Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:02, 16 September 2016

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337

Philip Cross

Closed with no action taken. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Philip Cross

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Philip Cross (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: DS 1RR restriction on Jeremy Corbyn [1]

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

5 Sept, 10:57, "Reverted good faith edits by MShabazz (talk)" revert obvious in the edit summary
6 Sept., 10:04 "+ citation about Corbyn's association with alleged antisemites & Holocaust deniers (*one^ sentence on this issue, plus citation, is not tendentious one would have thought)", is a revert by virtue of restoring mention of Corbyn's alleged "anti-Semitism", previously added twice by Philip Cross on 2 Sept. e.g. here (immediately following deletion by a different editor). The edit summary of this most recent edit shows awareness that there have been previous attempts to add something along these lines.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The second revert uses a different source (i.e., not the same as with his first attempt to add this material on 2 Sept.). But it is a revert all the same insofar as it attempts to have the Jeremy Corbyn article include implication of the idea that he is an anti-Semite (has been accused of, is indifferent to, etc.). Different sources and different ways of expressing the idea don't hide the underlying impulse here. Also worth noting is that the issue is under discussion on the talk page ([2]), where it's entirely evident that there is no consensus to add a particular passage along these lines.

Finally, attempt to raise the point with the editor on his talk page did not succeed: [3].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Philip Cross

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 Philip Cross

Most of the other users on the talkpage opposing any mention of the issue of Jeremy Corbyn and the antisemitism issue are stonewalling in my opinion, and unable to acknowledge any other viewpoint as being valid. The citation ‎Nomoskedasticity mentions was on 2 September, not within the last 24 years. In the 2 September addition, I did not claim Corbyn is "indifferent" to the issue in the article itself, nor make a direct claim about his attitudes. The objection of other users is to a tweet I added by the Times journalist Oliver Kamm (cited to a reliable source) and is a matter of interpretation over which there is disagreement. The issue of Corbyn's past association with (quoting from my edit today which Nomoskedasticity cites) "alleged antisemites and Holocaust deniers" has repeatedly been referred to in the British media, and internationally, yet other editors cannot accept this is notable and should be included in the main Corbyn article. My new mention of this issue consists of one sentence, and a citation. Hardly excessive. There is a related issue concerning the talkpage discussion. Many editors are unwilling to countenance the inclusion in the article of the issue of online sexist and homophobic, as well as antisemite abuse, by people who claim to be Corbyn's supporters. The issue of Corbyn's apparent inability to deal with the abuse issue has again frequently been raised. For instance, by many of the former shadow ministers who resigned from Labour's shadow cabinet last June, other Labour MPs who were among the 172 who supported a motion of no confidence in Corbyn, and commentators in the media. Since this complaint was filed, I have added Corbyn's responses. I usually add opposing views, or opinions I do not share, in such instances. The Labour Party is split over the issue of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, probably the most serious crisis the party has faced in more than 80 years (the party had a major split in 1931, and a more minor one in 1981), with a new split being openly discussed because of Corbyn's leadership, yet this article barely touches on any of this. Philip Cross (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

If this was a WP:1RR violation, it was pretty minor and borderline. There's lots of discussion on the talkpage, both before and since. Normal content dispute procedures are being followed. Suggest closing with no action. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Philip Cross

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

It's late here so apologies if I'm missing something obvious. ~~I see DS are on this page--presumably with the BLP DS area?--but where was the 1RR restriction imposed?~~ Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As expected, I missed the diff that showed the 1RR restriction. I'll take a look more in-depth soon. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based off the little evidence presented, I'm inclined to agree with Kingsindian. Unless someone strongly disagrees, I think this should be closed with no action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek

No action taken. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) : request 2 month topic ban on articles related to the 2016 U.S. elections.

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

00:39, 15 August 2016 "...your previous source - the Clinton Cash book - has been shown to be fringe nutjobbery."
16:04, 6 September 2016 ""Clinton Cash". A fringe far right conspiracy theory book."
05:17, 6 September 2016 "No, the extent of coverage between this and the email "controversy" is tremendous. It's mountain vs. molehill. Most of this article consists of POV laden WP:SYNTHESIS. The only sources really are a single AP story and then several stories slamming that AP story. And yes, the purpose of this article is solely to circumvent consensus on the Clinton Foundation article. The POV is obvious and obnoxious. As is the WP:GAMEing. This is also a cynical attempt to do a run around discretionary sanctions on American Politics articles. The creator of this article - and you as well - know from experience that adding garbage content to an existing article can be challenged, and then it is up to the person wishing to add it to get consensus for inclusion. It's painfully obvious that most of the content of this thing would not get such consensus. So you guys went and created a separate article for all the junk you know you wouldn't be able to get into the legitimate article. This is disruptive behavior, clear and simple, and it's actually fairly stunning in its cynicism and disrespect for Wikipedia policy."
14:14, 25 August 2016 "How are we gonna deal with that? Man, this guy makes the life of a Wikipedia editor hard."

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 06:35 25 July 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The following comments are in explanation of the edit differences provided above:

Clinton Cash is a book by Peter Schweizer and published by HarperCollins. The book was reviewed in the New York Times[5] and other mainstream media. The Times review said, "“Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling [than other books about the Clintons], both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book."

While the author is a conservative and his analysis of the Clintons may differ from liberal observers, there is no suggestion that he is far right, a conspiracy theorist or a nutjob.

Volunteer Marek's tone has also been abrasive and dismissive in speaking about other editors and the Republican presidential nominee.

I asked Volunteer Marek to remove his comments on Clinton Cash,[6] which he rejected.[7]

TFD (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, referring to an established journalist and author as a nutjob right-wing conspiracy theorist is in my opinion defamatory or at least a violation of biography of living persons policy since it impugns the integrity or judgment of someone whose career is based on a reputation for integrity and judgment. It is also an attack on the publisher, because reputable publishers do not publish such works, which is why they are reputable and their reputation is a key element in their success. Ironically, your objection to Clinton Cash was that "BLP applies," in that case that we could not "add this junk" which you saw as prejudicial to living persons. (18:16, 14 August 2016) Your comments on Trump ("Man, this guy makes the life of a Wikipedia editor hard.") shows a personal preference against him, yet in the previous edit above, you accuse other editors of being so influenced by political bias that it affects their judgment. TFD (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

23:23, 6 September 2016

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

Sigh. So you can get dragged to AE now for criticizing a ... book. While other editors run around Wikipedia creating POVFORKs and game the DS system. Right. Here's links about the book (already provided in relevant discussion plus some more) Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes Clinton Cash: errors dog Bill and Hillary exposé – but is there any 'there' there?, [8]. According to the Guardian "the book is an unrestrained attack on the former president and first lady." Sources - though obviously not all - do call it a "conspiracy theory"

Anyway, why is this even being brought up to AE? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I genuinely have no idea what is suppose to be wrong in this diff presented by The Four Deuces. I'm sorry, you lost me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it's expressing an opinion about the quality a source. An opinion which is actually shared by other reliable sources. Stop being silly. Or WP:BOOMERANG for obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timothyjosephwood

I ~~stalk~~ watch most of these articles. This seems like a silly report mostly for expressing a dissenting opinion, although somewhat lacking in tact. VM has made numerous BOLD but beneficial edits on these and related pages. If we're coming to ArbCom, we should be doing so with more than hurt feelings for talk page posts. TimothyJosephWood 00:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

WP:ARBAPDS remedies are intended to address behavioral issues like edit warring, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system. The diffs presented as violations of these remedies don't nearly justify arbitration enforcement. What I see here is legitimate criticism of sources and pushback on what is arguable a fruit salad of an article, the purpose of which may be to cast a living person in a negative light. While Marek's passion could stand to be dialed down a notch or two, nothing evident here, in the article talk page, or the article edit history, rises to the level of a sanctionable offense in my opinion.- Mr X 14:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I think Marek was right on the essence of the issue. In particular, Peter Schweizer was described by Media Matters for America as someone who "has a disreputable history of reporting marked by errors and retractions, with numerous reporters excoriating him for facts that "do not check out," sources that "do not exist," and a basic failure to practice "Journalism 101." (see here). My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

The article in question is crap and it was created by experienced editors whose history shows they're smart enough to understand the SYNTH, OR, BLP slams, and failed Verification they put up. They were also well aware of ARBAP2 and BLP discretionary sanctions. What's infuriating is that Arbcom/Admins are looking the other way while preposterous POV-pushing is proliferating. Even the few Admins who venture a peek say "just a content dispute" or some other reason to turn their backs. This article should have been aborted as soon as it went up. Who really wants to waste time pretending this is normal content editing editors who should long ago have been TBANned from American Politics continue to game the system? We're nowhere near the election in WP-time and if the sanctions are not enforced 2016 is going to make past political dust-ups look like a picnic. Kudos to Marek for trying to do the right thing. Oh gee, he's peeved. We should all be peeved and worse. SPECIFICO talk 11:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

I'm struggling to see what the point of this report is or what the sanctionable behavior is supposed to be. Suggest a rapid closure unless someone sees something I don't. --Laser brain (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who had some concerns about VM in a previous AE request... I find this completely vacuous. Their comments are reasonable points about controversial content; nothing was disruptive, not even angry, really. Agree with Laser brain-- close with no action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss

User:Makeandtoss is advised that marking places as being in the State of Palestine may expose him to ARBPIA sanctions unless he gets consensus. Warring about the scope of designations such as Israel, the West Bank, or Palestine is not recommended for anyone. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Makeandtoss (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/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :

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

10:55 Sep 6 First Reversion
9:56 Sep 7 1RR from WB to Palestine
9:57 Sep 7 Continuing revisions
9:57 Sep 7 Again...

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I am not sure, but I think user was blocked or TBANNED previously.

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

I couldn't find the specific template, but user is aware of sanctions. There was a discussion on his page and Arb. Drmies mentioned it to him. User_talk:Makeandtoss/Archive_1#January_2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is about a site located in the West Bank. Since calling it State of Palestine is POV, I changed it to West Bank since that is technically where the location is. I then continued to expand the page finding live links, adding more refs, etc. User then came back with his NPOV edit and edit summary.

It would be the same POV if I said Israel, which would not be allowed. I even made a suggestion of removing West Bank and just labeling it in the Jordan Valley, since a few sentences down it mentions the West Bank, but calling this part of the State of Palestine, and not even Palestine (region) is extreme POV.

To Makeandtoss, you violated 1RR not necessarily 3RR. There were also around 10 edits in between your edit and your first reversion. As for the category, that is funny, considering that the article has a Tourism in the Sate of Palestine cat already.

Tracy McClark is being a little disingenuous with the numbers and reverts. My initial edit wasn't a revert, I then modified it to make it more neutral, and that is not a revert, making two edits in a row is not counted especially since I was improving the neutrality and making small edits to the article. All one has to do is view history to see the truth.

