, for exactly the same edit I made.
• In discussions in the aftermath of the block, all editors commenting at AE, at BLP/N, and in my talk page raised concerns about the block and/or made statements in support of the inclusion of the material, (with the exception of Gualtieri, and Atsme), including
  • Uninvolved Two kinds of pork: [25]
  • Uninvolved Nomoskedasticity: [26]]
  • Uninvolved Serialjoepsycho: [27]
  • Uninvolved MrX: [28]
  • Uninvolved Alanscottwalker [29], [30]
  • Binksternet: [31]

There was not a single editor supporting the block, with the exception of Gualtieri which I believe used AE as a way to get the upper hand in a content dispute after his arguments were found to be invalid, and his claims of BLP violation to be baseless and unfounded.

I understand that a better course of action would have been for a third party to close the BLP/N discussion, but consensus was obvious, and the material in question and its sources remain in the article (with some edits performed later on by Binksternet). Gualtieri could have avoided this entire drama, by simply accepting the established consensus and moving on (as he did after Binksternet's edits), instead of filing an AE to get me blocked.

I acknowledge that I have been blocked previously, but I believe I have learned my lessons, and I have followed process looking to establish consensus for material that is challenged to ensure full compliance with BLP. I also believe that ArbCom discretionary sanctions on BLPs were not designed to be used to suppress carefully sourced content about living persons, as well argued by Nomoskedasticity in his comment at AE, when there is an obvious consensus for inclusion.

I kindly request the block to be reviewed, as I believe the AE report by the OP was not made in good faith and the block was made in haste, given there was consensus for inclusion, and that the sources were of the highest quality as required by WP:BLP. I also ask for the block to be temporarily lifted so that I can respond at AE; I will strictly confine myself to edits there until the appeal is closed. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by HJ Mitchell[edit]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho[edit]

I wanted to offer that it seems even atsme supported inclusion of the material upon finding the related was being discussed for the body of the article not just the lead[32]. Cwobeel thought he had a consensus while placing the content in the article. This certainly seems reasonable and in good faith. He actively discussed the content and then made a change off what he thought in good faith was a consensus. Others who were involved prior to the page being locked down for a month have since made changes to to disputed content, and in some cases without discussing the content or without a good faith belief that they had gotten a consensus. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MrX below points out below that it wasn't ideal for Cwobeel to determine the consensus. That was the point I was trying to get across, in the conversation Chris highlights, to Cwobeel and specifically for this reason, that is so that DS aren't wielded as weapons. It very much seems that Cwobeel had a consensus to make these changes, meeting the requirements of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. He made these changes with a goodfaith belief that he had a consensus. His changes still stand in the article now, slightly changed, but restored with out discussion on the same basis by Binksternet.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by ChrisGualtieri[edit]

Let's be clear - Cwobeel was not blocked for a "BLP violation" by introducing gross attacks on a biography, it was a violation of WP:BLP. This is shown by repeatedly reinserting the problematic material after its removal by two different editors, reinserting it after a month of protection, taking it to BLPN, reinserting it again and ignoring four different warnings and BLP policy about keeping the material out of the article until the problem was resolved at BLPN.

Cwobeel was the editor who created the third BLPN discussion about this very issue and acknowledged WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE yet had already resorted to reinserting the material twice more. I personally approached Cwobeel and advised him of the policy.[33] Cwobeel was also informed of a proper close procedure by Serialjoepsycho. In particular I note Serialjoepsycho's comment I don't think it would be appropriate to do anything but follow the procedure at WP:CLOSE. Because you have already been unable to close yourself. I recommend a admin closure just to avoid any unneeded drama in relation to a non-admin closure. ... Despite all of this, Cwobeel choose again to reinsert it despite my final warning about him not reinserting it. Given Cwobeel was just sanctioned for BLP issues and repeatedly and improperly restoring BLP material (not defamatory either) I resolved to take it to AE to stop the disruption. The peaceful and unanimous decision resulting in achieving an actual NPOV which all parties at BLPN agreed to show that despite differences - a compromise and clear consensus worked.

Again, Cwobeel was blocked for violating BLP - not a BLP violation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @HJ Mitchell: The reason the pings did not work was because they were not in the edit with a signature. Given that the page is locked for another extended period, the block will expire without further disruption possible by Cwobeel on said page. There is still no consensus as to the content and wording - but my main issue is that Cwobeel's poor understanding of BLP yet his insistence to the contrary while making BLPN noticeboard a defined area of interest. Most of my concern follows with Cwobeel citing literature from Emerson's personal enemies in response to the federal judge's ruling that they are connected to Hamas... Emerson used the FBI and the ruling in reference and he took them to court over a "joke" about Emerson and pornography. I don't see how using commentary from members of the organization is neutral, but I suppose that bridge needs to be crossed at BLPN next. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Binksternet[edit]

The block on Cwobeel was made in error, as HJ Mitchell should have assessed the re-inserted text for possible BLP violations, which he acknowledges he did not.[34] Instead, he blocked Cwobeel for re-inserting the disputed text while discussion was still underway at BLPN. However, the disputed material had never been shown to be a BLP violation by ChrisGualtieri or Atsme; they presented a barrage of complaints about the material, but it was cited to high quality sources written by scholars, so they were off base in their complaints. After I came to the BLPN discussion to say that the sources were top notch, Cwobeel reworked the suggested text and got approval from everybody who commented, except ChrisGualtieri and Atsme. Thus it appeared that the material could no longer be considered a BLP violation, and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE was satisfied.

HJ Mitchell said that the block was made as an arbitration enforcement, as he had seen this AE request from ChrisGualtieri. HJ Mitchell had responded to ChrisGualtieri by noting that Cwobeel was prone to making BLP violations and had been blocked for them so many times that an escalation of sanctions was in order.[35] At no time did HJ Mitchell demonstrate his understanding that an actual violation of BLP had taken place, by commenting on the disputed text and references. Instead, he took the word of ChrisGualtieri at face value.

It's ChrisGualtieri that is in error here, not Cwobeel. ChrisGualtieri filed a tendentious AE request to get the upper hand in a content dispute, after seeing that the BLPN discussion was not going his way. He lucked into HJ Mitchell who did not bother to examine the disputed text and references, a requirement of BLP enforcement requests.

Should Cwobeel be very careful in BLP matters? Of course; Cwobeel had been very careful to propose new wording at BLPN, and to wait until multiple positive comments about it. Should Cwobeel be banned for an extended pattern of BLP violations? No, improvement has been seen, with Cwobeel working hard to follow procedure. This case is not sufficient to use against Cwobeel for further sanctions; instead it should boomerang onto ChrisGualtieri and Atsme for making false assertions of a BLP violation, and onto ChrisGualtieri for filing a tendentious AE request. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Cwobeel[edit]

Statement by MrX[edit]

I am uninvolved with editing the Steven Emerson article, but have commented about BLP concerns at WP:BLP/N. I have encountered both Cwobeel and ChrisGualtieri at various articles and talk pages, and respect both editors for their contributions. I don't favor one over the other. As I commented in the previous AE case, I think blocking Cwobeel was unwarranted and could have been handled a little better. First, Cwobeel made a good faith edit restoring content that he believed had reached a rough consensus for inclusion. As has been adequately demonstrated at WP:BLP/N, there was no BLP violation; there was merely a claim of such.

Arbcom of 2008 identified issues with the implementation of the BLP policy. Almost seven years later there are a few editors who, in my opinion, use overly legalistic interpretation of the policy and filibustering to block content that they view as unfavorable to certain subjects, but not others. WP:BLP/N of the past several months contains numerous examples of this. Notably, WP:ACDS specifically instructs editors not to game the system, yet editors are rarely sanctioned for doing so.

While it seems that HJ Mitchell acted within the bounds of discretion, the block was a little hasty and did not afford Cwobeel an opportunity to defend himself. I'm disappointed that I have to raise this again, having heard no explanation from HJ Mitchell when I mentioned it two days ago. WP:ACDS# states "Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE." My observations suggest this is standard practice at AE, yet HJ Mitchell acted independently.

Cwobeel was not the best candidate to evaluate consensus and restore his own favored content, but that's more of a technicality than a sanctionable offense. Cwobeel should be unblocked as promptly as he was blocked, and those involved should consider other options in the future. - MrX 02:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Collect[edit]

I find the ArbCom stated position on BLPs to be binding here. As Wikipedia has a strong ability to actually do harm to living persons, it is essential that it specifically avoid doing so. This is not being "legalistic" , it is following non-negotiable policies, and goes back to Hillel the Elder and before.

I rather think the sanction was reasonable, and with the acts still current, DS rules about BLPs required action. It is, moreover, true that adding material which has been suggested in any way to be violative of WP:BLP to be unwise, and I suggest there is strong reason to continue to hold that position. Collect (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ubikwit[edit]

While there is no doubt that the block was made in accord with policy, the corresponding countermeasures would seem to require some fine tuning, as recourse to BLP claims are rampant and often incorrect.
As pointed out during the block discussion, by Serialjoepsycho I believe, the case was not so straightforward, and that begs the question as to preventative measures and assessment of the actual status of disputes where BLP violations are being claimed.
Aside from supporting the appellant, I think that measures such as simply rolling back edits and removing the contentious material, combined with page protection followed by an assessment of the status of the dispute at BLP/N, i.e., the consensus regarding BLP violations, would prevent unnecessary conundrums regarding BLP claims, which are often found to have been made in error. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Xenophrenic[edit]

Now that Callanecc has fully protected the Emerson article for two months because of almost constant edit warring on the page for around a month (only 9 days, actually, since it was last fully protected, during which there appears to have been more article improvement than edit warring), I suggest that the block on Cwobeel is now redundant and not useful. That is IF, as HJ Mitchell says, the block was necessary to prevent the immediate disruption of the disputed material being reinstated. If, however, the present block on Cwobeel is meant to be punative, I would like to add my agreement with the many editors above who say that Cwobeel exercised an acceptable (albeit not perfect) level of care in interpreting community consensus at the BLP/N discussion he initiated, and that his edits were made in good faith and did not constitute a sanctionable offense. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Two kinds of pork[edit]

@HJ Mitchell:, no one is saying you "sinned" here, and I apologize for calling your block unwarranted. I know admins get a lot of flack, and know that you know it comes with the territory, but admins are people too. That being said I would rephrase that to say the block was perhaps hasty. My first involvement with Cwobeel was acrimonious to say the least, but we have buried the hatchet and I consider our relationship to be friendly, even though we have at times stark difference of opinions. I have zero involvement with the Emerson article, and after spending the better part of two days of reviewing the talk-pages, BLPN, user pages, etc. I mostly endorse MrX and Binksternet's comments above. Being involved, Cwobeel should not have been the person to determine consensus, that is true. In my review I think his position that there was consensus appeared to be a reasonable conclusion. Would you consider this discussion a final warning should such a situation occur again and agree to unblock?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 14:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result of the appeal by Cwobeel[edit]

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

• @HJ Mitchell: After having read Cwobeel's comments what's your opinion on whether to lift the block?