Nishidani, I added that cat only because there was a cat for the Palestine one. You need both to be NPOV. What Cliftonian suggested on his userpage was a cat for Tourism in the West Bank. It might get convoluted but it should work since anything else is POV.

Since Cliftonian has published a modified version that is more neutral, I withdraw my complaint. I'm not here to have anyone sanctioned, so this can be closed since the article has a more tolerable and neutral wording.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMakeandtoss&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=738196630

Discussion concerning Makeandtoss

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 Makeandtoss

I did not revert three times, I reverted once because there are no intermediate edits by anyone.

State of Palestine is recognized by 136 (70.5%) (more than two thirds) of the 193 member states of the United Nations. Meanwhile, Israeli occupation of West Bank is not recognized by anyone, not even the USA/EU/UN. I fail to see how you can make that resemblance. I fail to see how you think its OK to this as a site in Israel but not as a site in the State of Palestine? Neutral you said? Interesting. --Makeandtoss (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TracyMcClark

How about turning the focus on the filer's 3 reverts within 24 hours?

Initial revert/content here

1st revert here

2nd revert here, here

3rd revert here (added twice today)

Statement by Nishidani

Sir Joe, you have a right to challenge editors who prefer ‘State of Palestine’ for anything in the West Bank. But when you reverting them on this, while adding a cat for Tourism in Israel you are contradicting yourself, and reality. All Israelis know that the West Bank is not in Israel. Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Polentarion

I would prefer if the parties involved referred to a Wikipedia:Third opinion or other peaceful means instead of asking for a Enforcement. Thnx. I succeded in cooperation with Makeandtoss on the other sice of the Jordan, at the Al-Maghtas article. I think that both sides of the debate here have not been acting properly. Don't go into detail of the overall conflict, check what the category means. I guess that 'Tourism in israel' is just about the tourism managed by the Israel ministry of tourism and does not imply a decision about the appropriate ruler of the territory. Polentarion Talk 14:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Makeandtoss

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

If we start to see many reverts between 'Israel' and 'Palestine' terminology it may be proper to put the ARBPIA template on the talk page. People should take a look at the current state of Tourism in the Palestinian Territories, which I consider very neutrally worded. Check out how they refer to the major sites. They are usually described as being in the West Bank, and not in Israel nor the State of Palestine. How to describe these places is a matter for consensus and not to be decided by admins, but if we see continued warring I guess we will need to enforce 1RR. To me, it seems provocative to put Category:Tourism in Israel on this article, while it seems innocuous to put Category:Tourism in the West Bank. One way to close this might be to warn people of blocks if they change the categorization again without consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would close this with a warning to User:Makeandtoss that if he continues to mark West Bank locations as being in the State of Palestine, without getting a prior talk page consensus to do so, he may be blocked or topic banned. In the past we are used to editors supporting the Israeli side trying to extend their turf into the West Bank, and in this case an editor who appears to favor the Palestinian side doing the opposite. If Wikipedia starts to mark places as being in the State of Palestine a large number of article leads would have to change, and I see no immediate prospect of such a change being agreed to. So far we have an article on the State of Palestine; see its talk page for status. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. User:Makeandtoss is warned he should get consensus before marking places as being in the State of Palestine. Wikipedia's handling of contested geography is a possible venue for the I/P dispute, but admins may take action if it continues there. Changes need discussion and agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Kamel Tebaast

Appeal declined, though the topic ban expired during the time the request was here at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Kamel Tebaast 00:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 30-Day Topic Ban

Administrator imposing the sanction: Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Notification

Statement by Kamel Tebaast

As I understand, Wikipedia’s appeal process is similar to a parole hearing. The prisoner/editor should take full responsibility for his/her crimes/policy violations, not blame anyone, embody full contrition while showing an eagerness to improve, and promise not to repeat the crimes/disruptive patterns that led to the imprisonment/block or ban.

However, I still do not understand how I violated policies in order to be sanctioned, let alone given a 30-day topic ban. I suggest that getting banned while not understanding why only promotes recidivism. I believe that I stayed within Wikipedia’s WP:BOLD and WP:BRD policies, while it seemed that policy guidelines were not followed in terms of possible (uninvolved editor/administrator) warnings, intervention, or proper discussion about any editing problems prior to my being sanctioned. I brought an editor to AE, and I ended up being topic banned. Experiencing WP:BOOMERANG firsthand is like living Kafka’s The Trial.

During the AE, Nishidani leveled many accusations against my editing and me. I will address only two specific areas of editing prior to my being topic-ban:

1.Kibbutz Beit Alpha

A persistent thread runs throughout Wikipedia that Jews illegally stole Arab land in (pre-1948) Palestine (and that it continues today in Israel, but that discussion is for another forum). With that background, there was a sentence in Kibbutz Beit Alpha’s lede that read:

The kibbutz as well as the archaeological site nearby containing the remains of an ancient synagogue, got their name from the Arab village that once stood here, Khirbet Bait Ilfa.^[1]

In examining the source, I learned that the exact quote is:

"The city is named after the nearby ruins of Khirbet Beit Ilfa; it shows no occupation before the Roman period."

In other words, the kibbutz does not sit on top of what was once an abandoned Arab village. Subsequently, I deleted the sentence.

In Talk, more sources were provided (confirmed by Nishidani here) that the village of Khirbet Beit Ilfa was nearby Beit Alpha, not below (as was written in the previous article). In the same discussion I learned from Nishidani that had I simply changed 'that once stood on the site' to 'nearby’, my edit would have been acceptable. In any case, I dealt with those issues in Talk, acquiesced, became a catalyst for change to improve the article, and I added the following line in the Geography section (that still stands):

“The kibbutz was founded near an abandoned Arab village, Khirbet Bait Ilfa...”

However, a recent Nishidani edit in the History section reads:

“The kibbutz as well as the archaeological site with the remains of the synagogue nearby took their name from the abandoned Arab village, Khirbet beit Ilfa, which once stood on the site.” [Emphasis mine.]

The sources state that the abandoned village was “nearby” and Nishidani knows it. Is this not POV-pushing? Is that not disruptive editing? Is Lord Roem not “troubled” by this?

I believe that my edits in the Beit Alpha article do not in any way exhibit a pattern of disruptive editing, and further show that I am willing to engage in dialogue and edit with consensus while improving articles.

2. Yasser Arafat

To many people globally, not just Israelis, Yasser Arafat was first known as a terrorist before he marketed himself/was elevated (however one views it) as a statesman of peace. I also understand that consensus trumps facts on Wikipedia. Yet Arafat’s lede is written and sourced to portray him almost entirely as a humanitarian. That is hardly neutral. His Nobel Prize is highlighted with virtually no violent history preceding it.

The entire lede is POV, pushing toward a Palestinian nationalism viewpoint: “popularly known as”, “was a Palestinian leader”, “He was Chairman of…”, “President of…”, “and leader of…”, “he founded”, “he modified his position”, “faced off with”, “...engaged in a series of negotiations with the government of Israel to end the decades-long conflict between it and the PLO”, “received the Nobel Peace Prize”, “after effectively being confined within his Ramallah compound for over two years by the Israeli army”, and “The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people”.

Where is the neutrality from this career? Even when there is a hint that Arafat had a violent history, his organization, Fatah, is given the modifier “former paramilitary group”.

In the entire 350-plus-word lede, the term for what Arafat was known as, “terrorist”, appears once—the last word. Even then it was “balanced” by framing it that only Israelis (the bad guys) believe it.

With this background, my first edit on Arafat’s page read:

“As History's biography wrote, "For two decades the PLO launched bloody attacks on Israel, and Arafat gained a reputation as a ruthless terrorist".[5]

Nishidani reverted my edit for, “Fails RS; adopts the nonRS POV; duplicates higherup the POV given below, without the other POV for balance”.

I did not revert Nishidani’s edit nor did I edit-war with him. Rather, I took his direction and I reviewed the sentence that he referred to in his revert. It read:

“Arafat remains a controversial figure. The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people, while many Israelis have described him as an unrepentant terrorist.[8][9]”

That sentence’s POV, as I discussed with Nishidani in the Talk page, is heavily weighted toward the Palestinian nationalism cause. Here are the reasons:

“majority of the Palestinians” vs. “many Israelis”. Doing the math, many could mean a few hundred people, while majority of Palestinians means millions. In essence, this could mean, subtly, that only a few hundred people view Arafat as an unrepentant terrorist.
The belief that he was an unrepentant terrorist has been limited only to Israelis while a plethora of sources show that many globally also view him as a “terrorist”. Source Source Source Source Source Source Source
Five aspects pertaining to Arafat’s stature were given pushing the Palestinian POV:

“heroic”
“freedom fighter”
“martyr”
“regardless of political ideology or faction”
“symbolized the national aspirations of his people”

Only one was given from a large and opposing and viewpoint: “unrepentant terrorist”.

Other than “many Israelis viewed him as an unrepentant terrorist”, there was virtually nothing in the lede to give any context as to why they viewed him as such. There was virtually nothing written about his decades of murderous attacks, primarily aimed at civilians, which led to the loss of thousands of innocent lives. Therefore, two days following my previous edit in another section, I tried to bring neutrality with this edit:

The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people, while many Israelis and people worldwide have described him as an unrepentant terrorist because of his decades of violence, aimed mostly at civilians.^[2]^[3] [My edit in bold]

Ohnoitsjamie reverted me here with “unnecessary POV.”

I reverted Ohnoitsjamie here based on “Limiting to just Israelis is POV“

Nishidani reverted me here.

Most importantly, I discussed this in Talk here and I made no further edits.

In comparing the aforementioned edits to another editor and his/her edits in the Jewish Voice for Peace article, I made this initial edit:

“JVP endorsed the platform of the Black Lives Matter Movement, which, among other things, accuses Israel of "genocide." Source

Malik Shabazz followed up with what I believe was a revert, adding his/her POV “fixing hyperbolic addition”:

In 2016, JVP endorsed the platform of The Movement for Black Lives, which, in one of its many points, uses the word "genocide" to describe Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. [Bold for MShabazz’s edits]

Epson Salts, clarified here:

For those editors who are having difficulty seeing the 1RR violation:

According to WP:ANEW, "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Kamel Tebaast added this line to the article - 'JVP endorsed the platform of The Black Lives Matter movement, which, among other things, accuses Israel of "genocide" ' Malik's first revert, at 13:03, 7 August 2016 , removes the words "among other things, accuses Israel of " and replaces them with his own formulation. That's the first revert, a partial one, which undoes the work of Kamel.