Also noting that, after having had a look at the almost constant edit warring on the page for around a month I'm going to full protect it for a while to try and calm that down a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I would prefer to hear your take on the block before making any decision. JodyB _talk 11:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interestingly, neither of those pings worked, but I have this page watchlisted for my sins. As far as I'm concerned the block was necessary to prevent the immediate disruption of the disputed material being reinstated. If that issue has resolved itself, the block can be lifted, but I think Cwobeel's conduct on BLP issues in general bears examination. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm minded to lift the block given the full protection on the page. Broader issues related to Cwobeel's conduct can be handled separately. (We may want to unarchive the original AE request.) T. Canens (talk) 04:29, 13 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 Thargor Orlando[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Thargor Orlando (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 :

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

1. [36] Personal Attack

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I have no idea, and don’t know how to discover this.

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 10 March 2015. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification

[37]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thargor Orlando writes at ARCA:

Also, this continued spamming of his blog posts and the ThinkProgress blog post is becoming exhausting and self-promotional, and is arguably becoming an issue of a conflict of interests in and of themselves. Since we're here, it is worth a mention. We wouldn't tolerate it from anyone else.

NOTE that the matter as ARCA is purely administrative, a clarification of the language of the standard Gamergate topic ban. My deportment is not at issue there and cannot conceivably affect that discussion. Thargor Orlando is seeking to expand my current unjustified and improper sanction through any means at hand.

This idea of "conflict of interest" has been widely discussed at KiA in the past 24 hours as a means to effect my site ban; I forwarded two pertinent links to Gamaliel and HJ Mitchell last night. I have indeed been interviewed by a number of newspapers, magazines and broadcasters on the subject of Wikipedia and Gamergate. Expertise does not constitute a conflict of interest. Nor does providing a link to the subject whose discussion gave rise to the technical question before ARCA. If I did not link to my writings, Thargor Orlando would doubtless denounce my perfidious concealment of them.

Thargor Orlando and his customary tag team bitterly and successfully edit-warred the inclusion this information on the talk page [38] [39] [40], as he systematically opposes including articles critical of Gamergate and supports including articles that excuse GamerGate harassment. Just days ago he was calling for sanctions against NorthBySouthBaranof because NorthBySouthBaranof had removed clearly BLP-violating sources from the talk page, arguing that the interests of the wiki were served by discussing even self-published sources listed on an attack wiki. Here, he wishes to surpress inconvenient information on any grounds available.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Thargor Orlando[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 Thargor Orlando[edit]

This is simply a retaliatory measure for commenting on his clarification. It's further evidence that his contributions are a negative to the article space. I stand by my edits, as they're well within policy and well within the borders of the arbitration guidelines. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To answer Strongjam's questions: 1: Quoting MB: "an activist had contacted me that very day, seeking advice for a Wikipedia initiative among her membership and concerned -- not unreasonably -- over the sort of repercussions that were detailed in Think Progress and previously in a number of other newspapers and magazines." Complete with more unnecessary links to his blog and his ThinkProgress contributions, he's clearly looking to bring his unique and, I believe, disruptive perspective to a new article, especially now that he's gotten word out that he's been sanctioned. 2: Regarding his collaboration, he's been topic banned numerous times, blocked outright multiple times. His contributions to the talk page, when not trying to place an article he was quoted for into the record, involve actual casting of aspersions, battleground editing, playing up prior disputes, trite dismissals, and so on and so forth. MarkBernstein needed to be topic banned from this space months ago. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Strongjam[edit]

The statements are casting aspersions and should either be retracted or backed up with diffs. — Strongjam (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be clear these two assertions needs some sort of evidence:

• "Mark's own intentions in this clarification is to drag the drama he continually creates within the Gamergate space into the campus rape disputes."
• "he has continually shown himself unable to collaborate constructively in the space"

— Strongjam (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

Specious and tendentious actions by MarkBernstein to bring a comment from ARCA to enforcement is beyond the pale. The background he gives is indicative of the exact complaint that Thargor Orlando lodged at ARCA. If anything, the result should be a boomerang preventing MarkBernstein from bring GamerGate issues to any noticeboard to go along with his topic ban. MarkBernstein is topic banned in this area and it appears he is exploiting process to keep discussing a topic he is prohibited from discussing on-wiki. His own personal attack above is far more egregious than anything said at ARCA. --DHeyward (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gamaliel, MarkBernstein's topic ban had nothing to do with ThinkProgress. it was his continued disruption by commenting on other editors and his long history of doing so. Two administrators found his language problematic and one considered the numerous other warnings for exactly the same disruption to be worthy of a sanction. Please familiarize yourself with the reason for the topic ban. Other editors are and have been subjected to the same sanction for far less violations of the NPA policy. --DHeyward (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Thargor Orlando[edit]

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

• I don't think this quite rises to the level of a personal attack, but I do think that this is the sort of problem that arises when one party is given an incredibly broad sanction restricting what he can say and while others he is opposed to are not. If Mark Bernstein's mild comments about objections to ThinkProgress are to be considered so incredibly disruptive that they merit a topic ban, then why are Thargor Orlando's equivalent comments about Mark Bernstein's remarks related to ThinkProgress not sanctionable? Behavior is either disruptive or it is not, it is not disruptive just because Mark Bernstein says it. Either drop the scope of the restrictions on Mark Bernstein or extend them to all parties editing Gamergate. Gamaliel (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• WP:BANEX permits only dispute resolution related to the topic ban itself, and in any event AE traditionally leaves policing arbcom's own pages to the committee and its clerks. This request should be summarily dismissed. T. Canens (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agree with T. Canens that Mark's ban prevents him from complaining about the behavior of others in the same topic area. The only acceptable reason he could be here at AE on the topic of Gamergate is for clarification or changes in his own ban. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 11 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 Theduinoelegy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Theduinoelegy (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#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 16:33, 11 March 2015 "It" is gamergate. The user in question is banned from "all edits about ... (a) GamerGate," per [41]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 25 February 2015 90 day topic ban

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 04:28, 25 February 2015 by Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This was not an appeal of the users topic ban or an administrative process related to the user, it was mere disruptive point scoring behavior. That is a violation of the topic ban, in addition to being grossly uncivil. Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[42]

Discussion concerning Theduinoelegy[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 Theduinoelegy[edit]

Statement by Tony Sidaway[edit]

Also this, apparently after being notified of this request. This editor seems to think they can take a wikibreak for a few weeks then continue as before. Perhaps we should consider a long block and a direct instruction to stay away from the topic indefinitely. --TS 19:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Theduinoelegy[edit]

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

• I'm going to block for one week in a minute as the comment was disruptive and incivil as well as being a TBAN vio. Hopefully one week will reinforce that they need to stay away from GamerGate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:24, 11 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 Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

A Gounaris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Future Perfect at Sunrise (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/CASENAME#SECTION :

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

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning USERNAME[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 USERNAME[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning USERNAME[edit]

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

• Suggest a speedy close.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Jaqeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Jaqeli 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

diff

Statement by Jaqeli[edit]

During this period of time I've contributed to some very good articles and created some quality ones. I can say I am really an experienced Wikipedian and I can assure you no past mistakes will take place anymore. My current TBAN though stops me to create many good Georgian articles because many of them have some kind of Armenian relations as well because of Georgian-Armenian relations are huge and deep and they count several millennia. I recognize my past mistakes of edit-warring and being a bit non-cooperative with Armenian Wikipedians which I no more will be like if you give me a chance again by lifting my current TBAN. I will engage with Armenian users and will cooperate in a calm manner in the interests of English Wikipedia. I believe having a Georgian Wikipedian like me also would greatly contribute as well. I by all means learned on my mistakes and I am ready to get back. I recognize all my past mistakes and now I am more aware how interacting with everyone is important. I will be cooperative and open for the common good of EnWiki. I have more than 20,000 edits, I am an experienced user registered back in 2011, I've made many contributions to English Wikipedia, I've made Good Articles, written many articles, expanded many etc. I have years of experience on English Wikipedia and I deserve a second chance and just because many Georgian articles can have some marginal Armenian connections I should be able to edit them as now my TBAN stops me in my contribution. There can be new information, pictures, charts, maps, sources etc. that can be added and because of my TBAN I cannot do so. I promise I will work with Armenian users and will be cooperative in every way possible. Right now because of my TBAN I cannot work on any major Georgian article because many may have marginal and minor Armenian connections for historical reasons as we are long-time neighbors. There's many I can do to contribute as I've done in the past. Admin Sandstein declined my appeal and I am bringing this appeal to other Admins who I hope will understand my request to cancel and lift this ban from me. I can do many good for the English Wikipedia as I've done in the past and me as a Georgian Wikipedian which aren't that many here can be of a great help in Georgia-related articles. I hope those other Admins who know me or remember me would give me one last chance and cancel this TBAN from me. Thank you. Jaqeli 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sandstein: I understand you are an experienced admin and you no more trust users like me especially when you see my past but please be assured that if this last chance is given I will definitely keep my word. If I do not keep my word I understand the fact that I will be banned forever and I will quit wikipedia. Please also see Georgian inscriptions list as I've told you in your TP I am working on those articles and created some in these days. You rightfully thought I disrupted the page but please be sure it is not the case. I've just made it a disambig page as there are many Georgian inscriptions to be added in the future which I will do certainly as I will work on them. @OccultZone: These 4 years or so I am mostly contributing to Georgia-related articles and because of my TBAN it is literally impossible for me to contribute into any major Georgia-related articles and that is why my activity was and is very low. @Richwales: I have a great respect for you as an admin and I fully understand that if this last chance is given to me I will no more screw with it and will keep my word. I will take any disputes to dispute resolution page and that will be the only way to handle such issues out. If I don't follow my word you personally can ban me from Wikipedia forever. @My very best wishes: I got this TBAN because of my aggressive and noncooperative attitude towards the origin section of Georgian scripts which I do recognize as a mistake which I made in the past. There is no other problems with script-related ones with me. I've made huge contributions and made GAs like script-related Georgian scripts article for example. There will be no problems from my side anymore as I fully understand the result that this can be my last chance so I will take any disputes to dispute resolution page for solving such issues that got my TBAN'd. So there is no reason to keep me out from script-related articles as such. Please also see the part concerning to Georgian inscriptions in the part of my reply to Admin Sandstein. @Kober: Thank you. I look forward working with you again and thanks for your support. Jaqeli 11:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I fully agree. Jaqeli 12:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richwales: The point of my appeal here is not the modification of my current TBAN but I want it to be lifted and canceled from me entirely. I don't want to have any restrictions editing Wikipedia. As I've said per your suggestion I'd take any disputes to dispute resolution page and I will no more edit war at all and if I won't keep my word for it I will be banned forever. I want to be entirely TBAN-free what will give me a chance to edit any article I will want to starting from Georgian language, scripts, inscriptions, archaeology, history, culture, religion etc. Jaqeli 22:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Starship.paint: @My very best wishes: Thanks for your support. Jaqeli 22:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: @Callanecc: There are lots of articles I'd edit so how can I list all of them. For example I'd edit Georgian scripts Asomtavruli, Nuskhuri, Mkhedruli sections to bring up new data and sources if I will have. I'd like to participate on its talk page as well because mostly all the concerns or questions on TP there are left unanswered and native Georgian like me can be of a huge help for Wiki itself. Another example can be Rhadamistus. I want to rewrite the article again to meet the GA status standards. I've made lots of contributions there as well though some more work should be done. Another can be Pharasmanes II of Iberia or David IV of Georgia. If I just wanted to replace or add a new picture there I can be banned again and that's just because these monarchs had Armenian wifes. There are many many articles and cannot really list them all here I hope you understand that. I just want to be TBAN-free and don't want to have any restrictions on me. Again as Richwales said, I do understand that if I will get back to edit-warring as I did in the past I will be banned forever from this site. Jaqeli 16:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Callanecc: Right now I'd like to edit: Georgian scripts, Rhadamistus, Pharnavaz I of Iberia and Pharasmanes II of Iberia. Jaqeli 10:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richwales: I am not going to make any controversial edits to those articles. But if there will be any dispute I will bring it to the TP of the articles and will try to handle the problem out with other editors in a calm and cooperative manner. Please be sure that you won't ever see me edit warring. I will not edit war for sure. Jaqeli 17:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

I recommend declining the appeal. I already lifted the ban once and had to reinstate it because of recurring problems. I am not convinced that Jaqeli can now competently edit in controversial topic areas. Please also refer to the discussion on my talk page about Jaqeli's prior appeal to me.  Sandstein  08:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After looking at the two AE requests that resulted in the ban, they do seem to have the issue of language and writing in common. So I guess if the ban is to be modified, it could be rephrased to cover "the past and present languages and alphabets used in Armenia or Azerbaijan". But since Jaqeli still hasn't told us which specific article the ban prevents them from editing, and given that just a look at their block log doesn't bode well for their future as an editor, I'm not optimistic that loosening the ban will benefit the project.  Sandstein  13:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been asked to comment on Jaqeli's intentions to edit four articles. My general approach is that I dislike micromanaging sanctions; either we trust somebody to work competently in a controversial topic or we don't. In this case, I think the editor's past record indicates that we probably shouldn't, but if other admins here believe it's worth a try then they're welcome to adjust the sanction however they deem appropriate.  Sandstein  21:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by OccultZone[edit]

I have got Sandstein's UTP on my watchlist, I was in touch with the appeal.

Apart from the points that Sandstein has noted,[43] I would say that the activity level of Jaqeli has gradually decreased since the reinstatement of topic ban and he has made about 291 edits since August 8, 2014. For showing that he can edit constructively and collaboratively in different areas, I believe that more activity is required. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proposal of Richwales looks promising and Jaqeli has agreed to it. That might be an option. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kober[edit]

I've been in dispute with User:Jaqeli over certain areas of Georgia-related topics, but, in my case, he has been cooperative and, in fact, much helpful. Given the quality work he has done for Wikipedia, I would support lifting a topic ban and giving him the last chance to continue his full-time activity. --Kober^Talk 15:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Richwales[edit]

I've interacted with Jaqeli numerous times in the past. I'm not going to take a position, one way or the other, as to whether he deserves (or can handle) a relaxation or lifting of his current topic ban; however, I do think it's worth noting that his current ban effectively keeps him out of virtually all Georgia-related articles (since connections between Georgian and Armenian topics are pervasive). Since Jaqeli's primary (exclusive?) interest is in topics related to his home country of Georgia, it's not surprising to me at all that he has done very little editing here since his topic ban was imposed (for fear of being seen to have violated the ban if nothing else), so I don't think his low activity should be held against him. I am concerned about Jaqeli's past misbehaviour regarding edit warring, blocks, etc., and I do feel that if the community decides to give him one more chance, it should be made extremely clear to him that this will absolutely be his last chance — he must take any disputes promptly to accepted dispute resolution procedures and accept resolution outcomes gracefully, and he must accept that any future sanctions will almost certainly take the form of an indefinite / permanent site ban. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not quite sure how a topic ban on the past and present languages used in Armenia or Azerbaijan would affect things here. Alphabets, yes, but languages? AFAIK, no one seriously argues that the Georgian language is related to Armenian or Azeri — but forbidding Jaqeli to edit in any article that mentions the languages of Georgia's geographical neighbours seems a bit much. @Sandstein: are there some specific reasons you had in mind for drawing the language issue (as opposed to the alphabet/script issue) into your proposal for a revised topic ban?

And @Jaqeli: I think it would be helpful for people here if you could list a few articles which you believe you could make constructive contributions to, but which you are unable or unwilling to touch for fear of being seen to have violated your current topic ban. Since we are discussing your current ban, BTW, it is my understanding that mentioning articles in this manner, in this specific forum, and possibly also including very brief and neutral explanations of why you believe working on a given article might be seen as a topic ban violation, would not in and of itself constitute a violation of your current ban. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jaqeli: Thanks for your feedback regarding which articles you would like to work on. Some people (myself possibly included) may be worried that if you go back to working at Georgian scripts or Pharnavaz I of Iberia, you may get entangled once again in the never-ending disputes over the origin of the Georgian alphabet which got you into so much trouble in the past. If you do get permission to work on articles such as these, how will you avoid those earlier problems? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no further objections or reservations to allowing Jaqeli to try his hand at responsibly editing the four articles named by Callanecc. I'm willing to take Jaqeli at his word that he won't make any more disruptive edits and will collaborate in good faith if any content disputes do arise. I'm also assuming that Jaqeli has thoroughly read and absorbed WP:HANG, and that if he gets into any more trouble from this point on, it will be clear that he's completely exhausted the community's patience and should expect a total, indefinite site ban which is unlikely to be lifted at any future time for any reason. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kansas Bear[edit]

Having edited in the Caucasus region, I have "interacted" with Jaqeli in a limited capacity. I believe he does do good work, however due to Georgia's location, the Caucasus is not an easy area to edit. I think, in the long run, Richwales idea would be best for Jaqeli. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Jaqeli[edit]

After quickly looking at this, I think this topic ban could at least be changed and narrowed by limiting it to the subjects related to Caucasian alphabets. I think this is main POV of Jaqeli. Then his strange editing here discussed with Sandstein would be covered by the new restriction, but allowed him editing any Georgia-related subjects not related to the alphabets. In addition, banning someone from Georgian subjects on the basis of Armenia-Azerbaijan sanctions (both are different countries) might be a little questionable. My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That ^ sounds reasonable. Jaqeli seems very aware that this is the last chance, let's give it to him. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think the suggestion by Sandstein it could be rephrased to cover "the past and present languages and alphabets used in Armenia or Azerbaijan" is reasonable. As about the future behavior by Jaqeli, I never interacted with this user before and therefore can not predict his behavior. The suggestion by Richwales also seem reasonable. I would suggest to give Jaqueli another chance. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result of the appeal by Jaqeli[edit]

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

• Richwales' proposed loosening seems worth a try. @Jaqeli: are you willing to agree to it? I'd like to hear from other admins, though, and I wonder if you have any thoughts on the suggestion, Sandstein. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Jaqeli should kindly explain in a little more detail what articles he would edit if allowed to. Subject to a reasonable listing, I agree with Sandstein that the topic-ban should not be lifted in toto, but I also agree it might be possible to modify it in a way that would allow Jaqueli to edit within his subject-matter expertise without renewed problems. When I was an arbitrator deciding "X vs. Y" ethnic/nationalist dispute cases, I would often think and write that many of the people from (or siding with) place X who were getting into trouble on the "X vs. Y" articles, could be very good, knowledgeable contributions if they would focus only on X and forget about Y. That might be the case here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'd probably be inclined to go with Richwales's proposed loosening but only allow them to edit a set of specific articles for a few months so we can start to see how they'd operate. If that works with no issues then I'm happy to go with Richwales's wording on the full lot, if there are issues we'd need to look at whether to just go back to indef TBAN or a long block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Jaqeli: Just give us 5-10 that you'd like to edit now, it's just a trial basis to see how you go, so just any you would like to work on first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Any positive/negative comments to Jaqeli being given an exemption to edit Georgian scripts, Rhadamistus, Pharnavaz I of Iberia and Pharasmanes II of Iberia for 3 months, at which stage (around then) they should appeal to AE again? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Seems reasonable to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 13 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 Gerda Arendt[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gerda Arendt (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/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted : "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: (...) making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article..."

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

(all diffs are edits by Gerda Arendt:)

1. 19:39, 6 April 2014 (edit summary: "...second and last contribution to this discussion") – "...That I would answer the "infobox yes or no" question with "yes, why not?" is known enough..." (at Talk:Frédéric Chopin)
2. 13:24, 2 February 2015 adding "| ((diff|Frédéric Chopin|622753180|622751386|Chopin)) || style="background: red" | person || 25 Aug" to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox#Discussions and reverts
3. 07:46, 15 February 2015 "Support infobox (repeating from 2014, I am restricted to not make a further comment in the matter)" (at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Discuss infobox yes or no)
4. 09:38, 9 March 2015 – changing "| ((diff|Frédéric Chopin|622753180|622751386|Chopin)) || person || 25 Aug" to "| ((diff|Frédéric Chopin|622753180|622751386|Chopin)) || person || style="background: red" | 25 Aug" (emphasis added) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox#Discussions and reverts

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Discussed the inclusion of the infobox in the Frédéric Chopin article three or four times, on at least two talk pages. I have brought to Gerda's attention before (e.g. " ... please stop discussing individual article's infobox inclusions on various pages not directly connected to the article's talk page (e.g. here) as it are "comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article" per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted. I think I explained this before." [44]) that probably the discussions *on individual articles* at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox (e.g. [45]) are to be seen as separate counts in the ArbCom remedy cited above, and am now submitting it here to let others decide.

inserted example of bringing this to Gerda's attention before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[46] --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion concerning Gerda Arendt[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 Gerda Arendt[edit]

Wir danken dir, Gott, wir danken dir, BWV 29, GA as of today, thank you, Dr. Blofeld, but only 14 of 31 GAs in Classical compositions are by me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SchroCat: I repeat my simple request of yesterday, which was not about infoboxes:

I just welcomed a new user who seems to come from a Japanese background. I recommend that you address such people on their talk page in very simple English because they may have no idea that article history and edit summaries even exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please go to the new user's talk and explain why you reverted their third edit in this Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you know I am all for infoboxes but don't feel guilty of ever having "forced" one, and certainly not in "all articles". That myth is perpetuated, sadly so. What can we do?