More importantly--not stated by Epson--M.Shabazz changed Black Lives Matter to the Movement for Black Lives, an entirely different organization. The source did mention that Black Lives Matter endorsed this platform and that BLM is one of the participating organizations in the Movement for Black Lives. However, to paraphrase User:Kingsindian here, had MShabazz simply added the “Movement of Black Lives”, with Black Lives Matter as one of the 50 participating organizations, that would have been an edit. He didn’t. He completely deleted the (household and sometimes controversially recognized) name of Black Lives Matter.

In any case, according to Softlavender, Kingsindian, Nishidani, Drmies, and Lord Roem, M.Shabazz’s edit was not a revert, rather only an edit, yet these same editors and administrators found that my addition on Yasser Arafat was a revert, not an edit.

To be specific, adding “one of its many points” and “to describe Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians” (and deleting and replacing the name of one organization with another) is “editing” while adding “and people worldwide” and “because of his decades of violence, aimed mostly at civilians” is a “revert” and POV-pushing.

This inconsistency that persists throughout Wikipedia regarding a lack of clarity among policies and sanctions, varies among editors and administrators. Even Nishidani wrote: “Now I have always admitted that I have no understanding of 1R, except to think that...I know it's simple, but I can't figure it out.” I surmise that Nishidani’s inability to understand the 1RR is due to the difficulty to differentiate between an edit and a revert.

Wikipedia’s definition of a reversion is “an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button in the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text.”

My entire appeal comes down to two things: 1) Did my initial edit reverse the sentence? 2) Was I POV-pushing?

Another problem

In following WP:BRD, it seems to go in one direction. Edits are made and editors are revert-happy, while the policy clearly states:

Consider reverting only when necessary. Reversion should be a last choice in editing: the first choice in editing should always be to improve an article by refinement, not to revert changes by other editors.

Were there zero merits to my edits? Was there not a way to refine them? Only reverts were made and I, who was simply trying to bring neutrality, was sanctioned for, among other things, disruptive editing.

Sockpuppet: the elephant in the room

Observing the flow of the proceeding when it veered from complaints against MShabazz and turned into an assault on me was an interesting case study that seems to justify legitimate criticism about Wikipedia in general and against administrators in particular.

Ironically, it began with a contribution here by Johnuniq, writing: “There is an ANI report where Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs) (account created on 30 May 2016) uses perfectly formed procedures. Naturally no one can prove anything except for the obvious: WP:ARBPIA is not working.” I wrote “ironically” because Johnuniq reverted my revert of another revert regarding this exact criticism of Wikipedia. [Johnuniq was later reverted and the quote still stands.]

Johnuniq made no comment regarding my editing, just popped in to push forward unfounded accusations against me from another proceeding that I am a sockpuppet, or someone else is a sockpuppet of me. [That gossip was started in another proceeding by an editor who was later banned indefinitely. You can’t make this stuff up.]

During the previous ANI, four editors or administrators agreed with each other to stop unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry:

Robert McClenon: “I suggest that this thread be closed with a warning to Bolter21 that any future allegations of sockpuppetry that are not actually reported at WP:SPI will result in a block.”

Blackmane: “Editors have been blocked in the past for persistent accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence. As the saying goes, "put up or shut up"

Cameron11598: The proof is in the pudding so to speak, if you have evidence for an SPI file one if not stop with the accusations.

Drmies There is no evidence whatsoever that Comment, please is a sock of Kamal (and bringing up a sock in a highly-visible forum is really stupid anyway), and as was said before, put up or shut up. Unfounded sock accusations are frequently used as ammunition in conflicts, but they are a denial of AGF. So don't do it again.

Yet, what happened? Two administrators not only picked up Johnuniq’s statement, but carried it forward. Softlavender wrote:

" I agree with Johnuniq -- the details of that ANI are pretty damning and indeed the OP's entire edit history including this AE is pretty telling.

Bishonen’s entire deliberation revolved around everything other than my editing:

“Kamel Tebaast is obviously not the user's first account, per Johnuniq above and other QUACK-y indications. I'm not sure whether the previous account[s] is/are blocked or topic banned, though it seems likely.” Then Bishonen deduced that I’ve been here for a long time because I knew that M.Shabazz is a former administrator. [I showed Bishonen that I was actually first informed about it here.]

At least Admin Drmies took his/her own advice and didn’t engage in the sockpuppetry accusations.

So, is my 30-day topic ban based on unfounded speculation that I am a sockpuppet, or because of the editing, or both? This is the exact Kafkaesque nonsense that permeates Wikipedia.

The sanction

In terms of the sanction, Kingsindian wrote: “In general, Kamel Tebaast seems amenable to reason and willing to compromise, so I see no reason they can't continue to work productively in this area.”

Nishidani--who leveled most of the accusations against me--wrote:

“...there is no need for draconian measures, and we should heed Kingsindian's point that he does use the talk pages, (if only, too often, after an editorial fait accompli on articles). I think a verbal slap on the wrist insufficient, because there is a repetitive pattern even after warnings. Probably a week or two in porridge would get the message over, that, whatever the POV and its strength any editor may have, high standards, detachment and care in sourcing are fundamental.”

Yet, based on those three edits, I was given a 30-day topic ban.

I believe that my ban was unjust and did not follow the spirit of Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive:

Consistency in sanctions

It is interesting that Nishidani--who brought most of the complaints against me and my editing--received an 8-hour block for Disruption by revert-warring and breach of three-revert rule; two months later a 24-hour block for Three-revert rule violation; and just two months after that a 72-hour block for Edit warring, yet I received a 30-day topic ban for allowable edits at best, and questionable at worst.

Because I have virtually no interest in editing on Wikipedia other than in articles that tend to fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict, a 30-day topic ban is tantamount to a 30-day block.

Based on all of the above, I formally request a complete reversal of my sanction (even if the sanctioned time elapses).

Thank you. Kamel Tebaast 00:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: and @The Wordsmith: your general accusations about my "attacks above" and "series of attacks and aspersions on fellow editors" is, again, indicative of my criticism of Wikipedia (above), particularly by not writing about specifics. In order for me to learn, could you please be specific as to what I wrote that is unacceptable and link it to a specific policy. Otherwise, I can only learn through the actions of other editors and administrators. For instance, when Malik Shabazz referred here to another editor, Brad Dyer, as "Jewboy" and "one of the dozens of pro-Israel single-purpose accounts that plague Wikipedia", and he called another administrator, Chillum, a "jackass", yet virtually nothing was done to him. So I'm very interested in learning what I wrote above that is worthy of a 90-day extension, when in comparison to M. Shabazz, who I think was given a one week block that I believe was reduced to one day?
Regarding my editing in the Arab-Israeli Conflict area, I heed your warnings and I will edit with added caution. If not, there are checks and balances, and you have the tools to instantly block or ban me, so your suggested 90-day additional ban-time seems draconian, but unfortunately not surprising. Kamel Tebaast 23:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: Thank you for your common sense response. Yes, piling on new sanctions during an appeal process basically defeats the purpose of the appeal. Then again, it lends itself perfectly to more Kafkaesque and justifiable criticism of Wikipedia. Kamel Tebaast 21:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Joseph Gutmann (1997). "Beth Alpha". In E. M. Meyers (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. p. 299.
^ http://www.weeklystandard.com/arafats-true-legacy/article/6127
^ http://www.history.co.uk/biographies/yasser-arafat

Statement by Lord Roem

It should be noted that the sanction expires on Tuesday (it was only for one month). It was imposed after a disruptive series of edits; the sanction was and still is proportional to a first-level remedy. The appeal should be rejected. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that at this time, the sanction has expired. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Kemal Tebaast thinks that the way to appeal a sanction is to attack other editors.

At Beit Alfa, a fairly minor dispute it must be said, Kemal's main objective was to remove the statement that the Kibbutz was named after the Arab village. See the talk page section "Kibbutz Beit Alpha was not named after an Arab village" that he/she created.

On Yasser Arafat, it is obvious that someone who wants to repeatedly add text like "people worldwide have described him as an unrepentant terrorist because of his decades of violence, aimed mostly at civilians" is a problem for the project. The presence of unacceptable text in an article has never been an excuse for adding more unacceptable text, but that is the only argument I see here. Zero^talk 02:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

I can only echo what Zero0000 has written and wonder what Kemal Tebaast is thinking when her/his "appeal" consists mostly of attacks on other editors.

Has Kemal Tebaast still not learned that copy-editing a sentence is not a revert, no matter how many times she/he and her/his best buddy call it one? Perhaps reading WP:Reverting might help. Or maybe not.

Evidently Kemal Tebaast also cannot see the log in her/his own eye and recognize her/his own POV-pushing in saying that a group "accuses Israel of 'genocide'" when it made no such accusation. (Yes, Kemal Tebaast, that sort of exaggeration is called hyperbole, and your sentence was a "hyperbolic addition".) As I wrote, in accordance with both the facts and NPOV, the group "use[d] the word 'genocide' to describe Israel's treatment of the Palestinians".

Needless to say, I think this appeal should be rejected. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Kamel Tebaast

Statement by uninvolved User:Blackmane

I make no comment about the appeal nor the initial application of sanctions. I'm just leaving a note, with regards to my name begin quoted by Kamel Tebaast, to say that at no time have I claimed to be an administrator. Blackmane (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Kamel Tebaast

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

A massive tl;dr wall of text laced with attacks on other editors... agreed this should be declined with a very firm warning that attacks like those above will rapidly lead to blocks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that the appeal contains no acknowledgement that Kamel did anything wrong (they did) and consists of a series of attacks and aspersions on fellow editors, I'm inclined to not only decline this appeal but also extend it to an additional 90 days. Bans are intended to be preventative, and Kamel gives every indication that when the ban expires they intend to continue disrupting as before. I believe a longer restriction is necessary to prevent tendentious editing in this topic area. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally hesitant to endorse additional sanctions for an appeal or conduct during it unless it's dead obviously in bad faith. While this appeal is unconvincing and I agree with declining it, I don't think it rises to that level, and so I would oppose the proposal to add time to the sanction. Editors are allowed to appeal AE sanctions, and I think we should be very careful of chilling that. I would, however, strongly caution Kamel Tebaast that ARBPIA is not an area where one will find very much tolerance for disruptive conduct, and future sanctions, if they should prove necessary, will become more severe very swiftly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SashiRolls

Appeal declined. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: User-multi error: "SashiRolls" is not a valid project or language code (help). – ~~~

Sanction being appealed: 6 month topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction: NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: diff

Notification of ArbCom: 10 September 2016 by email.

Statement by SashiRolls

On 01/09/2016, Tryptofish asked for Arbitration Enforcement against me because 1) I deleted an article that s/he claimed supported the contention that Jill Stein had made statements that were "contrary to science". The article does not support this claim, but notes that Jordan Weissmann (a business and economics editor), author of "an opinion piece at Slate[,] dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy." This is the only sentence in the article pertaining to Stein, and so -- in my view -- should not be added as a separate indictment since the text (quoted in full above) is hardly a recommendation of the article by Mr. Weissmann and takes no explicit position on Jill Stein's positions (though the language suggests the author does not concur with Weissmann. Farther down in his complaint, Tryptofish accuses me of inserting a "disparaging remark" about Jordan Weissmann in the Wikipedia article, referencing the text: "Weissmann subsequently wrote a retraction of one part of his article related to the effects of pesticides on honeybee populations."^[1] I do not see how this could be disparaging, as both the title and the content of the article indicate that Weissmann (a business and economics editor) is making a retraction of a significant error about science in his original article.

Next, I was called out for 2) changing the name of a reference from :03 to WaPoArticleCitedSixteenTimes and waiting for a bot to come correct the other 15 references to the article. I plead guilty and apologize for the error of judgment. An editor quickly objected to this change so I changed all sixteen references to avoid links becoming unavailable. Waiting for the bot was a regrettable technical mistake, as was the polemical name I chose for the over-cited reference. The legitimate point on the oversourcing of the article to half-quotes from the Washington Post interview the day after it appeared (a move which was criticized here, here, here, here, and here) got lost in the process.

The error I made was made shortly after I had to revert Tryptofish's non-constructive edit diff in the science section, an attempt to discredit Jill Stein's peer-reviewed published views on science in the preceding sentence, which subsequent to my ban from the topic Tryptofish removed. I admit that my view of legitimate editing behavior was influenced by my accuser (Tryptofish's) addition of this (IMO unhelpful) citation for the section "science":

Stein has said: "For science geeks, you can show yourself if you have any doubt that I too am a science geek."^[2]

Nevertheless, my error was an error, despite the fact that it was motivated by frustration with the inappropriate behavior of two other users. Three wrongs don't make a right, I concede.

Finally, Tryptofish accused me of 3) slow edit-warring, adducing as evidence two reversions (which are reversions of reversions made by Snooganssnoogans) on a subject that AndrewOne suggested (correctly in my view) needed urgent correction and contextualization here and here. Since Snooganssnoogans continued to ignore the sensible call for balancing perspective, I read all of the source material provided by AndrewOne, found another article from a source that Snooganssnoogans had previously argued was an RS in an effort to address the neutrality problems in this section (cf. non-neutral POV tag added to the section on 31 Aug (diff)).

The editor objects to information being added from Forbes, the Atlantic, the Roosevelt Institute, and Yes! magazine here to provide context concerning the economic argument about quantitative easing, and has used the Arbitration Enforcement discussion (concerned primarily with Tryptofish's distracting actions in the GMO section of the article) to delete this balancing information suggested by AndrewOne, but which only I was "bold" enough to add (here), given the polemical atmosphere that has been created by Snooganssnoogans' 30+ reverts in the last two months. This will be the subject of a separate call for disciplinary sanctions against Snooganssnoogans (see context I deleted [9] to show Lord Roem good faith).

I would like to complete my appeal by noting a few procedural elements related to this disproportionate 6-month topic ban. First, two administrators (Laser brain and NeilN) spoke of possibly warning me, the former saying that my behavior did not rise to the level of sanctions (calling the actual motivation for bringing me to DS (GMO) a "red herring"), and the second stating that any warning should mention 1RR. (NB: the administrators had not yet looked into the context of Snooganssnoogans' consistent pattern of edit-warring since mid-July). I asked to be given until the 5th of September 5pm to formulate my defense. However, NuclearWarfare chose to go well beyond their suggestions and sanctioned me for 6 months on the 4th of September, before I could finish formulating my defense. I subsequently asked NuclearWarfare (on the 7th of September) to explain the grounds for his/her decision here, but as of the 10th of September I have not received any acknowledgment of my request. Based only on what s/he wrote in the decision, his/her concern was with my contention that the Washington Post article was being given undue weight on Jill Stein's WP:BLP, saying that I "just didn't get it", concerning this specific reversion concerning NPOV and RS. It is worth noting that I was reverting an entire paragraph that had been deleted by Snooganssnoogans, and not just a single reference to the sources that NW considers partial (articles written by Kevin Gostola and Peter Lavenia). Articles appearing in Al Jazeera, Democracy Now! and the Free & Equal Elections Foundation were also deleted, as well as any reference to Media Coverage / Media Access. It would seem logical that if an editor has a problem with a reference to an article published in Counterpunch or Shadowproof that they should eliminate the sentence that cites those sources (only) rather than all of the surrounding material unrelated to these sources. It is certainly not narrow POV-pushing to note that a major and widely reported concern of Jill Stein's is that she does not have equal media access. Concerning the bias of the Washington Post (which is the subject of contention), it is worth noting that there have been numerous claims related to its bias, some of the (older) sources of which have been included on Wikipedia (Cf. The Washington Post#2000-present), though not yet the newest claims / evidence, including the article from the independent Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting about 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours on March 8, 2016. ^[3].

Finally I would note that I have never before been accused of any inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia, which is not the case for either Tryptofish (who brought the complaint), or for Snooganssnoogans (who has been WP:Bludgeoning the process at Jill Stein for over two months (preventing over a dozen editors from balancing the POV s/he is pushing) and engaging in edit wars elsewhere... cf. the warnings from 22 May, 5 June, 30 June, 18 July, 20 Aug, 27 Aug, 28 Aug, 30 Aug on the user's Talk Page here.)

References

^ Weissmann, Jordan (August 19, 2016). "I Would Like to Take Back One Mean Thing I Said About Jill Stein. (It Involves Bees.)". Slate. Retrieved August 28, 2016.
^ CNN Wire (August 18, 2016). "Jill Stein: I will have trouble sleeping at night if either Trump or Clinton is elected". CBS/WTVR. Retrieved August 31, 2016. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
^ Johnson, Adam (8 March 2016). "Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours". fair.org. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Retrieved 10 September 2016.

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Statement by Neutrality

I would strongly urge that this appeal not be granted. For brevity's sake, I note only a few points:

Since SashiRolls (SR) was barred from the area (a mere week ago), the articles have been stable and rather peaceful editing has occurred. As SR's long (and rather self-serving statement blaming others) signals, if the topic ban is lifted, SashiRolls will undoubtedly return to the same scorched-Earth, battleground mentality that seeks to wear other editors down through attrition.

SR does not understand reliable sourcing. SR believes that the Washington Post is not a reliable source on Jill Stein, a position that SR apparently continues to hold, as his/her statement here indicates. At the same time, SR believes that Russian government-controlled and Venezuelan government-controlled media outlets are reliable sources, although scholars identify these sources as propaganda. Editors have unanimously or near-unanimously rejected SR's view, but SR is apparently unwilling to accept this.

SR continues to maintain that editors who disagree with him/her on content, including myself, are "shill" editors, secretly in league with the Clinton campaign. This is false (and ridiculous), but SR continues to bring up this contention at every opportunity, creating a toxic editing environment.

--Neutrality^talk 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

This request is without merit. Almost all of the request completely misrepresents the facts, and it is fundamentally a demonstration of unwillingness or inability to understand SashiRolls' own misconduct that resulted in the sanction in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SashiRolls

Result of the appeal by SashiRolls

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

First thing's first-- SashiRolls, you need to substantially cut down your statement in size. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I'll take a look at the substance of your statement soon. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - After reviewing the statements, the topic ban should be endorsed. NW was well within their discretion to impose this sanction. SashiRolls continues to litigate their content dispute in the bulk of their appeal which leads me to believe the POV-pushing behavior would continue. I'm thankful they reduced the huge size of their statement to not as enormous, but there's nothing there that convinces me NW did anything unreasonable. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above. Nothing here was an unreasonable exercise of administrative discretion, and NW's decision was the right call. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Dancer 48

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 Tiny Dancer 48

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tiny Dancer 48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBR&I#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended) :

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

Tiny Dancer 48 is a relatively new account (joined 17:22, 26 March 2016). They didn't make many edits at first, but they did make some related to this AE request. They showed immediate familiarity with Wikipedia and how it works. For note, I will often quote Tiny Dancer's own words so that their context and character can be seen.

10:00, 27 March 2016 Edited on Nations and intelligence adding information about expert opinions on the influence of genetics on IQ. Edit was reverted by WeijiBaikeBianji as not being supported by an RS.
18:35, 6 May 2016 Blanks the United Kingdom section on Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
17:20, 21 June 2016 Removes sourced content on Weev about him being in an anti-Semitic hacker group

Tiny Dancer begins editing on Race (human categorization). At first, there were just two edits on the article talk page.

17:22, 21 June 2016 "Lol, quite. The childish sophitic and clearly Marxist arguments of the "race does not exist" crowd are an affront to human reason. Sadly individuals sympathetic to these clowns appear to have used their money to buy Wikipedia.".

Recap: The user started immediately by editing on articles covered by WP:ARBR&I and continued that trend. Only two edits were ostensibly unrelated to this topic. The familiarity with Wikipedia, the topic of interest, and the combative/dismissive language used makes me think Tiny Dancer is sockpuppeting (judging by behavioral evidence and loss of good faith over time), but I was never able to connect them to a specific user (e.g., Mikemikev).

At this point Tiny Dancer begins to edit war on Race (human categorization). Tiny Dancer was blocked for 48 hours for this per an AN3 complaint (see relevant sanctions below).

Their behavior on the talk page was problematic. They continue on about "cultural Marxist", engage in assuming bad faith, IDHT, and POV pushing by dismissing basically anything by social scientists.

09:10, 24 August 2016 "It's truly pathetic. What the cultural Marxists want people to think is social = non-biological, but the opening sentence calls a biological construct (phenetic similarity) social. Ridiculous. But WP is run by cultural Marxists so good look with that."
09:14, 24 August 2016 "By the way Darwin defined race by shared ancestry and Mayr by genomic similarity. I'm not sure why anyone cares what some US sociologist thinks."
11:11, 25 August 2016 "Yes, it simply trots out Lewontin's fallacy, irrelevantly points out skin color is locally adapted, then starts waffling about US slavery. The statement was adopted by a stacked leftist executive board with no membership voting." (referring to the American Anthropological Association (AAA)).
12:44, 25 August 2016 Personal attack/incivility
13:39, 27 August 2016 Refers to Alan Templeton (a living person) as a "quack", dismissing material in the article sourced with his work.
17:11, 27 August 2016 "What on earth are you going on about? Please logically address my sources and points."

Danielkueh posts on Doug Weller's user talk page about Tiny Dancer as a possible sock.