What can we do? I can see now how pointy my second email was because the subject was "laugh". I should have known that one has to stay seriuz in infobox matters. I envy a bit people who can say: I've never taken part in the infobox wars. The not taking part in them is one of my favorite parts of Wikipedia - I feel like the nurse on the battleground and will not leave ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@T. Canens: You brought up a very interesting question: what the restriction is meant to be. I confess that I have lived with it for a while now, and generally find it helpful to walk away after two comments (example pictured), but why I was restricted I still don't know and stopped asking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think all diffs show that I am aware of the restriction and don't need a reminder ;) - I am rather proud of having gained the status of the most severely restricted person in the infobox wars without ever having been in an edit war, - not easy ;) - I am happy that an article where my addition of an infobox has been regarded as disruptive (I would have said premature) in 2013 received one today. Thank you, Voceditenore! - I am not interested in boomerang actions, but would be helped if the questionable closing of a discussion on Chopin could be evaluated by independent minds. Votes were simply counted, regardless of the same person accepting or even installing a compromise later. I think a revert and asking who would accept the compromise might be a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Andy Mabbett[edit]

• The 2 February and 9 March edits are part of a log Gerda maintains. They are not part of a discussion.
• It would be stretching a point to suggest that the edits made on 6 April 2014 and over ten months later on 15 February 2015 are part of the same discussion
• The above is especially true when the April 2014 discussion was archived in October 2014.

We saw in the recent review of the infobox case how some editors use existing sanctions to harass the affected editors. Is this another case of the same thing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Postscript: The 15 March edit consists solely of Gerda adding style="background: red" to change the background colour of a table cell, and updating a time stamp of not the time of her edit Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re "Main editors": It is stated here, in relation to debates about whether an article should include an infobox, that ""ArbCom has ruled... that editors should defer to those who created and developed the article.". I find such an assertion to be bogus, but perhaps that impression has in the past been given? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SchroCat[edit]

I have had reason to ask Gerda to refrain from commenting on my talk page recently (and to stop emailing me about IBs.) While Chopin may or may not be a valid matter, the three comments in Talk:Laurence Olivier#Infobox ([47], [48] and [49]) are a breach. Although I don't think the related comment on my talk page is relevant, that on Ian Rose's page may be a fourth. I haven't done a search of the user's edit history to see if there are any further comments elsewhere.

In relation to the recent William Burges discussion, although Gerda kept to two comments on the talk page ([50] and [51]), this third comment is about the IB, and is borderline (or underhand) canvassing. This (fourth) is also about the Burges IB, as is this (fifth) and this (sixth). To crown it all, and where I think she really has overstepped the mark into borderline harassment, I was not happy to receive an email from her trying to discuss the Burges IB.

In relation to a different IB matter, I recieved this (which is about a user who added an infobox that I removed), and an email containing a rather pointy and incorrect message, again about infoboxes. As you can see from the thread on my talk page, I have had to ask Gerda not to post on my talk page, or email me about IBs (although why I should have to I really don't know).

I think there is enough here that ArbCom should look a little more closely about this user's interaction with regard to infobox discussions.– SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cailil, we will have to disagree about the Burges comments, particularly the fact that they are all soft canvassing. The comment to Graham Beards (who opposed an IB) is an extension of the conversation, however you try and cut it and that is before you take into account the emails to me about two separate IBs. - SchroCat (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough, I hope you have some evidence to back up your rather tawdry accusation below? I look froward (with neither hope, nor expectation) in seeing you strike out the slur (and you managed to avoid the bit that half the reply was all about the inclusion of the IB, her third in that thread) before continuing the matter on Ian Rose's talk page. As to it being a "direct allegation of WP:OWN", that is laughable, as can be seen from the context. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cailil, "does not give others licence to goad them": as per my comment above, please provide proof that is the case, or strike. You too have also managed to avoid that half the reply (on her third comment in the thread was all about the inclusion of the IB, which is in breach of the restrictions. There is a singular lack of GF here, especially as we are discussin a user who has gamed the restrictions upon them, and has turned to harassment by email and on talk pages to continue their discussions. This is not a fit or appropriate way for an editor under restriction to behave. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"You and Ian Rose made remarks about an article's "Main editors" as an appeal to authority and as a means of excluding Gerda Arendt's point of view on the infoboxes": a deeply, deeply flawed view of the thread;

• "You accused Gerda Arendt of WP:OWNERSHIP". Utter balls, as can be seen from the context;
• I'm glad you've mentioned the emails: you've been happy to act as judge jury and executioner without the evidence in front of you and with a rather peculiar take on the harrassment, gaming and canvassing that has been going on. I will indeed take it directly to one of the Arbs: I suspect they will be more level headed than you have been. - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Two of the Olivier comments are not about the inclusion or exclusion of that infobox at all, but the somewhat odd premise being promoted that the decision is up to the "main editors" of the article. The last one, be it noted, is in response to a direct allegation of WP:OWN by ShroCat.

It is disappointing to see this enforcement request being brought by Frances on clearly spurious grounds. It is also disappointing to see SchroCat's statement including the Olivier diffs. Making WP:OWN (or any other) accusations against an editor you know cannot respond, is poor form. If the intent was to bait Gerda into a response it is even worse.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Ritchie333[edit]

Notwithstanding Gerda's "go ahead punk, make my day" remark, the three comments in a row were made over a week ago and the debate came to a natural end. There doesn't seem to be anything that requires actively enforcing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Collect[edit]

Try as I might, I see no conceivable violation of her restriction. Even counting a !vote as being a "comment" which I find a tad iffy. Calling a font-colour change a "comment" is not impressive. Collect (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ched[edit]

I am glad to see that "boomerang" has been mentioned. I've always wondered how Arbcom managed to restrict 2 editors on the pro-infobox side, and yet only remind those removing them. Especially given that Gerda had never been blocked, and multiple members of the exclusive "composer" group have multiple blocks for edit warring. In fact, about the only "warnings" I can recall before the 2013 case involved editors removing infoboxes with "do not revert MY edit". Now I have no doubt that many of said composer group would like nothing better than to be rid of Gerda and the scandalous idea of having an infobox in any of "their" articles, but I pesky old WP:Local consensus thing has been a stumbling block in so many efforts. The (very) recent efforts to remove Pigsonthewing from all things infobox resulted in there actually being fewer restrictions in his particular case.

I know that Gerda won't "appeal" the 2013 case, so I'll skip that paragraph.

The hounding and harassment that has come from a few select members of that composer group does indeed need to be considered though. And while I'm content to sit up here, I ask the reviewing admins to consider this. — Ched :  ?  21:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Atsme[edit]

I see no evidence that indicates Gerda is in violation. I agree with a lot of what Ched described, although I have not researched the history to that extent. However, based on what was presented here, my conclusion is zilch - nada - and I don't think there is anything I've overlooked. Atsme☯^Consult 00:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion by Thryduulf[edit]

@Cailil:. I'm commenting here as a semi-involved admin not as an arbitrator as I'm recused from the infoboxes topic. I would suggest a slight change to the final sentence of your proposal: "They are also cautioned that further abuse of process or attempts to harass User:Gerda Arendt by User:Francis Schonken other editors will incur sanctions."

Given that this sentence is directed at Francis Schonken including his name is redundant, and my change makes it clear that the problem with the behaviour is that it is harassment not that the target is Gerda (i.e. it's not OK to harass somebody else instead). Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Gerda Arendt[edit]

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

• Looking at the evidence presented here there is no case to answer. The diffs presented show 2 comments and Gerda Arendt's awareness of their restriction. I note this diff[52] by Francis Schonken where they closed the discussion (with what reads like a !supervote) they claim that Gerda Arendt contributed twice too, and then opened this thread. These actions make this request look like Francis Schonken is trying to remove Gerda Arendt from a content dispute via Arbitration Enforcement. The whole situation may be worth looking at but the proximate matter of Gerda Arendt breaking their two comment limit is a non-issue with the current evidence--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @SchroCat: The William Burges comments are also not actionable IMHO. Gerda Arendt is restricted from discussing the inclusion/exclusion of infoboxes not from discussing how they are treated in those discussions in semi-whisical threads on user talk pages (which this[53] is) or discussing the boxes generally. What they cannot keep posting about is inclusion/removal. That said I don't think the behaviour in the diffs you're presented is eitehr positive or constructive and Gerda Arendt certainly is line-stepping here but alone these are not actionable. The Olivier diffs however do change the complexion of that, and significantly. I'd like some more sysops to comment before I go further here--Cailil ^talk 18:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• On further thought I don't believe the Olivier diffs are actionable - I do think as Rich notes above that there is significant "poking" going on here and frankly I'm more concerned about that than I am about this 3 non-issues. Just because a user is subject to an ArbCom ban does not give others licence to goad them. Again I'd like to see other sysops commenting but my inclination is to close without action--Cailil ^talk 10:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• SchroCat: WP:ARE is not a debate. You and Ian Rose made remarks about an article's "Main editors" as an appeal to authority and as a means of excluding Gerda Arendt's point of view on the infoboxes. Gerda Arendt's comments are about that conduct towards them not the boxes per se. Your remark[54] to Gerda Arendt directly before the diff you suggest as their 3rd comment is quite inappropriate in the context of this enforcement request. You accused Gerda Arendt of WP:OWNERSHIP while being equally guilty of the same rhetoric yourself (which BTW looks to me like stewardship rather than ownership from both Ian and Gerda Arendt) and then want them punished for responding to that accusation. You also are crying out about a lack of AGF while failing to shouw it yourself, repeatedly here in this discussion. Now, I am quite happy to close this immediately with no action against Gerda Arendt and a WP:Boomerang for yourself and Francis Schonken if you want to keep digging.
  WRT emails - I suggest you submit evidence in private to an Arbitrator regarding those. Bandying about accusations of misconduct without hard evidence could be seen to fall under WP:ASPERSIONS. Furthermore I will advise you strongly that if your hands are equally unclean, i.e if those emails are about conduct rather than about inclusion/removal of infoboxes then you are ill advised to bring them up--Cailil ^talk 12:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree with you completely, Cailil. This looks like a vexatious request and, combined with the supervote closure, looks like an attempt to use AE as a weapon to eliminate an opponent. It's the sort of thing the used to happen a awful lot in the Israel-Palestine topic area until we started sanctioning people for it. It's also worth noting that ArbCom recently considered authorising discretionary sanctions on infobox disputes; the proposal didn't pass for various reasons, but most of the arbs seemed to agree that there was still disruptive behaviour going on in relation to infoboxes. Thus I endorse some sort of boomerang action against the filer. Procedural note: I've recused in previous infobox-related AE requests against Pigsonthewing due to an off-wiki friendship; this is the first request I've seen against another party and I do not believe I am involved with respect to Gerda or infoboxes generally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I also don't see anything actionable here. We may have a diff or two that are open to interpretation in regard to their status as evidence of a topic ban violation, but we should err on the side of caution (i.e., good faith). I fully accept SchroCat's good faith in this matter, but it's clear that Francis Schonken, who has been in more than one disagreement with Gerda and has exhibited various types of battleground tendencies, saw an opportunity to peel a little apple, as the Dutch might say, with Gerda. This ought to be closed and slammed shut, and I am not opposed to at the least a stern warning for Francis Schonken. I'll do a disclaimer too: I don't care for infoboxes, and I know and have worked with every single editor in this thread, including Gerda, and a million other editors--plus, I have warned Francis Schonken for disruptive behavior in December of last year. FWIW. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Right so, my proposed wording is: "Closed with no action against User:Gerda Arendt, but User:Francis Schonken is warned for making a vexatious filing at WP:AE about Gerda Arendt and given a final warning to refrain from further battleground behaviour in the topic area covered by the Infoxboxes RfAr ruling." If there are no substantive objections from other sysops then I'll close with this wording after 24 hours.