17:24, 27 August 2016 "I'm not entirely sure what this guy is going on about. I apologise about his opinion of my tone, but he has to admit I supported my position with sources and logic. In fact it's safe to say that I am correct and he is incorrect. Maybe he feels defeated and has to go complaining about how my tone frightened him or something, because he cannot back up his position logically and honestly.

Accusations start flying

19:43, 27 August 2016 Accusations of "stonewalling" and tag teaming begin after being reverted as part of BRD.

Edit warring begins and they post a lot on the article talk page. A few highlights:

13:42, 30 August 2016 "You're wikilawyering to push a lie"
19:44, 4 September 2016 "I think it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that race is considered biological by biologists and social construct theory is just some Marxist nonsense from American sociologists"
12:41, 5 September 2016 "You present nothing to support you, other than an assertion your POV is a consensus view. You are babbling irrelevantly about sources I never mentioned. This is ridiculous."
14:30, 5 September 2016 "It's you that is misrepresenting sources. Your hypocrisy honestly turns my stomach."
6:59, 5 September 2016 Accusations of POV pushing by a "regular cadre".

AN3 response:

17:06, 7 September 2016 Final version of comment accusing me and others of stonewalling, OWN, bias, etc.

Starts post at NPOVN. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Race_.28human_categorization.29. More of the same behavior.

A series of personal attacks against My very best wishes and more of the same accusations. See User_talk:Tiny_Dancer_48#Advice.

Culmination of all of this was these two posts

18:29, 14 September 2016 "Maunus assumes that "Ann Morning" is the leading light in biology and the Russians, Chinese and British are just "holding out" against her groundbreaking ideas. Another possibility is that she's a babbling Marxist pseudoscientist. Who knows?"
19:03, 14 September 2016 "The "agenda" of refuting Marxist pseudoscience with biology.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

03:42, 9 September 2016 User blocked by EdJohnston for 48 hours for edit warring on Race (human categorization) with a specific mention of WP:ARBR&I. EdJohnston said, in closing the AN3 complaint, that "If this continues, the next step could be a topic ban under WP:ARBR&I.".

Diffs of previous relevant warnings, if any

17:53, 21 June 2016 User warned by Doug Weller about WP:NOTFORUM and article talk page guidelines.
18:11, 13 September 2016 User was warned by Doug Weller about personal attacks and behavior related to discussion of the topic on their user talk page

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.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 17:02, 27 August 2016 by Doug Weller

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm filing this per EdJohnston's comments about this being the "next step" and the clear pattern of abusive behavior and disruption.

Laser brain - Sorry about that. I quite a bit over that. Would collapsing some sections in addition to trimming be okay? There's quite a bit going on here. I'll trim out some of the less serious stuff though. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chopped it down to 20 diffs in the main diff section. According to the prose size script, the "readable prose" is 283 works (see User:EvergreenFir/sandbox6). That's excluding the text after the diffs that are numbered. Guessing it's around 500 with those. Message or ping me if you need me to trim those a tad. I'd prefer to keep Tiny Dancer's actual words so they're context and tone (a big issue here) isn't lost. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

21:20, 14 September 2016

Discussion concerning Tiny Dancer 48

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 Tiny Dancer 48

Statement by My very best wishes

I think Tiny Dancer 48 has some knowledge in this subject area and wants to contribute in a good faith, however he has difficulty communicating with others and focus on a single subject. As a result, almost all their edits in article space were reverted, and none of the discussions he started led to any positive outcome. This may be even viewed as a case of WP:NOTHERE. My very best wishes (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maunus

Tiny dancer does have some knowledge in this topic. Unfortunately it is the kind of knowledge that one gets at "race realist" fora and websites, not the kind of knowledge that one gets from actually reading upto date mainstream sources about race and human biological variation. Many of the sources that he is parading are the same ones that have been used by prior race realist single purpose editors - which it has already been demonstrated either do not meet the reliability criteria as they fail to represent the adequately the scientific consensus, or which are quoted out of context to misrepresent the status of the pro-biological race pov. He suggests that a book by the cytologist John Baker in 1976 (in which he argues that "races" are distinct biological species, and which has been almost unanimously ignored by mainstream science since its publication for obvious reasons) would be a good book to build the article on[10] - dismissing the statements by professional organizations such as the American Anthropological Association and the Encyclopedia Britannica article as worthless because they represent the "US Sociological perspective"[11] (which is what he calls what others would consider the mainstream). He caricatures Ann Morning's book along the same lines without having read it - since Morning does not write about race, but is exactly a study of how social scientists and biologists differ in their uses of the concept "race" - and she concludes that biologists do sometimes still use the concept in "essentialist" ways in spite of the fact that biological mainstream discourse tends yt avoid the concept and stress that racial groupings cannot be used as essential constructions. Tiny Dancer is not interested in reading new sources like this, but only in pushing the safe old ones that supports his idea that his own POV neeeds to be more prominently represented regardless of what is current practice in the scientific fields that use the concept. This shows a basic unwillingness to play by the general rules of how weight is determined, basic unwillingness to cooperate on article building. Being an SPA, a topic ban against editing any content related to race might be enough of a sanction, but it probably isn't a good solution since Tiny Dancer might well go on to tangentially related topic areas where someone would have to follow them around to maintain the integrity of their contributions. A total ban per NOTHERE is probably the best remedy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

Dancer needs to WP:LISTEN and WP:DROPTHESTICK. No opinion on whether it will take admin intervention. Rhoark (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tiny Dancer 48

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

@EvergreenFir:, please trim your statement to the 500 word and 20 diff limit. --Laser brain (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: CFredkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Volunteer Marek (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

Discretionary Sanctions (Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.) at Donald Trump

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

1:37, 14 September 2016 Content recently added by 3P
13:53, 14 September 2016 Content recently added by 3P
16:33, 14 September 2016 Content reverted
16:49, 14 September 2016 Content restored in violation of Discretionary Sanctions

Snapshot of article Talk page at time of restoration indicating lack of consensus regarding content (bottom 2 sections)

Nofication of OP of violation by uninvolved editors and OP's response.

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

Prior notification of OP of DS at article

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

VM has clearly violated discretionary sanctions in this case. Multiple editors have noted this. The implication of his behavior is that he thinks discretionary sanctions don't apply to him.

Please note: Despite SomedifferentStuff's claim below, this request does NOT involve a 1RR violation. Please see "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" above.CFredkin (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User: Laser brain: If my behavior is going to be examined as part of this request, then I'd like to respond to the allegation that I've gamed the DS process somehow. (That seems to be the most common allegation.) I'd encourage the OP's to provide actual evidence to support the allegation. Presumably it means that I've been using DS to block content from being added to Trump's bio which is not actually questionable. If that's the case, there should be multiple examples if me reverting content (and declaring DS) and then my objection ultimately being decisively over-ruled in the Talk discussion.CFredkin (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User: Laser brain: Also, please review the discussion in this section of the Talk for Donald Trump, starting with the talk quote. I pointed out that an entire paragraph of the disputed content is not supported by the source provided. Somedifferentstuff and VM both responded to my post. Net result: as of this post, the unsourced content remains in Trump's bio. Please tell me who's operating in the best interest of the project.CFredkin (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

Here we go again. Please see the, what? last three? reports against me this month - all closed with no action - for why this is bullshit. This is a blatant attempt to abuse discretionary sanctions bordering on harassment.

Here is the relevant discussion at User:NeilN's talk page.

Here is User:MastCell's comment there: [13]. The edit summary is on gaming discretionary sanctions and it refers to CFredkin's behavior (just like he's doing here). MastCell's comments are so on point that they deserve being quoted in full:

" it's pretty obvious what CFredkin is doing. He reflexively reverts any material that might reflect negatively on Donald Trump, typically with a vague or non-existent rationale, and then demands "firm consensus" before the material can be re-inserted. Any attempt to achieve consensus is then filibustered with further vague objections, most commonly some variation of "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-in-Hillary-Clinton's-article".

The discretionary sanctions are intended to promote caution in inserting potentially contentious material, but he's realized that he can render any material "contentious" simply by reverting it. It's a pattern which, combined with his editing history, makes it clear what he's up to. He's gaming the discretionary sanctions, and I see other editors, including Marek, getting frustrated with it. More to the point, if the discretionary sanctions are giving editors like CFredkin or Anythingyouwant de facto veto power over content, then they're not being enforced in a productive way."

because that's EXACTLY what CFredkin does. He blanket reverts any editor who's not one of his allies, claims that discretionary sanctions protect his edit warring and then filibusters any discussion to make sure that he can always claim that no "firm" consensus has been achieved. This is also the case the particular case of this request. Here's the talk page discussion [14]. There's five different editors who disagree with CFredkin. But hey, CFredkin objects, so "no firm consensus" so "I get to do whaa I want!!!".

Here's User:Somedifferentstuff's relevant comment [15]: "If Volunteer Marek deserves sanctioning then so do half the editors at Donald Trump, in particular CFredkin for consistently gaming the system in regards to discretionary sanctions with his drive-by deletions. I know this is silly season but enough already. I won't even get started on Anythingyouwant as I was in awe of the description here --- and low and behold, he strikes again".

For the record, I don't know Somedifferentstuff from a hamster and though I've obviously seen MastCell around (since he's a super-veteran editor) I don't recall interacting with them in any substantial manner. So it's not just me that has noticed and is getting totally fed up with CFredkin's behavior (Anythingyouwant does sort of the same thing, but he's not so obnoxious and transparent about it) and thinks it's long over due for a topic ban. CFredkin should've been topic banned when they first made an appearance making BLP vio edits. But hey, assume good faith, let it slide, and here we are now, four months of irritation too late.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to be explicit, there were four editors on the talk page plus myself who agreed with retaining the text. Ok, Anythingyouwant appears to have changed his mind later but at the time of my edit under discussion, their comments on talk indicated support for keeping the material. That's five editors who want to keep the text. And one editor - CFredkin - who wanted it removed. And he removed it. Against consensus. And then tried to invoke discretionary sanctions and filed this report as some kind of abracadabra magic spell that gives him immunity from being reverted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zaostao, please don't accuse me of lying. Especially when it's your fault you have problems with reading comprehension. My statement clearly refers to the issue of including text about the Trump Foundation - you know, that's why I quote editors' statements about it and link to the section about it. What you are pointing out is that there was no consensus for something else - mentioning the New Jersey Generals in the lede. And I agree with that, which is why I self reverted that portion of my edit [16].