  Although I'm not proposing action here against SchroCat, frankly I am very disappointed in their conduct on this board clamouring for punishment of GA with such an obvious non-issue (and then raising 3 further non-issues). They would be well advised not to continue in this vein. That said if there have been inappropriate emails sent to them (and for various reasons we cannot be privy to them here on a public board) I fully endorse SchroCat having that kind of conduct reviewed in private--Cailil ^talk 21:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm rather concerned about the reading of the two-comment restriction adopted here. The restriction is meant to be a clear-cut, bright-line one, and I don't think fine parsing about whether a comment is going to a subsidiary issue or the main issue in a discussion is helpful. All three of the Olivier comments are related to the primary subject of the discussion - i.e. whether the article should have an infobox - and made in the course of that discussion. That should be more than enough to bring them inside the scope of the restriction. Now, I can see taking no enforcement action as the edits are somewhat stale, but I disagree with Cailil and think they are a violation of the restriction. T. Canens (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Timotheus Canens, I had a similar view of the Olivier comments on my first reading, but on reflection I did, and still do, think it's extremely problematic for SchroCat to goad GA into a third comment with an accusation of WP:OWNERSHIP and then cry "foul" - that's the definition of "unclean hands". And on balance I can't in good conscience ignore that. In this context would it be best to issue a reminder to GA that, as you put it their 2 comment restriction is "a clear-cut, bright-line" rule. And that further actions like those at the Olivier article will be sanctioned? However, if we do that IMHO we need to deal with SchroCat's action there too - again a reminder might be ok. Do you have any views on the boomerang against the filer?--Cailil ^talk 15:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That ping didn't go through. I'm fine with a reminder both ways (I agree that leaving that comment when you know the other side can't respond is poor form at best), and I'm also ok with the boomerang. T. Canens (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks T. Canens that's good and clear. My proposed wording is "User:Gerda Arendt is advised that their two comment limit, in discussions about Infoboxes, is a bright-line rule and that conduct like that exhibited at the Lawrence Olivier article's talk page[55] is a breach of their restriction and will be sanctioned if repeated. User:SchroCat is reminded that anyone requesting enforcement who comes with unclean hands runs the risk of their request being sanctioned themselves. They are also advised that implying misconduct on the part of editors like User:Gerda Arendt who are restricted from replying/responding to such accusations may be seen as misconduct itself. User:Francis Schonken is warned for filing a vexatious request at WP:AE. They are also cautioned that further abuse of process or attempts to harass User:Gerda Arendt by User:Francis Schonken other editors will incur sanctions." If there are no substantive objections from uninvolved sysops I'll close with this result at around 16:00 UTC on March 16th--Cailil ^talk 20:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks Thryduulf that makes perfect sense--Cailil ^talk 11:34, 16 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 DHeyward[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamergate :

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

1. [56] Attack

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I have no idea

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

should be obvious

Notification: [57]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

DHeyward takes me to task:

Specious and tendentious actions by MarkBernstein to bring a comment from ARCA to enforcement is beyond the pale

But of course my complaint is neither specious nor tendentious. I made a technical inquiry at ARCA regarding an obscurity in their recent decision, explaining why I needed this clarification and requesting Arbcom to clarify their intent. The response has been a coordinated outpouring of vituperation directed at me and urging my immediate banishment.

DHeyward proceeds to lecture Gamaliel on the history of my topic ban, perhaps forgetting that Gamaliel started this entire sorry episode. I am confident that Gamaliel understands every nook and cranny by now. But DHeyward also understands every nook and cranny, as this last episode was of his contrivance -- carefully planned offsite and also celebrated there.

DHeyward tars me with making a personal attack on Thargor Orlando at Arbitration Enforcement, but of course Arbitration Enforcement concerns enforcement actions against editors. Editorial misbehavior is the essence of complaints at WP:AE; in contrast, the ARCA discussion did not concern editorial behavior of any kind.

DHeyward has, of course, been an avid proponent of WP:CPUSH and WP:FLAT arguments at Gamergate and related pages. His arguments (if these be arguments) here reflect that, and they should be familiar to administrators and indeed to most who are active there. As time is short, I simply allude to them here.

As some argue that my topic ban extends, or should extend, or should immediately be extended, to preclude remedy, I'm filing this without further delay. I apologize to overworked administrators.

Literary sidenote: DHeyward is now all aflutter over a literary allusion on my talk page. It’s Julius Caesar III.1.278-290: “Domestic fury and fierce civil strife...” Relax folks. (and good grief!) MarkBernstein (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completely endorse Gamaliel’s proposal, provided related proposals I have discussed with Gamaliel and with HJ Mitchell are honored as well, as I am confident they will be.

With regard to offsite planning: I sent two administrators two offsite links to discussions of proposed attacks on my integrity, twelve hours before those attacks appeared for the first time on-wiki. I have also sent a separate forum post, claiming to have been written by a recently banned editor, explaining how to exploit Wikipedia policy along these very lines. The current discussion stems from a news story -- one of many recent news stories -- reporting on the way Gamergate supporters have colluded in their use of Wikipedia. Individual Wikipedians may regret these news stories and find them embarrassing, but I did not expect to be faulted for mentioning here what reporters throughout the world consider to be thoroughly established. (This issue has clear implications for the efficacy of Gamaliel’s proposal, obviously. I merely draw attention to this so Gamaliel or others may consider whether new policy may be needed to address this when it arises in some future dispute among other parties.)

I'd like to remind people one last time that this is not merely a content dispute about fringe theories or inbox footnotes: real people are being harassed and actual careers are being destroyed while Wikipedia is perverted. I have done what I could to stop it; I have been assured that it will be stopped; in the long run, I am confident that sufficient eyes outside Wikipedia have been brought to bear on this area of the project that either Wikipedia will learn to protect the victims or it will suffer even greater consequences.

I should like few things better, in fact, than to comply with Gamaliel’s excellent suggestion. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning DHeyward[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 DHeyward[edit]

Another tendentious and pointy request by MarkBernstein. Considering he has mulitple discussions going on at AE, ANI and ARBCA, I think it's time we need to discuss a site ban for MarkBernstein or at least a long block. --DHeyward (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be interested in seeing any diff of offsite coordination that he accuses me of as I don't participate in any offsite activities regarding Wikipedia. Otherwise he's casting aspersions that I know to be false. --DHeyward (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears that MarkBernstein is now here to wreak "Havoc" on the community[58] with these filings. That along with his history of WP:NOTHERE and it may be time to show him the door. Literary sidenote, the quote of 'havoc' in Shakespeare only reinforces WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND, not alleviate it. --DHeyward (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gamaliel Please post where I have done anything you have alleged. To be specific, MarkBernstein has filed 2 AE requests, 1 ARBCA request and 1 ANI request as well as posting to Jimbo's talk page since his topic ban. I am not sure where you are getting the impression that this anything more than a 1 sided barrage of filings and it affects more than just THargor Orlando and me. --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ched I can say without reservation that But DHeyward also understands every nook and cranny, as this last episode was of his contrivance -- carefully planned offsite and also celebrated there. is simply a lie. I don't participate in any offsite activity regarding WP or gamergate or whatever MarkBernstein is alleging. It's not new that these lies have been stated. There is no evidence to bring as they are simply false. MarkBernstein is "my contrivance" is that I posted a diff of comments he made to two uninvolved admins (apparently this is exactly what Gamaliel is requesting but he has indicated he didn't like the result). I didn't highlight any specific quotes in MBs comments but both admins zeroed in on the the offending portion. Both admins found they were unacceptable and one admin gave MB a 90 day topic ban. None of it was offsite. For that, MB has posted at ANI, ARBCA, and two AE requests which is why we are here. --DHeyward (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gamaliel - as I've already been acting in the way you propose and haven't brought any complaints about MarkBernstein to any boards or even discussed it on article talk pages. I brought his comments directly to two uninvolved admins who both agreed they were not civil and both took action. I would not have participated here if I wasn't called to do so but I can agree not to bring any issues to noticeboards as that is what I've already been doing. There is no need for a sanction since the behavior doesn't really exist and it appears this complaint should be closed the same as the one above it. BTW, if you are in possession of "offsite links", please send them. I categorically deny any involvement with any offsite groups that are targeting MarkBernstein or anyone else. --DHeyward (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This AE request is predicated on the one above it which was closed. Not sure how this one is still valid if the other is not. --DHeyward (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gamaliel has invoked a sanction without any evidence that the behavior he is trying to stop ever happened. He cited comments made on this AE request as being problemtic. I ask that he reverse this as MarkBernstein had no standing to bring a complaint. If Gamaliel could cite where I violated anything related to his topic ban, he should do so. The fact is that I brought MB's behavior to two neutral admins even before Gamaliel requested. I didn't discuss it with MarkBernstein or engage him in any way except in arbitrtation space. Please show a problematic encounter where I did something improper. Please note that Bernstein is again at AE where he repeated the comment that led to his topic ban. Is that editor now also subject to a sanction? They did more official filing than I did. There simply is no justification for this. I am happy to abide by Gamaliels request on a gentlemans agreement but having it logged as wrongdoing I will not stand for. Gamaliel's sanction would not change a single thing that I did or what happened to MarkBernstein or the subsequent issues he created for himself and I will be forced to challenge this rather specious argument that the persons named in an AE request are responsible for the filing. EdJohnston is correct. Gamaliel didn't attribute the context of the remarks he cited or the author and he fails to state that the only editor bringing stuff to noticeboards is MarkBernstein. I did not file anything or make comments in article or user space, just here. --DHeyward (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liz I didn't file an AE request for this (or ANI or any other drama board). Why would you endorse a sanction without a single diff? We were dragged here by MarkBernstein who filed an ARBCA, ANI and 2 AE requests. All of Gamaliels quotes are from responding to MB (and not properly attributed or given in context). MB is currently named in a 3rd AE request but Gamaliel hasn't proposed an IBAN for NE Ent. --DHeyward (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also note that moments before he filed an AE against me, he filed one against Thargor Orlando but it was tossed because TBanned editors are not allowed to file AE requests in the topic area[59]. Inexplicably, Gamaliel continued to pursue sanctions (and even wanted sanctions in the other report). --DHeyward (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MONGO[edit]