Again, in regard to the pertinent issue - whether to include material on the Trump Foundation - there was indeed five editors, and strong consensus for inclusion when CFredkin tried to remove it and when I restored. So stop throwing unsupported accusations around and strike your comment. (Also, why are you showing up to every article I edit?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zaostao, first please don't alter your comments after someone replied to them, as you did here, since that makes it look like I'm replying to something other than what you actually said. Second, there was indeed no consensus for including the NJ Generals and I did a partial revert. Now Trump University, the discussion was more mixed, and I was considering self-reverting that as well but you beat me to it [17]. If you really want to know here is the timeline:

I undid CFredkin's revert at 16:47 [18]
I went to real life work. Anythingyouwant complained on my talk page that instead of immediately responding to CFredkin's admin-shopping at NeilN's talk page [19] I "waited six hours". Gimme a fucking break. If I have to go to work, I'm gonna go to work, not check Wikipedia every ten minutes to see if someone somewhere said something bad about me. Tough noogies guys, get over it.
I got done with work and noticed that CFredkin was trying to stir up controversy and haranguing admins and running around crying "discretionary sanctions" as he usually does when consensus is against him. I didn't have much time to look at the whole thing, but I did a quick partial self revert at 21:59 [20] to show good faith. I then drove home
I had dinner.
I quickly checked Wikipedia and quickly responded to the attacks on me at NeilN's page.
I hang out with my family and watched a cartoon with my kid.
I checked Wikipedia again at about 00:00 Sept 15, had some time to actually pay attention to what all this was about and made some more edits.

But now it seems that I was STUPID to actually partially revert myself at 21:59 (Sept 14) since now you're trying to use that against me to argue that "I was aware" of ... something or other. I'll keep that in mind and try to be less accommodating in the future, since apparently making a show of good faith just gets twisted against you.

Look, it's freakin' ridiculous of you to demand that I respond immediately on Wikipedia to every little storm that someone concocts in some tea cup. I responded to the concerns on the same day, when I had time to actually sit down with Wikipedia. And your insistence on bringing this up just evidences how bad-faithed your editing is (and you still haven't explained why you're stalking my edits).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, I'm gonna go to work again now. So whatever crazy shit you guys come up with in the mean time, don't expect an immediate response. Probably shouldn't state this, since now there'll be a flurry of attacks (get him while he's busy!!!) Have fun with yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You already brought up this MVBW business and tried to make something of it in like fifty million previous AE reports against me and in all of them nothing happened, because there was nothing to it. Just drop it. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND is showing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, seriously, is there some external forum or website or something where you guys collect and share these diffs, because you and a few others keep posting the same set and it ~~almost~~ looks like a cut-n'-paste.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Anythingyouwant - Anythingyouwant says " VM made six edits spanning 21:59 to 22:46 including this refusal to revert Trump U from the lead". This is blatantly dishonest. Oh screw it, let's call it what it is - it's Anythingyouwant lying his ass off. I made a partial self-revert. This partial self-revert did not include reverting a part which ATW apparently wanted me to revert as well. And now he shows up here and pretends that my good faithed partial-self revert was a "refusal". Do you see me refusing anything in that edit? No? That's because I'm not. But yeah, I'll keep in mind that trying to compromise with some people only makes them use that against you for the future. This is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic where every action by an editor one disagrees with is made to look bad and nefarious even when it's actually doing what you want.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And like I already replied to Zaostao - this boils down to the fact that I didn't fully revert within six hours after CFredkin went crying to an administrator. Like I already said, I was at work and wasn't even aware he had done this. I briefly noticed it six hours later but as I was busy with other stuff I made only a couple quick edits, including self-reverting myself in part. But that's not enough for the battleground warriors. They expect and demand that when they complain about something, the editor being attacks comes running to fulfill their wishes immediately and without delay. I want this and I want it now! Ok... how old are you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And oh yeah, did I mention that majority of the edit had "firm" consensus on the talk page when I undid CFredkin's revert? Cuz it did. This is just CFredkin yelling "discretionary sanctions! discretionary sanctions!" as an edit warring and POV pushing tactic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ATW, it was a lie. I didn't "refuse" to do anything which is what you are claiming. I made a partial self-revert rather than full revert. And no, I didn't break DS since the edit restored material which had support on talk page for the most part. If you had been nicer about it, and didn't try to make this into a battleground and had just waited a bit longer (like I said, at work) we could've worked it out amicably. But this isn't really about the edit in question, is it? It's about trying to hang a sanction on someone who gets in the way of pushing your POV. Because whether "Trump University" is mentioned (literally, as briefly as possible) or not, and whether I self-revert after six hours, or ten hours, doesn't matter all that much. But it provides you with this bullshit excuse to agitate here on WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

The restriction tells: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). I guess it comes from Template:2016 US Election AE. Was it actually authorized by Arbcom for all pages related to US elections 2016? Based on comments below [21], I can see that no, it was not specifically authorized by Arbcom, and it was poorly worded.

I think this restriction should not be used as something prone to WP:gaming. For example, anyone can remove anything he does not like (no matter how well this is sourced and relevant) and claim: "hey, that was challenged by reversion, where is your consensus to include?". And this is actually happening, like here (see also edit summary). Moreover, making a restriction "to enforce BRD" is a questionable idea because WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

Volunteer Marek: 27 edits since December 2015;
CFredkin: 222 edits since March this year.

_Muffled ^Pocketed 08:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zaostao

Volunteer Marek states "And to be explicit, there were four editors on the talk page plus myself who agreed with retaining the text. Ok, Anythingyouwant appears to have changed his mind later but at the time of my edit under discussion, their comments on talk indicated support for keeping the material."

Volunteer Marek restored the contested material at 16:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC) and the talk page discussing this issue at the time showed no support for the inclusion. Anythingyouwant disagreed with the inclusion citing WP:MOSBIO, Buster7 said "OK. Maybe no mention in the lead but the Generals could be mentioned somewhere in the article," and Muboshgu said "Generals definitely not important enough for the lead. Trump U probably not."

So Volunteer Marek's claim that "there were four editors on the talk page plus myself who agreed with retaining the text" is simply a lie, he had not discussed restoring the material, and there were only three editors on the talk page, none of whom supported the inclusion. Zaostao (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no support for the inclusion of Trump University in the lede either, but you left it in when you were self-reverting. You also did not discuss any of this on the talk page, in fact, the talk page when you made your partial self-revert was exactly the same as it was when you made your original restoration of the contested material. The excuse being that "but I meant to restore this contested material (Trump Foundation), not this other contested material (New Jersey Generals & Trump University) that I re-added as collateral" is not valid, and you showed awareness that you made the restoration of the New Jersey Generals and Trump University material along with the Trump Foundation material when you made the partial self-revert that left the unsupported Trump University material in the first paragraph of the lede.

You restored contested material without discussion and against the consensus on the talk page at the time of restoration. Zaostao (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you giving me the time line of your day Marek, but if your time is limited, may I suggest that you spend that time working and with your family instead of restoring contested material without discussion? It would be beneficial to all parties.

Addition: Marek states that "Now Trump University, the discussion was more mixed, and I was considering self-reverting that as well but you beat me to it."

1) He admits here that he was aware that he also restored the contested Trump University material along with the Trump Foundation material, and also was aware of the discussion that he did not partake in (how else would he know the discussion was "more mixed" or not), but chose to leave the contested Trump U material in when he made the partial reversion that removed the New Jersey Generals material.

2) This seems inconsistent as after I removed the contested Trump University material, Marek then made his first contribution to the talk page (his first in 12 days actually: 3rd September to 15th September despite having restored the contested material on 14th September) stating that he thought Trump University was important enough to be in the lede. He also later said that "Of course Trump U is notable. Why in the world would it not be?" in response to CFredkin stating "Neither seems notable enough to warrant mention in the lede," so I have to seriously question whether Marek was actually considering removing the Trump University line himself or if that statement was a lie—although it doesn't really matter either way as he still restored contested material without any discussion on the talk page and when the talk page was actually in consensus against the restoration. Zaostao (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Marek complains about my presence here, but does not complain about My very best wishes' presence despite the fact that they showed up before me? As D.Creish has shown below, I think if there's anyone who is "stalking your edits", it is MVBW. Zaostao (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement By D.Creish

You're correct, it's not relevant. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't know whether this is relevant here but I'm concerned about possible WP:TAGTEAM-ing by Marek and My very best wishes in political articles.

In Debbie Wasserman Schultz Marek makes two reverts which remove the same block of content:

When Marek's second revert is reverted, MVBW (having never edited the article before) makes another two reverts removing the same block of content Marek had removed:

In Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy (under 1RR) Marek removes a significant amount of content, is reverted, then reverts:

18:16, 14 September 2016

and again MVBW (having never edited this relatively obscure article) reverts to remove the same content:

00:20, 15 September 2016

One could chalk it up to shared interests but MVBW's edit summaries and (occasional) talk page comments don't reflect an understanding of the text he's restoring or removing.

For example, in his first revert above he refers to Wasserman-Schultz denying Sanders access to the DNC's computerized voter database as a "petty detail", when the incident was covered in every major RS, and the cited source was a NY Times article focusing exclusively on the incident.

In his 3rd revert his edit summary is: rv per BLP. The arguments on article talk page look convincing, but account(s) look suspicious. Something published by newspapers is not research. Except none of the editors whose content he reverted had posted on the talk page... and while one account looks suspicious the other two look normal. His reference to "research" is a bad paraphrase of Marek's talk page comment where he objects to including a USA Today "study."

The only part of MVBW's summary that seems reasonable is "rv per BLP." His reversion also restores a broken link corrected in a separate edit, suggesting he didn't examine the content or edit-history before restoring and simply deferred to Marek's version.