I do not see a personal attack. I see a diff that merely states an observation. A personal attack might be to call someone an asshole or along those lines.--MONGO 22:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the worst arbcom closures appears to be manifesting itself as one of the worst decisions I have ever seen at arbitration enforcement. How ridiculous that DHeyward might face a topic ban for merely pointing out a basic observation of fact. It's way past time to site ban Bernstein and if his filing this AE complaint, which is only the latest violation of his own topic ban, is not enough reason to throw this frivolous nonsense in the gutter then all the admins clamoring for a topic ban for DHeyward need to get their heads examined.--MONGO 01:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Thargor Orlando[edit]

More retaliatory behavior. Topic ban him and extend the ban to seeking sanctions against other editors at this point. Why are we continuing to tolerate this behavior? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gamaliel: seconding. I'd love to see the "worse statements" that I've made, having been accused, among other things, as someone being "deployed" by 8chan, As someone who has not even raised a complaint, this seems 100% unsupported by any evidence presented. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gamaliel: I would again like to see the evidence you're using against me so I can actually respond to it. Having an opinion on why we're allowing disruption in the subject-space should not be sanctionable, so if I don't know what I've done wrong, there's nothing I can show you that says "I can change," assuming there's anything that needs changing at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Callanecc: What evidence are you basing this on, specifically? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Callanecc: the issue with the proposed solution is that it sanctions me for some reason that has yet to be expressed with any evidence and doesn't appear to solve any existing problems. I'm not concerned about being topic banned out of any specific article because I'm not violating any rules, but I am concerned about being tarred with a brush due to the continued disruption of someone else. The goal of getting me removed from this situation doesn't seem logical or warranted: Mark will surely be here again because of his behavior (as predicted), so if it's to cut back on reports of his continued and consistent misbehavior, I don't see how sanctioning someone who has never initiated a report about Mark will help or why sanctioning any person pointing out the problems makes sense when you can just as easily cut back on the issue by extending the existing topic ban on MarkBernstein indefinitely, allowing all of us to move on from this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Starship.paint[edit]

@Ched: and @Gamaliel: - it appears that you have missed this statement made by MarkBernstein in this very filing. [60] But DHeyward also understands every nook and cranny, as this last episode was of his contrivance -- carefully planned offsite and also celebrated there. This is not the first time, MarkBernstein, without evidence, accuses established editors of colluding offsite. Historical evidence: [61] [62] [63] [64] You would consider this a "mild" statement, Gamaliel? I think this behaviour is worse than anything DHeyward or Thargor Orlando have produced, therefore I question the equal punishments. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Ched: - thank you. Would you consider it reasonable that given the past behavior in the historical evidence, that I request for MarkBernstein to additionally simply assure us that he will not repeat such behavior in the future? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]

This is becoming tendentious. There is no personal attack. DHeyward wasn't the nicest, but stated his opinion. If a clerk thought it was a personal attack, they could have removed it. Compared to the conduct issues brought up in the GGTF case, for example, DHeyward's comments are downright pleasant. This on top of the previous request are making my lose my good faith in Mark. Dismiss this request. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 05:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting EdJohnston's comment above that, "The only acceptable reason he could be here at AE on the topic of Gamergate is for clarification or changes in his own ban", I'm starting to think this space is being used as a forum to air GG-related grievances instead of actually addressing violations.EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 05:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway[edit]

In view of the kind of conduct problems we're seeing here, I agree with Gamaliel's proposed solution. The involved editors should all concentrate on the editing, and not continue this attempt to conduct a kind of warfare using Wikipedia. They've all been asked to drop the stick in the recent past. These continuing incidents, while not necessarily rising to the level we'd normally sanction, have no place on Wikipedia.

This proposal goes to the heart of the problems identified in the arbitration case. --TS 13:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NE Ent[edit]

Gamaliel solution: +1. NE Ent 23:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing[edit]

With apologies to DHeyward, for putting one or two words in his mouth, and to the good Doctor for taking one or two out of his. GoldenRing (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Strongjam[edit]

Topic ban is fine

Interaction ban at least

For all involved

— Strongjam (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rhoark[edit]

I think it would be a mistake to proceed on the basis of assuming culpability on the part of anyone except MarkBernstein. All DHeyward or ThargorOrlando stand accused of is calling a spade a spade, whereas the number of times MarkBernstein has cast aspersions or filed frivolous motions and been extended more WP:ROPE defies counting. Rhoark (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by EncyclopediaBob[edit]

If the intent is to limit interaction between Mark and these users in the Gamergate space, and Mark is already topic banned making interaction impossible, how can we consider topic banning these users "preventative"? Until Mark's ban expires or is reversed there's no benefit to eliminating these editors from the space even if one could find cause. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Liz[edit]

I haven't checked every diff and every aspect of the disputants' arguments. I'm not advocating a topic or site ban for anyone. Just as an editor who is peripherally (marginally!) involved in editing in the Gamergate controversy area, I am tired of continually seeing complaints involving editors working in these articles brought to AE and I'm sure that admins who frequent this forum are tired of seeing them as well. While some cases have had merit and topic bans were justified, the growing number of editors who have received topic bans through proceedings at this board and the increasing reliance on AE as a way to resolve interaction disputes is worrisome. From what I've seen, editors on both sides of this topic have filed complaints here and the only action I would recommend is an admonishment to only bring serious infringements of WP:BLP to this board. I endorse Gamaliel's proposal and suggest it might be a model in cases where disputants file repeated cases against each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning DHeyward[edit]

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

• I'm not seeing a WP:NPA personal attack here, so I don't see anything to "enforce". Retaliatory? Perhaps. As far as the "wreak 'Havoc' on the community", I think that might be going a bit far at this time. Perhaps frustrated, but I'm not seeing attempts to deface Jimbo's page or anything. I would suggest that it might be best for MarkB to just proactively avoid all things gamergate or gender related for a bit and focus on some other area of interest. — Ched :  ?  23:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Starship.paint:, your point is well taken - and WP:ASPERSIONS I believe would be the relative link for that. Perhaps MarkB would care to strike that? — Ched :  ?  01:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• DHeyward, MarkBernstein, Thargor Orlando: It is clear that all three of you are unable to play nicely with each other. All of you incessantly complain about the mild statements of the others while feeling free to make much worse statements about those you are complaining about. The Gamergate decision has received a lot of criticism, but sometimes you do have to clean house and sanction everyone involved. As of now, all three of you are indefinitely topic banned from the subject of each other. Furthermore, none of you can open a new noticeboard thread or enforcement request about any of the others without the permission of an uninvolved administrator. I will log this and post official notices on your user pages later this evening. Gamaliel (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am going to wait until the morning and the responses of uninvolved parties (I think we've all heard quite enough from the involved parties.) before I officially log these sanctions. With the understanding that you will all play nice until then, I think we can refrain from enforcing them for the moment. (Hint: this would be a good time to explain how your behavior is going to change and to express your willingness to work with other editors who disagree with you.) Gamaliel (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think that Gamaliel has found the solution most likely to result in an encyclopedia. I support it fully. Chillum 16:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I also agree that Gamaliel's proposal is the best placed to work, and I think/agree that it should be phrased as a topic ban rather than a mutual interaction ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Thargor Orlando: Primarily because I don't believe in one-way interaction bans especially when we're limiting the ability of one side to report the other party. Remembering that you won't be TBANed and they will so you'll still be able to edit GamerGate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Per WP:BANEX Mark Bernstein can't open complaints of Gamergate violations against others so long as he remains topic banned. So this AE complaint by Mark needs no action in that sense. User:Gamaliel intends to place what sounds like a three-way interaction ban between Mark, DHeyward and Thargor Orlando. I have no opinion on whether new bans against DHeyward and Thargor are needed, but if Gamaliel decides to take action, I agree with Callanecc that putting each of them under a Gamergate topic ban would be more logical than an interaction ban. That entails the result that you want, i.e. that none of them could use administrative proceedings against each other relating to Gamergate. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Before anyone imposes an interaction ban on these three editors, they should list some of the diffs (or write up the rationale) so it is clear why it's being imposed on each party. That might forestall a lengthy appeal process. From what's been presented here I'm unclear on why the new i-ban is actually needed. Mark B. is very indignant about Gamergate matters and he tends to use hot rhetoric. You might expect this could lead his targets to respond. If we are looking at Thargor's post at WP:ARCA that Mark included in a recent complaint, I'm not persuaded that it's severe enough to need a ban from participation on admin boards. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • The discussion which had already taken place here is the only reason I didn't close this one as well. Re sanctions I was thinking more TBAN from discussing the subject of each other (not from GamerGate) which now having thought about it is the same as a broadly construed IBAN. We could just IBAN them from each other when it regards the GamerGate topic or just from reporting each other regarding GamerGate period. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• (commenting as an uninvolved admin, not as an arbitrator) Based on what I've seen, I think drama here could be reduced with a limited interaction ban on each of them preventing them from interacting with the other two when the context is either (a) GamerGate (broadly construed) or (b) any other area the other party has been topic banned from - i.e. if Dheyward is topic banned from say telecommunications in Bulgaria (chosen by special:random) then neither Thargor nor Mark could interact with Dheyward regarding that topic (but they could interact with each other about it if neither are topic banned), they remain free to interact with each other regarding every other topic (unless this is abused). This to include a prohibition on initiating dispute resolution regarding violations of this or any other restriction any of the three parties is under without the approval of an uninvolved admin, whose decision is final. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There was an editor from Nantucket

• To clarify where I am coming from here, this is the comment that got Mark Bernstein slapped with a three month topic ban: "It is fascinating that the particular group of editors who recently were so eager to cite Gamergate wikis, weblogs, and Breitbart are reluctant to inform newcomers to this article of this important new essay."

• It is snarky, to be sure, but I think it is far less objectionable than the following comments which these users feel free to say about Mark Bernstein with impunity:

• "It's further evidence that his contributions are a negative to the article space"
• "Mark's own intentions in this clarification is to drag the drama he continually creates within the Gamergate space into the campus rape disputes"
• "MarkBernstein doesn't appear to be here to build the encyclopedia."
• "Specious and tendentious actions by MarkBernstein"

• (Note: MarkBernstein has already agreed to the sanction so I don't feel the need to include excerpts from his statements and juxtapose them with statements from others he has complained about, but for the record I believe that he shares this problem with the other two editors.)

• I don't think any of these comments rises to the level of a sanctionable personal attack, but it points to a problem with the current state of these sanctions when users demand sanctions for comments when they feel free to dish out similar or worse comments themselves. We cannot have collaborative editing when one editor feels he is constantly under attack but restrained from making what he sees as reasonable or equivalent comments, and we cannot have collaborative editing when other editors attempt to use sanction enforcement in lieu of collaborative discussion. If there is a problem with the behavior of a user that requires sanctions, then uninvolved editors and administrators can address it without the same group of involved parties demanding sanctions over and over again for months.

• So this is an attempt to level the playing field, to calm tensions, and to return the focus to editing instead of gamesmanship with sanctions. I've let this sit for a couple days because I was incredibly busy with the Signpost, but I wanted to gauge the awareness of the problem among involved parties and the acceptability of this measure by uninvolved parties. Disappointingly, most of the involved parties still maintain their battle lines. However, the involved parties appear to be largely in agreement. Take note of User:Chillum's comment above: "the solution most likely to result in an encyclopedia." I hope he is correct and that this solution will nudge the matter back towards what should be our goal here.

• I'm going to log the sanction and officially inform the users now. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 13 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 NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EncyclopediaBob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

NorthBySouthBaranof (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#NorthBySouthBaranof_topic-banned :

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

All edits concern Lena Dunham, the subject of several of gender-related controversies:

1. 3/12/15 Regarding accusations of campus rape
2. 3/12/15 The policing of women's sexuality and feminism
3. 3/12/15 Regarding accusations of campus rape
4. 3/12/15 Regarding conflict between "conservative white men" and "feminists" (note removed text)
5. 2/25/15 Regarding accusations of campus rape

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2/11/15 Violation of topic ban, unsanctioned according to HJ Mitchell only because it was stale.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:NorthBySouthBaranof continually toes the line of his topic ban [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] now stepping far over.

• Upon his first edits to this article on 2/25/15, in the interests of avoiding arbitration I left this notice [73] on his talk page.

• Upon these most recent edits, again I left a notice rather than bring an arbitration request [74]. That notice was reverted and apparently only encouraged further edits.

He's been advised several times by respected editors to disengage but maintains he will "not be silenced and intimidated" [75] [76] [77] despite the topic ban, as his most recent edits prove. Given the ineffectiveness of the topic ban I suggest a temporary site ban to prevent future violations, and a reversion of the article to its previous state.

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I'd suggest that notifying you personally and civilly not once but twice over several weeks before bringing this request is exactly the opposite of "stir[ring] up drama".

@Bishonen: @Konveyor Belt: I specifically limited my diffs to feminism (and its opposition) and campus rape, which the commenting arbs all agree [78] is within the scope of the DS. I genuinely appreciate your assumption of good faith but I didn't intend to stretch the scope whatsoever. Even narrowly construed I believe these edits fall within it. And I find it difficult to take NorthBySouthBaranof's incredulity that Gamergate sanctions apply to this article sincerely, when the discussion on his talk page prompted by my post last month [79] suggested it with reasonable arguments, and the arbs comments in the above clarification request just yesterday (a discussion in which NorthBySouthBaranof participated) [80] removed any doubt. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice

Discussion concerning NorthBySouthBaranof[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 NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

The article in question is the biography of a notable woman. I have edited the article to conform with basic policies, and intend to continue to expand the biography in keeping with basic policies. It is notable that I have identified at least one user with a demonstrated vendetta against the article subject, and who has expressed a continued desire to "fix" Dunham's article in a negative manner.

The reporting user is a single-purpose account with eight substantive articlespace contributions but a vast array of talk-page edits, noticeboard postings and general support of Gamergate-related subjects, leaping directly into encyclopedia politics from the minute they arrived. I submit that the reporting user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to stir up drama and conflict. The statements of mine they cite re "disengagement" have nothing to do with the article in question — rather, they have to do with the subject of Gamergate. It is demonstrable that I have disengaged from Gamergate. Lena Dunham's article has absolutely nothing to do with Gamergate.

The only way in which this possibly could be said to relate to the topic ban is that Lena Dunham is a woman who has written about being a victim of sexual assault. Does ArbCom intend for my topic ban to encompass every woman or man who has ever written about sexual assault, or been the victim of sexual assault, or reported on sexual assault, or discussed sexual assault? Is that truly the case? If so, let ArbCom be clear that for alleged transgressions on an article about a video game controversy, it intends for me to be indefinitely prohibited from editing a vast array of articles about or relating to women (and men). If that is the case, you need to be entirely and thoroughly clear that the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee believes anyone who has ever been sexually assaulted, written about sexual assault, reported on sexual assault, prosecuted sexual assault, studied sexual assault, portrayed a victim of sexual assault on stage or screen, etc. etc. etc. has willingly or unwillingly become part of a "gender-related controversy." The topic ban would thus extend from The Vagina Monologues to Oprah Winfrey, A Time to Kill (1996 film) to Lady Gaga, Teri Hatcher to Tyler Perry, Nevada Barr to the University of Idaho. I submit that such is absurdly overbroad, unfairly unenforceable and wholly unnecessary to the purpose of the Gamergate controversy arbitration case.

Konveyor Belt, you contradict yourself quite thoroughly here: That's false, and only would give more journalists more cannon fodder. ArbCom does not need to do any such thing, in fact, they already have. If my statement is false and "only would give more journalists more cannon fodder," then it is not true. If, on the other hand, ArbCom already has done such a thing, then they ought to be quite clear and explicit about it, regardless of what journalists might say about it. If sexual assault is a "gender-related controversy," and thus I am banned from literally every single article which might possibly touch on sexual assault, the Arbitration Committee has a responsibility to make that clear, so that I might immediately appeal it directly to Jimmy Wales as impossibly overbroad, unenforceable, unfair and wholly unnecessary to the purpose of the case. You are basically saying that the ArbCom should make a decision but not be explicit about it out of fear that "journalists" might criticize that decision. When one makes such a public decision, one cannot shirk public responsibility for that decision. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Konveyor Belt (uninvolved)[edit]

@NBSB: If that is the case, you need to be entirely and thoroughly clear that the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee believes anyone who has ever been sexually assaulted, written about sexual assault, reported on sexual assault, prosecuted sexual assault, studied sexual assault, has willingly or unwillingly become part of a "gender-related controversy." That's false, and only would give more journalists more cannon fodder. ArbCom does not need to do any such thing, in fact, they already have.

You were tbanned under the standard tban as defined in the case as Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

As stated in MarkBernstein's ARCA request by the arbs, sexual assault is pretty clearly a gender related area. Nobody, including the ArbCom, needs to define that. The very definition of sexual assault and the resulting controversies prove that pretty well. And per C, Lena Dunham is thus someone associated with a gender-related dispute or controversy. KonveyorBelt 18:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: By passing the standard TBAN definition, they have already said as much. I'm pretty sure they knew what they were doing, and they meant to ban you from gender related issues, not just GG, of which sexual assault is inherently one of them. There is no need for any additional formal motions or clarifications on the subject because they would not be adding or amending anything. That's what I meant by "they have already decided it". KonveyorBelt 19:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have added things since I started replying, so I'll reply again. If sexual assault is a "gender-related controversy," and thus I am banned from literally every single article which might possibly touch on sexual assault, the Arbitration Committee has a responsibility to make that clear. That's ok. You have every right to know to what degree the ban extends. But if they told you as much, nothing would change. No additional amendments or motions are needed, because it was already in the decision from day 1.

On whether the ban is too broad and whether it is warranted: I'd say it's fairly warranted, as after the TBAN you have remained on articles like Lena Dunham that vaguely involve gender, endlessly wikilawyered over the ban (which is allowed per BANEX, but still tendentious), and even redacted BLP violations from the GG talk page which is also allowed by BANEX, but shows you are still involved in the area and still had it on your watchlist. This shows a disregard for the spirit of the rule, if not the letter, which was intended to get you to edit elsewhere. KonveyorBelt 19:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bishonen: It is pretty silly to think the ban extends to all women. It is supposed to be broad, but not ridiculous. KonveyorBelt 19:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]

Contrary to common sense it appears the ArbCom is going all in on their "we value the semblance of non-disruption and editors who are the target of coordinated outside disruption need to be purged" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston: Superior orders and all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was asked to remove the reference above to admins hiding behind an "I was only following orders." defense. I will not.

"Gamergaters were ultimately unable to use Wikipedia to assert their views as if they were objective reality. Still, Wikipedia lost the very people who were trying to guard the gates in the first place. What happens to the next victim of a Wikipedia harassment campaign if the defenders are getting squeezed out through this pox-on-both-your-houses system?"

Admins in fact have policy: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. to state "There was a bad idea paving the way for organized disruption of the project and I will not play a part in institutionalizing it. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Cailil[edit]

Sorry Bish but you're wrong on this one. The Lena Dunham diffs are topic ban violations. The mix of BLP, controversy and gender issues is clearly there[81][82]. Anyone banned under ARBGG's ruling should not be making these kinds of edits--Cailil ^talk 22:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rhoark[edit]

NorthBySouthBaranof is a valuable defender of innocent people from BLP violations; however, in their zeal they seem to have good faith difficulty interpreting the terms of their topic ban. The purpose of the broad scope of the ban is to prevent the same behavioral issues from being exported to new pages. That is exactly what has happened here, in terms of a zeal for BLP causing unwillingness to recognize other points of view, along with blanking discussions in a way not justified by WP:BLPTALK[83]. I'm in favor of extending WP:ROPE with the understanding that for BLP issues where there's a shred of doubt whether WP:BANEX applies NorthBySouth will bring it to [[84]] or other appropriate avenues. Rhoark (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EncyclopediaBob is undoubtedly a SPA, has canvassed, and is perhaps deserving of a boomerang from this filing. The proper form for that would be a temporary topic ban. @MastCell: blocking on the basis of a hunch of sockpuppetry is beyond the pale. No evidence has been presented that he is an alternate account, or that if it is alternate that its use is an improper one (deception or disruption). It may be a proper alternate, a quick study, someone with experience as an IP, or a fresh start (to which users are entitled). If you're unconvinced, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations exists for that reason. Rhoark (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (anonymous)[edit]

I can find very little of substance in NorthBySouthBaranof's response here, nor those of the people defending him. The filer's contribution history is not relevant to the truth of the claims; and anyway would anyone really be satisfied if the motion were to be re-opened by someone else? Seems to me like we all know how that sort of thing usually goes - "stop forum-shopping"; "this repeated action is harassment" etc. As for the WP:NOTHERE charge, I can hardly imagine an act which contributes more to Wikipedia than ensuring that disruptive editors are justly sanctioned. (Well, one could directly clean up the mess, but that's a little harder to do when it's caused by a more established editor than the one noticing the problem.)

It ought to be obvious, to anyone who has been paying attention, how Lena Dunham is connected to gender-based controversy. Her book specifically relates her experiences as a woman; she has been accused of sexual abuse - an accusation which is clearly controversial and which many believe would be treated differently if she were a man; and her allegation of sexual assault apparently led to a witch-hunt of an innocent man - again seen by many as a men's rights issue. (I also note here that Wikipedia appears to have an interesting habit of consistently identifying "conservative" sources as such, while not applying the tag "liberal" similarly; and this is clearly evident in the case of the Lena Dunham article. Of course I do not mean to bring a content dispute here, but it's meaningful context - the informed observer will note a very strong tendency, in gender-related controversies, for "feminists" to be identified with liberalism and "MRAs" with conservatism, regardless of the accuracy of those statements.)

Arbcom's decision was clear, and deliberate. The prohibition on "gender-related controversy, broadly construed" is certainly and obviously not meant to apply to all individuals connected to sexual assault claims. However, it strains credulity to imagine that NorthBySouthBaranof honestly cannot see how Lena Dunham is not "just another victim" in this regard. There is nothing controversial about Oprah Winfrey's speaking out about being molested as a child, and it was nearly 3 decades ago. Lena Dunham's book is current, and there is plenty of plainly evident controversy.

Regarding defenders, I'm especially bothered by the apparent lack of civility on @TheRedPenOfDoom:'s part. Referring to "purges" and "superior orders" seems like rather deliberately constructed imagery. But anyway, these vague claims of coordinated outside disruption seem unproductive. Arbcom already considered several arguments about such harassment at great length before making their decision. It was assuredly taken into account, and further complaints can, as far as I'm concerned, really only be interpreted as whining. Or perhaps he has new evidence here? Care to point to where exactly, externally, my specific comments in this case have been solicited?

76.64.12.157 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by coldacid[edit]

Of the linked, non-stale diffs provided by the complainant, only one does not directly deal with sexual controversy in the Lena Dunham article. It's honestly baffling to me that anyone would not consider them such. We've already gone over all this in WP:ARCA regarding GG discretionary sanctions and campus rape versus the scope of the GG topic ban.

Were the edits purely deletionary with regard to possible BLP violations, then they would fall under WP:BANEX but from what I observed, there is actual content editing beyond simply removing BLP vios in those diffs. Given the opinions from some of the admins below and from the ARCA discussion, I believe NBSB should be formally warned, at a minimum, that this behaviour is a violation of his topic ban. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

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

• No violation in my opinion. It's true that the standard topic ban is itself extremely (in my opinion overly) broad, including as it does the wording "any gender-related dispute or controversy". But I still can't believe the committee intended for gamergate-topic banned editors to be excluded from all articles about high-profile women, or even (per NBSB above) all articles about high-profile women who claim to have been raped. I suppose somebody could file a request for clarification, but it might be simpler if we could hear from some arbs here; pinging Dougweller, Roger Davies, GorillaWarfare. The OP is probably in good faith, but he/she shouldn't stretch "broadly construed" out to the breadth of the solar system. I note also that NBSB is protecting the article against those who would use it as a vehicle for attacking the subject, compare [85]. I've revdel'd the offending post, but admins can read it here. (Please scroll down, the worst stuff is near the bottom.) Banning NBSB from articles like this one would be doing their subjects, and Wikipedia, a disfavor. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Additional comment: @ the "anonymous" IP. What do you mean by "my specific comments in this case"? Who are you? You're obviously not a new editor. Logging out to accuse opponents of "whining" is disruptive. I've blocked your IP for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• Though single admins can issue tailored bans that don't cover the entire topic area, NBSB's topic ban comes directly from Arbcom. So we have no discretion to let NBSB edit campus rape articles. If the Committee considers campus rape a gender-related topic, then there is no recourse for NBSB short of WP:ARCA. Notice that this complaint asserts a violation of the Gamergate decision not WP:BLPBAN. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Bishonen: I know you didn't ping me, and I'm speaking only for myself, not officially for the Committee, but in my own opinion, yes, items which are both controversial and gender-related are covered by the topic ban, just as it is worded. The Dunham edits in this case would be covered under that. Also, as a general reminder to other topic-banned editors in this area, exceptions to topic bans are deliberately narrow. It does include commenting on an enforcement request against oneself for the specific purpose of defending oneself (not for the purpose of general discussion of the issue, only for defending oneself), but it absolutely does not include commenting or opining on an enforcement request against another editor covered under the same topic ban where sanctions against oneself are not proposed. Such comments are in and of themselves ban violations, and topic-banned editors may not participate in such requests as third parties, as that is prohibited participation in the topic area. That has been happening frequently in this area, including at this request, and must stop. I decline to advocate any particular result here, but hope that's somewhat helpful. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree with the committee's so far unanimous view at ARCA that these edits fall within the scope of the topic ban, and I think an enforcement action is in order. T. Canens (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with HJ Mitchell's suggestion below that a reminder is sufficient in this instance. T. Canens (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have avoided this topic area for a number of reasons, so I can't profess intimate familiarity with ArbCom case law on the subject. That said, I cannot believe that it makes sense to sanction NorthBySouthBaranof for the edits in question to Lena Dunham. If that is how ArbCom intended the sanctions to work, then I refuse to enforce them in this case, although of course my administrative colleagues are free to do as they see fit. I do think it's clear that neither the spirit nor the letter of the decision permits the creation of throwaway single-purpose accounts like EncyclopediaBob (talk · contribs) designed to pursue wikilitigation in this topic area, and so I have blocked that account indefinitely for violating the relevant policy. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I have mixed feelings here. NBSB's edits here were clearly to benefit of the encyclopaedia, and he was attempting prevent harm caused by an editor with strong negative views about the subject; it's also accurate to say that he has largely stepped away from gamergate itself, and he comes across as much calmer now than he did at the height of the dispute (though the same is probably true of me!) and I think he might have learnt when it's best to step back and get more eyes on a situation rather than get into edit wars or heated arguments. Prior to the topic ban NBSB was in tunnel vision; he was edit-warring and arguing and generally making things even more difficult and although he did valuable work in keeping libel and other obvious rubbish out of the articles, he was by the end incapable of distinguishing between good-faith opponents and libellous/misognynistic trolls. The topic ban was, though, deliberately broadly crafted to prevent gamergate nonsense being imported to similar topic areas and to prevent parties from re-fighting the same fight on related articles, as happens all too frequently. This comment from Carrite concisely sums up my concerns (although I dislike the tone)—essentially I worry that NBSB would slip back into the same mode that got him into trouble on gamergate.

  For that reason, I think NBSB's continued editing of that article is not a good idea, and I agree that Lena Dunham, and that content in particular, would be covered by (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. The last thing anyone wants is for that article (or any other) to become the next gamergate. That said, I think NBSB was sincere in his belief that the article wasn't covered by his topic ban, so I recommend no enforcement action beyond informal words of advice. This time. Obviously if NBSB doesn't heed the advice now that he's got clarification, we would be a lot less understanding next time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Taking the arbs' point of view for a sec: It's impossible to win. It's hard to craft a narrow topic ban because many editors will find a way to disrupt things in areas clearly just outside the topic ban. And so the editor is constantly brought to a noticeboard somewhere to get the scope of the topic ban expanded. So people get annoyed and say "please don't make topic bans so narrow". Except they word it differently, cursing and implying you're an asshole for crafting such a narrow topic ban. So you craft a broad topic ban, and then editors make helpful edits on topics that would be outside a narrow topic ban and are inside the broad topic ban, and get in trouble, and people say "please don't make topic bans so broad". Except they word it differently, cursing and implying you're an asshole for crafting such a broad topic ban. Present company excepted, of course.

A topic ban is fundamentally a shortcut, a way of saying "we're tired of having to argue all the time about whether each individual edit of yours in a given topic is good or bad, so just screw it: you can't make any edits in this area." As a shortcut, it's not crazy to make the topic area broad, but it's guaranteed to end up causing problems at the boundaries, just like narrow topic bans are guaranteed to end up causing problems.

One way to at least ease the pain this inevitably causes is to use some modicum of restraint and judgment. Just like a cop isn't going to pull someone over for going 37 in a 35 zone, we should generally turn a blind eye towards a 100% clearly justifiable edit that might break the broad topic ban but fixes a clear BLP issue, and is reported by a cowardly throwaway account of some editor who was likely banned or topic banned themselves.

So I suggest closing this with the result being: "Meh". Or maybe "Mu". Not an official endorsement (although I think 100% of us endorse the actual edit itself), not an official warning, just a "throwaway sock isn't going to win this time". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 13 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 MarkBernstein[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:45, 13 March 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 (discretionary sanctions):

Dreadstar: [86] "Due to your continued comments about other editors [87], I'm imposing upon you a 90-day ban on all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate."

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

1. 10 March Statement WP:SPAMLINKs Bernstein's own blog "benefit our pals." Linked site is a discussion of Gamergate.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 3 Jan Block for prior violation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Timotheus Canens: Prior to filing I asked @Roger Davies: where to file and was told "AE is best" [88] NE Ent 09:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[89]

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]