A more thorough search showed the pattern repeating:

MVBW only edit to Polandball is to revert an editor who reverted Marek
One of his (only 3) edits to Humanitarian situation during the war in Donbass continues a revert war started by Marek
Each of his 4 edits to Clinton Foundation (1, 2, 3, 4) restores or removes content Marek had earlier attempted to restore or remove - the 3rd, a direct reversion of Marek's reversion
His only edit to Viktor Yanukovych is to revert an editor who had just reverted Marek
3 of his 5 edits to Anna Politkovskaya perpetuate a revert war to assist Marek: 1, 2, 3
6 of his 10 edits to Ghouta chemical attack (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) restore or remove content Marek had recently restored or reverted
His only edit to Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy reverts the removal of material Marek had recently added - again note the generic edit summaries: "I do not think there is agreement on this"
His only edit to Luhansk People's Republic reverts the preceding reversion of Marek's edit
His only edit to Ukraine reverts the preceding reversion of Marek's edit
His only edit to The Holocaust in Poland reverts the preceding reversion of Marek's edit
His only edit to Zaporizhian Sich (besides a page move) reverts an earlier reversion of Marek's edit
His only edit to Foundations of Geopolitics reverts the preceding reversion of Marek's edit

If I continued searching I'd expect to find more. Effectively they appear to operate as one account with extra revert and consensus privileges. D.Creish (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

@Volunteer Marek: I mentioned your and MVBW's involvement at AE only once previously. I don't think "tried to make something of it in like fifty million previous AE reports" is a remotely fair or honest representation. Please retract it along with the personal attack that follows. D.Creish (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Somedifferentstuff

First, the initial filing of this complaint is malformed. It list 4 diffs, 3 of which do not involve Volunteer Marek (you need at least 2 diffs to demonstrate a violation of discretionary santions - i.e. 1RR). Second, the above section by D.Creish appears to be some type of "guilt by association" attack. It is largely focused on another editor called My very best wishes, who appears to be following him around. In other words, it is not his responsibility to monitor the actions of a fellow editor, much less be ascribed sanctions for their behavior. Lastly, whoever takes on this case needs to look at the discussion that took place here. Cheers. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

It's clear from this thread that CFredkin is abusing AE to pursue a political agenda against Volunteer Marek because Marek is upholding WP policy in the face of Fredkin's POV and Battlegound editing. CFredkin should be TBANned from American Politics per ARBAP2. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be clear to the Admins who are declining to enforce ARBAP2 that their inaction is enabling there anti-Clinton POV editors to run out the clock, gaming the system long enough for their stuff to stay on WP and Google search results through the election. There really isn't time for Admins to ruminate, warn, study and relitigate all this misbehavior. All of this nonsense e.g. using WP to post anti-Clinton conspiracy theories as if they were fact, will be removed on the normal WP cycle -- about 12-18 months -- but the POV warriors know that, and so did Arbcom when it authorize Admins to act with appropriate timely sanctions to put a stop to this. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anythingyouwant

The edits in question by VM were twofold: partly to the opening paragraph of the lead, and partly to a section about the Trump Foundation. This AE complaint is reasonable as to both, and reasonable as to either one separately, regardless of the outcome. For brevity's sake, I'll confine the rest of my comment here to the first edit by VM (i.e. his edits to the opening paragraph). At 14 September at 13:53, the following sentence was added to the opening paragraph of the lead: "He is the founder of Trump University and the New Jersey Generals football team." This sentence was removed at 16:33 on 14 September. Then Volunteer Marek edited this BLP by restoring that sentence at 16:47 on 14 September. At that point (16:47) there was already a talk page discussion with no consensus for including this material (three editors had commented and none of them supported reinclusion of the disputed sentence). Volunteer Marek had previously been informed about discretionary sanctions at this BLP.[22] VM's edit summary said: "restore well sourced material removed with misleading edit summaries".[23] But there had been nothing misleading about the edit summary VM criticized (please compare VM's blank edit summary for a non-minor edit at 16:49); even if VM had been correct that someone else's edit summary had been misleading, that wouldn't give VM power to revert new and contested material back into the opening paragraph without consensus, contrary to discretionary sanctions. Shortly after his edit to the opening paragraph at 16:47, a complaint was filed at 17:12 over at the user talk of an uninvolved admin, who requested at 17:52 that VM answer the complaint.[24] VM made six edits spanning 21:59 to 22:46 including this refusal to revert Trump U from the lead. Finally, another editor removed Trump U from the opening paragraph at 23:37. So, VM had plenty of time and opportunity to comply with the discretionary sanctions, and chose not to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this refusal to revert Trump U from the lead paragraph did revert some other stuff, but still it was a refusal to revert Trump U, exactly as I said above (without "lying my ass off"). I don't think VM ought to be praised for violating discretionary sanctions less than he tried to do initially.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, VM, I'd have much preferred if you hadn't screwed around with the lead paragraph of this very high profile BLP, because then I wouldn't feel obliged to stick my neck out like this at AE. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

I don't know if AE is set up to handle this but from where I stand, both parties have made claims against one another and both parties' behavior should be examined. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I've been looking through both of their contributions in this matter. --Laser brain (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by MarkBernstein

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 6 month block imposed here.

Administrator imposing the sanction: The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [25]

Statement by MarkBernstein

As I have written elsewhere, though I no longer support the project I do keep an occasional eye on some topics for reasons of personal safety and to assist those seeking legislative or regulatory solutions to the threat that Wikipedia now poses to society. In doing so, however, it seems churlish to neglect to pick up litter I come across: typos, illiteracies, and blatant examples of harassment, racism, and anti-Semitism.

In this case, an IP user with (I believe) no previous edits had blanked a section on Anti-Semitism and White Nationalism on a page about a discussion site that had been (and continues to be) widely reported as a hotbed for anti-semitic and racist memes -- in particular, racist imagery that has been retweeted by Donald Trump and his children. Blanking the section seemed indefensible, though the section itself has more prevarication than a bushel of weasels. I assumed that this was mere pointy vandalism. Similarly, I have reverted repeated attempts to claim Margaret Sanger to be a racist, a canard of which alt-right extremists are fond despite her life-long affiliation with W.E.B. DuBois and her eulogy by Martin Luther King.

Neither Margaret Sanger nor Donald Trump’s anti-Semitic attack on Hillary pertain to Gamergate. Neither has anything to do with video game journalism or with Gamergate’s victims -- several of whom continue to be harassed through Wikipedia’s pages. The political nature of this action and it implications for the future of Wikipedia will not be lost on any observer.

Is it disruptive to revert the blanking of a section on Anti-Semitism and White Nationalism when that topic has recently been discussed in a host of newspapers? Is it disruptive to revert the introduction of misleading falsehoods in a biography?

This result was obtained through a concerted action, actively plotted off-site and immediately cheered there.

As I said, I no longer support or condone the project, but I am perhaps willing to help clean out such litter as I happen upon. I submit this reluctantly at the request of people who retain more faith than I in Wikipedia. Any questions may be directed to me via email or correspondence to my office. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

As I've said on my talkpage, Mark is banned from editing pages related to Gamergate. 8chan has discussion of Gamergate in the lede, a subsection dedicated to Gamergate, the Gamergate navbox at the bottom, and a template on the Talkpage that specifically says the article is under Gamergate discretionary sanctions. The content of the edit doesn't matter, as it isn't covered under WP:BANEX. In fact, Mark's edit reverted back in material about a living person that was challenged by an IP as being defamatory, without consensus.

A few editors here have questioned the length of the block. When deciding on 6 months, I took into account that this was Mark's third block for violating his ban in less than six months. I also took into account his block log, which shows 3 blocks in 2015 for violating his previous General Sanctions topic ban from Gamergate. Six violations show that Mark has no intention of complying with the terms of his restriction, and most other editors in DS areas would have been indeffed by this point (and many have been for less). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

For what it's worth, I don't see the reversion of obvious vandalism (blanking a section with no explanation) as a violation of a topic ban if the material being blanked is not related to the topic ban. 8chan is related to Gamergate, but that does not mean all material mentioning 8chan automatically falls under the Gamergate topic ban (nor does all information regarding America fall under the American politics topic ban, etc.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

While I don't touch the 8chan page, I consider myself involved from previous confrontation with MarkBernstein within the GG ArbCom actions

8chan was specifically ~~created~~bolstered (per Strongjam below) from actions resulting from Gamergate (specifically, when Poole blocked all GG discussions on 4chan, 8chan became the defacto chan-site for this), and 8chan is noted many times to be strongly associated with GG. So in terms of being related to the GG-ban, it readily falls into place.

As for the edit, while topic bans do not block editors from removing clearly contentious BLP-violating material nor combating vandalism per BANEX, this was addition of possibly contentious material (there should be discussion though about the inclusion of this on the talk page given that the sources are reliable). It's difficult to qualify the IP's edit that was undo as vandalism (the page didn't show a history of such, nor do we have enough on the IP beyond this single contribution to judge. Plus the reasoning the IP used does point to a valid issue of contentious material, so it wasn't like a trolling flyby that is easily judged.

So the topic ban enforcement seems to be valid. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add, while the main GG page is under 500/30 editing restrictions, this is not applied default for any pages that would fall under the GG topic area. I don't see this restriction yet for the 8chan page (nor any need at least based on current editing history). If the 500/30 restriction was in page, there may be justification for MarkBernstein to undo the removal by an IP editor in violation, but even then, that could have been handled by asking an admin to undo the issue for them to avoid the topic ban. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

Neither Margaret Sanger nor Donald Trump’s anti-Semitic attack on Hillary pertain to Gamergate. That must have been very difficult to write. I considered the block a good one because MarkBernstein's biggest problem has been considering anything and everything he doesn't like to be part of Gamergate (broadly construed). If he's really turning the corner on that, I think it deserves some leniency. I would still advise him to avoid 8chan and alt-right without a clear WP:BANEX reason. Rhoark (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GamerPro64

Since I was the one who pointed out that Bernstein violated his topic ban to Wordsmith, I will admit that I thought the edit would be considered stale and nothing would be done about it. I do believe, however, that he that he is being intentionally ignorant about why he got banned. He's pretty much trying to game the system and avoiding the fact that he clearly violated his topic ban, somehow making this a anti-semitism/alt-right issue. He's been pushing peoples buttons for too long. I don't know how he thinks he's the good guy these days. GamerPro64 02:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

Recommend declining this appeal. MB 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. No, his edit wasn't about Gamergate. Yes, it was to a page related to Gamergate, and in fact one whose talk page has a discretionary sanctions warning that links to the Gamergate ArbCom decision. Mark has been a source of continual trouble in the Gamergate topic area, and has demonstrated no intent to abide by the terms of his topic bans as shown by his two previous blocks for violating it. I don't buy that he somehow didn't know that he shouldn't be editing the 8chan article. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72

MarkBernstein is a deeply disruptive and profoundly unproductive editor.

He has been topic banned from Gamergate controversy related pages 3 times; has breached each of those topic bans, usually more than once; and has been blocked for those breaches 6 times. He has also been blocked or warned for personal attacks on other editors in this topic space multiple times. NOTE: See WP:DSLOG.

In the 5 months since the topic ban was implemented, MarkBernstein has made 129 edits - Mainspace articles: 13 (including 9 reverts); Talk pages: 6; his own User_talk pages: 42; other editors' User_talk pages: 14; Wikipedia space pages: 56.

Assuming all mainspace & Talk edits are productive, that's a rate of slightly less than 1 productive edit per week.

As stated in the appeal, the maximum benefit that Wikipedia might receive from lifting this sanction is that MarkBernstein continue to gift us with litter collection of typos, illiteracies, and blatant examples of (things he determines to be) harassment, racism, and anti-Semitism; presumably at the rate of 1 edit per week. I do not see that this outweighs the cost to the project of the continued grandstanding, gaming & toeing the line of sanctions, and effort spent on noticeboard discussions such as this one.

Should MarkBernstein decide that he wishes to actually contribute to the project, in a collaborative manner not as yet displayed, I would encourage some demonstration of that intent through productive editing of other Wikis. (Simple English would be the obvious choice).

Until then, I urge that the appeal be declined.

NOTE: Additional off-Wiki evidence indicating that disruptive editing is likely to continue available to Administrators on request.

- Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strongjam

Just to correct a misconception here. 8chan was founded October 2013, a year before Gamergate happened. It did however get coverage because of the number of users migrating from 4chan to 8chan after discussion of Gamergate was banned from the former. — Strongjam (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by MarkBernstein

Statement by uninvolved User:clpo13

I agree with Peter that this doesn't look like a violation of the topic ban. The content involved in the offending edit does not have anything to do with Gamergate. Also, note that Mark was previously warned about editing alt-right because, like 8chan, the page mentions Gamergate. However, The Wordsmith found there to be no violation of his topic ban in that case. clpo13_(talk) 21:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to call 8chan a Gamergate topic, let's throw Reddit into that pot as well. KotakuInAction has been involved in Gamergate just as long as the 8chan boards have. Or better yet, let's not paint an entire website based on the actions of a subset of its users. clpo13_(talk) 22:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of uninvolved User:Lankiveil

Given that the article is marked as being under discretionary sanctions, I believe the blocking admin was technically correct with the action that they took. However, given that the edit in question did not affect material that was even indirectly related to GamerGate, and given that the edit was already over a week old when action was taken over it, I don't think that this block passes the pub test. My preference would be to reduce the block to time served. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

Good block. The topic is explicitly labeled as being covered by discretionary sanctions, so this isn't a case of the editor stumbling into trouble in a tangentionally related topic. The standard for WP:BANEX is *obvious* vandalism for which "no reasonable person can disagree."

This was a poor edit, removing a paragraph for the stated reasons of (and I again quote) "There is literally no reason to mention this. Nobody got hurt, no controversy was made, it's just another defamatory remark." The paragraph should not have been removed, but it's not *obvious vandalism* which is the bar that's needed to pass here. The editor is trying to make it into obvious vandalism through a typical mulligan stew of innuendo, skylarking, and black helicopters. If this is considered *obvious vandalism* by virtue of any connection the editor conjures out of thin air, then *any* edit he doesn't like on the topic can be made so.

Given that the editor has failed to make his affirmative defense under WP:BANEX, this is a reasonable block, even if slightly on the trigger-happy side. Based on the history of this editor, it seems absolutely fitting for Wordsmith to err on the side of caution. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I'm not the hippest or smartest guy here, and that 8chan came out of GamerGate was news to me--I don't see it in the article either, though it does say "Several of the site's boards have played an active role in the Gamergate controversy". But this edit does not relate to that. And I don't see the GamerGate box at the bottom because I didn't scroll down that far--I don't see the need to, and at any rate that doesn't mean much anyway. I do believe this block came too quick, and is too long.

In general, I think MarkBernstein is a bit too much of an activist for my taste, but by the same token it is disconcerting to see other editors trying to get rid of him on technicalities (couched in weasel words: "Some sources have connected the alt-right and Gamergate". In that case The Wordsmith said "no violation" since that article wasn't all that connected to GamerGate. In this case, as far as I'm concerned it's really not that obvious that this article is so GamerGatish and, as others have noted, the edit has nothing to do with GamerGate. So to see The Wordsmith just drop a six-month ban bomb, with no discussion, is disconcerting to me.

I understand that MB has appearances against him, and I know that he is partly to blame for that being so outspoken, but this was too fast and too much for an edit that is in itself unproblematic, and any editor would (or should) have made the same revert--removal of sourced content by a drive-by IP editor, obvious POV and untrue edit summary ("Nobody got hurt, no controversy was made"--yes, there was and still is controversy, and that "no one was hurt" from a major party candidate's retweeting of Nazi symbolism is ..., well, you find the word). Should he have? It was maybe unwise, but given the circumstances I do not think this six-month block is just. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by MarkBernstein

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

Wikipedia supposedly isn't a bureaucracy; it appears highly bureaucratic to block MB, for six months yet, for a non-Gamergate edit to 8chan, an article which isn't in any of the categories Misogyny, Sexual harassment, Video game controversies, Video game journalism, Women and video games, or any other category that hints at Gamergate. (I picked the list from the categories at Gamergate controversy.) All 8chan has is a framed line with an orange hand, on the talkpage, stating that "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully", in amongst a shrubbery of other top templates. You have to read that with far more interest than most people ever take to the bloated top stuff on talkpages, and then click on the link hidden in the word "subject", to even see a mention of the Gamergate sanctions. This warning was added by Mike V on 22 November 2014.[26]. (Reformatted by RGloucester on 19 March 2015 when the community discretionary sanctions for Gamergate had been superseded by ArbCom sanctions.[27]) Apparently discretionary sanctions mean that any single admin can put any article under discretionary sanctions indefinitely, at their discretion. The article isn't mainly about Gamergate, and MB's edit wasn't about Gamergate at all. In my opinion the block should be vacated, or at the very least shortened. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I frequently see enforcement requests and appeals where editors want to split hairs about whether certain content within a DS-covered article is related to the topic. We shouldn't be in the business of determining that. Editors get banned from pages, not individual paragraphs or sentences within pages. Sanctions aren't that granular, nor should they be. We also shouldn't be in the business of arguing whether a page should be included in DS for a given topic, in this venue. "I don't agree with this page being covered under DS for this topic" isn't a valid excuse for violating a topic ban. I don't believe that Mark wasn't aware the 8chan page is covered under Gamergate DS. He has repeatedly flouted his topic ban and if it were me applying the original sanction, I would have indeffed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would decline the appeal. Mark Bernstein's attitude might yet change, but here is his current position: "As I said, I no longer support or condone the project, but I am perhaps willing to help clean out such litter as I happen upon. I submit this reluctantly at the request of people who retain more faith than I in Wikipedia." This 'cleaning out of litter' tends to be in the penumbra of Gamergate, in this case the 8chan page. It appears that Mark feels compelled to act in service of the greater good, but these actions are usually at the edge of his topic ban and are bound to stir up the conflict. if we could be sure that Mark would observe both the letter and the spirit of his topic ban, and stay away from grey areas things might be different but the pattern has continued for long enough that such a change in his thinking seems unlikely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like 8chan was formed by people involved with Gamergate, in response to Gamergate proponents being restricted or kicked off from other forums. Given that, the article is clearly related to Gamergate—I don't even think one needs to "broadly construe" very broadly at all to conclude that. A topic ban means to stay well away from the banned area. Tiptoeing around the line will often result in stepping over it, and in this case, it did. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions clarification request: 2016 US Election AE

Statement by Sandstein

Template:2016 US Election AE, placed on various election-related articles' talk pages, directs: "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." It does not say what "firm" consensus means; and this is not a term of art used in any policy or guideline that I know of.

In my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, I found ordinary (rough) consensus in a talk page RfC at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. Because the content at issue in the RfC had previously been challenged, editors disagree about whether the RfC's result amounts to "firm" consensus and can be implemented.

"Firm" can be read as describing the form of consensus-finding (as, e.g., through a formal process such as an RfC), or as describing a degree of consensus (e.g., a very clear supermajority), or a combination of both. In my view, either can reasonably be described as "firm". However, since the creator of the template, Coffee, is currently inactive, I ask other admins who have been active in this topic area to help clarify the template's meaning and possibly wording. Sandstein 07:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dervorguilla

"Firm" doesn't mean "large", so "firm consensus" doesn't likely mean "large consensus". Firm does often mean "not easily challenged or undone" (usage example: "holds a firm position as the country’s leading poet"). M-W Unabridged, s.v. "firm".

What kind of consensus could not be easily challenged? At the very least, it would comply with these three policies:

1. WP:CONACHIEVE. Was the proposed edit ever adapted (ever altered or limited) to bring in at least some dissenters?

2. WP:CONLEVEL. Were notices posted at related articles and WikiProjects?

3. WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Does the consensus calculation take into account the apparent concerns (or voiced opinions) of those dissenters who ultimately stopped responding? (Logically, they may well have been the very editors who were the least "emotionally or ideologically invested in winning".)

This kind of consensus could not be easily undone. It would accordingly help achieve the apparent purpose of Coffee's template: To stop the repeated reversing or undoing of edits on these highly visible pages. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Awilley

Absent the input of User:Coffee (who has been asked thrice for clarification) I believe that the original intention of the "firm consensus" clause was to prevent revert wars involving multiple users who each revert once, and to enforce WP:BRD. Defining a higher tier of consensus (as some have interpreted the clause) is not in line with Wikipedia principles and is not conducive to article improvement. I think the problem could be solved by simply replacing the words "firm consensus" with "consensus" or "clear consensus". There's no reason to require a higher standard of consensus than is normally required to exit the BRD cycle and implement an edit. ~Awilley (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did some digging and found Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Clarification request: American politics 2 (July 2016) in which Coffee clearly states that the clause in question was meant "to prevent a situation where an editor adds something, a content editor reverts it (using up their 1RR), and then the other editor uses their one revert to replace their edit. That happening is obviously not optimal, and it actually has happened in these articles before. I would love, and am completely open to, finding a different way to word the restriction..." Given this, I think the modification I'm proposing should be quite uncontroversial. ~Awilley (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved administrators

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[3] Joseph Gutmann (1997). "Beth Alpha". In E. M. Meyers (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. p. 299.

[4] ttp://www.weeklystandard.com/arafats-true-legacy/article/6127

[5] ttp://www.history.co.uk/biographies/yasser-arafat

[6] Weissmann, Jordan (August 19, 2016). "I Would Like to Take Back One Mean Thing I Said About Jill Stein. (It Involves Bees.)". Slate. Retrieved August 28, 2016.

[7] CNN Wire (August 18, 2016). "Jill Stein: I will have trouble sleeping at night if either Trump or Clinton is elected". CBS/WTVR. Retrieved August 31, 2016. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)

[8] Johnson, Adam (8 March 2016). "Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours". fair.org. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Retrieved 10 September 2016.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 772: / Line 772: @@
 It's clear from this thread that CFredkin is abusing AE to pursue a political agenda against Volunteer Marek because Marek is upholding WP policy in the face of Fredkin's POV and Battlegound editing.  CFredkin should be TBANned from American Politics per ARBAP2. [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']]  13:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
+It should also be clear to the Admins who are declining to enforce ARBAP2 that their inaction is enabling there anti-Clinton POV editors to run out the clock, gaming the system long enough for their stuff to stay on WP and Google search results through the election. There really isn't time for Admins to ruminate, warn, study and relitigate all this misbehavior.  All of this nonsense e.g. using WP to post anti-Clinton conspiracy theories as if they were fact, will be removed on the normal WP cycle -- about 12-18 months -- but the POV warriors know that, and so did Arbcom when it authorize Admins to act with appropriate timely sanctions to put a stop to this.  [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']]  19:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Anythingyouwant====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards