Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:47, 12 February 2015

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	338

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ubikwit

Ubikwit may edit a selection of articles (listed in the log and their talk page) for three months at which time they should appeal their TBAN as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 10 February 2015 (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: Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Per this Arbitration case, this discussion and your previous warning, I am invoking discretionary sanctions and topic banning you from editing any articles (and their associated talk pages) relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, with immediate effect. Note that any violation of this ban may result in an immediate block from any administrator with no further warning given, as this notice has already explained the sanctions you are subject to and served as sufficient notice. This ban has no expiry, although this ban may be revisited by the community at a later date.

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Ubikwit

The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled and not knowing how to handle it by disengaging, instead of engaging. I would like the ban overturned. The counterparty of the concurrently imposed interaction ban was a self-avowed activist that has subsequently been topic banned from all topics related to Judaism and appears to no longer be active on Wikipedia.
@NuclearWarfare: I've been in a couple of disputes, three or four that I can recall. One was related to sourcing used in relation to the Ukraine crisis; more specifically, a blanket rejection of sources from Russia. That ended up with my starting a thread on the Identifying RS Talk page, which was inconclusive but productive. Another related to a promotional article about "Jews in Nepal", which was eventual resolved satisfactorily thanks to the participation of Nishidani and Ravpapa, who found some reliable sources and almost single-handedly created an encyclopedic article from scratch. Finally, there is a current dispute I've been involved in for some time now related to the Soka Gakkai, which also involves huge amounts of promotional bloat and sourcing questions. I recently notified one editor of the ADVOCACY policy, due to repeated attempts to find a work around in a content dispute and insert content against consensus, which resulted in this AN/I thread. That seemed to be heading toward a BOOMERANG, but looks like it will be inconclusive, though a couple of editors have voluntarily withdrawn from editing the article itself. There is a series of related articles around that NRM that probably need discretionary sanctions to prevent such long-term disputes from consuming peoples time. The dispute addressed in that thread started back in August, approximately.
It has just dawned on me that I forgot to list the Arbcom Teaparty case, during which you were serving on the Committee, and which occurred after the sanction being appealed.
@Deskana: I do understand that it was disruptive to edit war, regardless of the status of the content dispute. I've since learned a significant amount about policy and dispute resolution and have done my best to adapt my approach accordingly.
@HJ Mitchell: That would be fine. I don't even have any specific articles I want to edit in the area at present, so a random selection or the like would suffice.

I think that the comments added by Is not a (talk · contribs) below are illustrative of editing in a contentious area.

First, it should be pointed out that the editor is a new account with a fairly high degree of familiarity with WP policy.

Second, Is not a (talk · contribs) casts aspersions on the Talk page and here, where he refers to anti-semitism, apparently linking that to his accusation that I "restored a citation of an attack site". A search of RS/N appears to reveal that the site is not an attack site, but a reliable source falling under news organizations, as I've commented on the relevant Talk page thread of the Kagan article. Is not a (talk · contribs) has attempted to dismiss RS documenting connections to the Project for the New American Century and the The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), reference to which has been completely removed from the article, despite numerous RS readily accessible, online, such as this. In fact, this series of edits sees a plurality of passages that appear to be adequately sourced being removed.

I spoke about being trolled, and the conduct of User Is a would seem to typify aspects of that type of behavior. It is not pleasant, but I have learned to respond in a more cool, calm, and collected manner.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 01:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens, it turns out that there was a subplot to the subterfuge at the Kagan Talk page regarding the editor with the tricky Wikiname Is not a (talk · contribs) "is a", with this source being purported "attack site", which is on a website hosted by Institute for Policy Studies, to which he was indirectly referring to using the acronym "IPS" (there is no actual mention of that organization or its acronym in the multiple passages he deleted), while also deleting the text sourced to an article from the news organization "IPS" (the only direct reference to "IPS" on the page). The so-called "attack site" piece is a profile that would probably be categorized as a tertiary source, with 24 citations, including many to pieces in the NYT and WP. I don't have time to read the piece itself but would assume it has a liberal POV. I've inquired whether the editor might have a COI regarding the Kagan and Nuland articles. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 03:34, 05:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this trolling? Harassment?[1] It's certainly not engaging in the discussion at hand in that thread, rather, trying to prevent the discussion from progressing in a manner such as to evaluate the sourcing questions at issue. The editor also linked to their post here in that post on BLP/N.

Note that the edit summary is to the IP rant in which that diff occurs, which has been hatted as trolling.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the recommended course of action to stop this type of continual disruption/harassment LaRouche thread aimed at me. Is not a (talk · contribs) has gone from making oblique accusations of anti-semitism to making a not so subtle representation attempting to link me with LaRouche.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request that the appeal be decided in my favor and closed, with or without a limitation on the scope of articles.

The behavior that I consider to be trolling by Is not a (talk · contribs) is on the verge of becoming a conduct dispute, and I believe that the delaying of a decision of the appeal has emboldened him.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: OK, thanks. I'll find a couple of articles and get back to you soon. I've been falling behind on work due to the amount of time I've spending on Wiki that past few days and need to catch up. I really don't intend to spend much time editing in that area, but you know Wikipedia goes, sometimes you start on one article and wind up four or five articles down the road from where you started.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC) @Callanecc: Here's what I'd like to propose. Since this edit was reverted with an edit summary stating Dual loyalty: bold edit related to Arab-Israeli conflict by sources, and that I've not exhausted following up on the sources found thus far, I'd like to include something like the geopolitical aspects of the I/P area. Two authors of one source, for example, are former CIA analysts that are ME experts, including Kathleen Christison. It would be helpful to not have to dance around explitily mentioning I/P within the greater context of the ME with respect to the controversy surrounding the neocons and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, etc. Also, since I will be following the news and it is also related to geopolitics, I'd like to include issues related to the ICC and UN. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC) @Callanecc: That's sounds sufficient, basically. Thanks. The only concern I have is that we don't know exactly what matters might be brought before the ICC, so articles related to such incidents might be something I would be drawn to editing in conjunction with the matter pending before the ICC.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 09:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@T. Canens: OK. Aside from articles related to neoconservatism broadly construed (and their talk pages), with respect to which there will be relatively little material that relates specifically to I/P as opposed to broader ME issues, I could ask @Nishidani: to recommend an article or two he foresees showing up on the horizon of the ICC/UN. Since there might be little actual editing related to I/P, depending on what transpires with the ICC, the Settler colonialism article might be an article I could improve with respect to the ME section.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 10:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a followup, as I noticed that a war crimes inquiry has already begun at the ICC. I'm more interested in the meta-level issues in this case, such as the US objection to the ICC taking the case, international law and institutions, and geopolitics in terms of the responses from different countries and implications for the global dynamic. So in this case, I wouldn't be interested in editing articles on either side's culpability for the crimes, just the implications of the findings for the solution of the I/P conflict overall, and reactions by public officials. I searched "Palestine ICC" and think that a few of the returned articles will suffice: States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, State of Palestine, ICC Cases, Political status of the Palestinian territories, International recognition of the State of Palestine, Taxation in the Palestinian territories

No need to bother Nishidani. The above list of ICC related articles along with the neoconservative articles should suffice. The Settler Colonialism article is somewhat and can be skipped, as it looks, at a glance, like it has been improved.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC) @DGG: I'm not sure if you are indirectly referring to the proposal of "articles and talk pages related to neoconservatism, broadly construed" or not, but I have provided one diff of a revert above (edit summary stating that sources addressed I/P) for an edit that involved extremely mainstream sources, including ABC News, TIME and the Atlantic. The ABC article declares that criticism of neocons for having dual/divided loyalties has been heard from the left, right, and center of the political spectrum, and I had only briefly covered the center and right. Another potential problem can be seen here, where I quote Joe Klein mentioning Rob Malley, an expert on the ME and I/P. If there aren't any concrete suggestions for an improved list or other comments, can we close this please? --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 08:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deskana

I've not been very involved in this for a while now so I don't have any strong opinion about this appeal. That said, I would note that a good part of the reason why the sanction was imposed was because Ubikwit failed to realise that he was edit warring and instead tended to blame it on other people (see this example). The fact that the first sentence in his statement in this appeal is "The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled" would seem to indicate that he still hasn't really understood that his behaviour was disruptive. This, to me, would seem to indicate that the ban is still necessary. That said, I defer to those more active in this area to make a decision around this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I don't know whether a word from me would be deleterious to Ubikwit's appeal or not, but, since he dropped a note, I'll risk it. I'd be happy to be on call for any assistance he might seek, if he thinks I might be able to provide it. He's copped a lot of flak, as all do in contentious articles, and seems to recognize one should not rise to the bait. He is a good, studious contributor in areas where messy IPs or drum-beaters tend to crowd in, and, subject to the obvious high bar we retro- or is that reprobates should set ourselves, we need knowledgeable editors, ready to acquire thick skins, to work these difficult areas.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ubikwit

Statement by is not a

Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit (talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to violate WP:BLP and other guidelines:

Ubikwit reinserted a meandering discussion of (Jewish philosopher) Leo Strauss,[2] despite Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)'s warnings about WP:BLP ([3], again [4] despite [5], [6] despite [7]) although finally he did respect the BLP-based consensus [8] I am happy to report.
Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan [9] [10] despite RayAYang (talk · contribs)'s warnings [11] [12] and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling [13]. Related edits on the talk page of Kagan follow:
On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" [14] and linking to this anti-semitic website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek [15]. A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang (talk · contribs) [16], who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."[17]
Today Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site, calling Kagan a rightwing militarist [18].

This is just one page, but the pattern of edits suggests that the problematic editing is not just limited to edit-warring violation, which was Ubikwit's removal of Israeli Jews from a list of indigenous populations. Examination of Ubikwit's behavior on other articles related to Jews, Judaism, Israel, The Israel Lobby, neoconservatism, Leo Strauss and Straussians, Robert Kagan and family broadly considered as well as biographies of living persons should be done before making a decision about Ubikwit.

Second, Robert Kagan has had severe violations of WP:BLP since at least 2008. For example, the 128.95.217.149 (talk · contribs) with only vandalism edits targetting Kagan has never been blocked. The history of this article horrifies me. Somehow Kagan's article needs to be protected from further WP:BLP violations, particularly edits that may appear to have anti-semitism.

Thank you. is a 22:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit's behavior over this weekend reinforces the concerns stated above. is a 20:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deskana: Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban (and linked to an anti-semitic site), among other policies. is a 21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:,

Blaming a cabal of American Jews for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the words mean anything. is a 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC) :The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) has similarly complained about the problem of this Ubikwit's citing weak sources on neoconservatism that allege that "a conspiracy of Jews took control of U.S. foreign policy so that its sole focus became the security and welfare of Israel", which is precisely why Ubikwit's campaign to label living persons as neoconservatives violates his topic ban (as well as numerous policies). is a 20:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Ubikwit

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

Note for the sake of completeness: The topic ban (and interaction ban) were imposed 3 January 2013 in this edit by Deskana. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No blocks within 2014 is promising. Would you say that you got into any editorial disputes since your last block? If so, could you please link to and describe them? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The required notification of the sanctioning admin is still lacking. Sandstein 22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's okay. I figured it out. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from the sanctioning admin, but this looks reasonably promising. The sanction was imposed a long time ago, Ubikwit recognises the error of their ways and states that they've changed their approach, they've been active in other topic areas, and they haven't been sanctioned recently. Certainly on the surface this ticks all the boxes that we look at when deciding appeals, but I haven't yet done a deeper review of their recent contributions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ubikwit: How would you feel about having a relatively narrow range of articles to edit in the ARBPIA topic area for a few months, after which we could re-evaluate with a view to lifting the topic ban if you don't get in to trouble during that time? I'm keen to give some leeway because I don't like the idea that topic bans are forever, especially if the sanctioned editor abides by the ban and edits productively elsewhere, but I have to agree with Deskana that your opening statement doesn't fill me with hope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the other user with whom Ubikwit was clashing has stopped editing I'd be inclined to hear this appeal further. It is disappointing (as Deskana) points out that their statement focuses on blaming other people rather than taking responsibility however I can see past that. It like HJ's idea, something like giving us some articles they wish to edit and after a few months coming back here to decide whether to lift it outright or not. ~~Given edit warring was a concern another possibility would be to replace the TBAN with 1RR and see how that goes.~~ I'm not convinced which of these options I prefer at the moment, going to consider it for a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Israel-Palestine articles are under a blanket 1RR, so an editor-specific 1RR would be redundant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I got the I and the P round the wrong way.
  Having thought about this some more I'm moving towards thinking that we should just lift the TBAN completely (especially given it's been 2 years with no major issues) but make it clear that there will likely be a fairly low bar to placing it again if need be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite continuing to edit in contentious areas, Ubikwit seems to have avoided trouble over the last year, and appears to have gotten better at staying cool in heated debates. Since I don't see any barrier to re-imposing it should things to awry, I'm in favour of lifting the topic ban. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still be happier if Ubikwit started off with a few articles or a relatively narrow subtopic so that we could evaluate how they get on there for a few weeks and then lift the ban completely if there were no issues, but in a choice between absolute acceptance or absolute rejection of the appeal, I'm more incline towards acceptance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not too difficult to TBAN them very quickly again if any undesired behaviour occurs, and if we do allow a small subtopic it's completely likely that it won't be enough to see whether the type of behaviour which will characterise their edits to the broader topic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Is not a: I don't believe those edits violated the ban. The ban was from the Arab-Israeli conflict, and precedent at this board is that that doesn't include edits about either Israel or Palestine/Arabia unless explicitly stated, only the conflict between them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: So we can get this moving along can you give a sub-topic (or some articles) you'd like to edit for a few months. Once I've got that I'll add it as an exemption so that you can show that you can edit constructively in this topic area. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: How does this sound an exemption to make any edits related to the geopolitical aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict (including political ideologies, and edits related to the International Criminal Court and United Nations)? Other admin comments welcome... Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike fuzzy sub-topic exemptions like this. They are difficult to get right, and hard to enforce. I'd rather see Ubikwit propose a list of some specific articles, and consider granting an exemption for those articles (and their talk pages). T. Canens (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This make sense to me also. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, gents, but I think the point is that the exemption is a test: if it results in disruption or wikilawyering about scope, we can rescind it. If it results in constructive edits, improvements to articles, and none of the problems that led to the original topic ban, we can lift the topic ban altogether. In other words, Ubikwit has nothing to gain and everything to lose by pushing the limits of the exemption. That said, I'd be happy with an exemption for specific articles if that's what it takes or this appeal to regain momentum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got an objection to the seven articles Ubikwit has proposed? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New timestamp to postpone archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theobald Tiger

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 Theobald Tiger

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide#Discretionary_sanctions_.28January_2015.29 :

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

30 January 2015 Personal attack in edit summary, mass revert without discussion
30 January 2015 Mass revert, disregarding active talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
30 January 2015 Personal attacks
30 January 2015 Mass revert of multiple edits, disregarding active talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
29 January 2015 BLP violations on article talk page
29 January 2015 personal attack
29 January 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
29 January 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
4 February 2015 personal attacks, including "You know nothing of NRMs and cults, you do not even know what primary sources really are, your objections to encyclopedic content are based upon prejudice and self-interest. Your means are wikilawyering, taking the moral high ground, lying, insinuating and denying the obvious."
4 February 2015 another accusation of COI
4 February 2015 personal attacks, accusation of "bullying"
5 February 2015 accusations of deception, COI, smearing, etc, immediately after being warned to comment on content not contributors (and with a link to WP:NPA).
8 February 2015 Bulk insert of unsourced material into a BLP, removal of sourced material
9 February 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussion, edit warring, inclusion of unsourced material in a BLP
9 February 2015 edit warring, inclusion of unsourced material in a BLP, removal of sourced content
9 February 2015 edit warring on BLP

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 23 January 2015.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 9 January 2015.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor was significantly involved with the Landmark Worldwide topic on nl-wiki. There was some kind of block put in place (block log), and I am unclear what the circumstance of that is. It appears that the nl-wiki block has been lifted. Upon arrival here, the editor displayed in-depth experience with the Landmark subject,[19] and appears to have a strong POV (evidenced in the diffs above).

@Astynax: 1) Yes, I am aware of DS. That is why I came here to ask for enforcement of DS. 2) I don't see anything at the ANI link you provided that makes any sense of what you are saying. I made a single comment in that discussion, effectively asking that editors stop fighting over POV. Obviously that did not happen. 3) Multiple reverts to the article are not justified when there is dispute and discussion underway. There was no consensus for the material and yet it was reinserted into the article multiple times. 4) I'm not sure if you are saying that I have been intransigently unilaterally reverting, blanking, hectoring, or entangling. If you are, please stop and use the appropriate mechanisms (such as an enforcement request) to report such behaviour. I obviously disagree and I welcome any and all examination of my editing. Tgeairn (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As three different editors have all responded to the mention above of blocks on nl-wiki and the linking to the relevant block log, it was and is my understanding that the proper form for filing a request here includes linking previous actions taken. As these actions were not on en, but were recent (the most recent three blocks were within the last six months, the prior blocks are much older) I listed them as an additional comment rather than as a recent or current sanction. I also requested and received a review of the form of my filing from a clerk, who said it was correct form. If including the log from .nl was incorrect, I request that a clerk strike my relevant comment(s) or alert me. Tgeairn (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat surprised that the unfounded accusations and occasional outright attacks continue. It seems unlikely that I need to address all of the uninvolved parties accusations, but I will attempt to do so.

Theobald Tiger's statement simply demonstrates their behaviour and contains little that is factual.

1. Despite repeated accusations, at no time has the matter been taken to COIN, and Arbcom did not include such a finding in any proposal after reviewing the presented evidence.

The nomination of Margit Warburg for deletion is one of dozens of similar articles nominated over that past months, the majority of which have been determined to be non-notable and closed as deletes. I was not even aware that Astynax had created the article until TW showed who the notification was sent to.

I have explained my deletions and removals extensively at the Arbcom case, and the committee had no findings regarding any of the evidence presented there. That it is still being cast as somehow negative is an issue, but it is not my issue.

None of what TT wrote in his item #1 addresses that he reverted my edit to List of new religious movement and cult researchers with the edit summary of "Tgeairn is simply not knowledgeable enough to blank this kind of information - moreover it is a form of POV pushing." The revert was uncalled for (and exactly what Arbcom has asked us to stop doing on these articles), but the edit summary contains at least two attacks and is unaddressed by TT's statement.

2. I reverted the re-addition of a very large (over 50% of the readable copy of the article) block of text. The copy in question was BOLDly added by Astynax, then it was removed. TT reverted the removal rather than discuss (again, one of the things Arbcom specifically warned not to do), and by that time there were multiple discussions open on the talk page and at RSN. TT's edit summary is not relevant, as there was no consensus for adding the material in the first place.

Regarding consensus for this material, the entire block of text was added as an apparent end-run around a RfM that closed as no consensus and then editors began merging Erhard and WE&A material here anyway.

3. TT may not think so, but I view telling me that I have not read a source (that I quote extensively and provide links to in that thread and elsewhere) and that I "have not the faintest idea of what primary source actually means" to be a personal attack.
4. In this case, TT reverted hours of work where I made single edits clearly describing the reasoning for each edit. TT reverted my work saying "no consensus", when in fact the talk pages clearly demonstrate that there is no consensus for having the material there to begin with.
5. BLP applies, even on talk pages. Making unsourced statements is an issue, and I raised it. By itself, it's probably not a sanctionable offense. As a part of a pattern of behaviour, it is relevant.
6. Again, "It is crystal clear that Tgeairn has not read the Lockwood article" is an attack at this point.
7. TT's own edit summary is clear that editors at the talk page do not support the inclusion of the material TT is reverting into the article.
8. TT's own edit summary is clear that there is a dispute over this material on the talk page, and TT is reverting it into the article anyway.

Legacypac's statement is misleading in two out of three points.

1. The edit history of the article clearly shows actual edit summaries and incremental improvement of the article and its sourcing. Each edit was researched and performed deliberately.
2. Legacypac filed that SPI, and at this point it has not been reviewed. Legacypac's own statement indicates that they filed the SPI due to their opinion of conduct on the LW article, which is a rather odd reason to file an SPI unless the intent is to chill participation.
3. Further review of the discussion linked by Astynax and the discussion linked from there indicate that TT's block at nl-wiki is unrelated to the Landmark article there. That discussion did not address the multiple blocks for personal attacks at nl-wiki. As explained above, I linked the nl-wiki block log because I thought (and still do) that the filing required notice of previous actions.

Cathar66's statement is difficult to address, and will likely be the foundation of a follow-up enforcement request on this board. It contains a number of attacks, unfounded assertions, and strays away from either my or TT's behaviour fairly extensively. I expect that reviewing admins will see that there's a string of misinformation there. Seriously, I'm somehow "caught" because I used the expand citations tool weeks after an IP added an incomplete citation?

The failed outing attempt certainly doesn't help Cathar's credibility either.

Thank you to the admins and arbs for your attention. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from archive --Tgeairn (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Preventing archive. Tgeairn (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: When making your final determination, you may want to take into account Theobald Tiger's recent block revert of disputed material about Werner Erhard into the Landmark Worldwide article, less than 48 hours after taking a seven day self-imposed break from the Erhard BIO article to avoid a 3RR block.[20] No edit summary given, and "It is increasingly clear that you are mistaken" left on talk page. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

31 January 2015

Discussion concerning Theobald Tiger

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 Theobald Tiger

I will comment briefly on the difflinks provided by Tgeairn:

Ad 1. Tgeairn is, in my view, a contributor with a clear COI who tries to keep Landmark Worldwide free from encyclopedic content by all possible means. Tgeairn is sometimes reasonable, mostly frankly unreasonable, often intimidating, always taking the moral high ground. Tgeairn has also violated WP:Point by nominating Margit Warburg for deletion, an article started by Astynax with whom he happens to have an argument on Talk:Landmark Worldwide, and by deleting whatever he/she comes across that has something to do with the sociology of (alternative pseudo-)religious movements (like Landmark). Therefore I reverted his blanking with an edit summary that seems to me appropriate.
Ad 2. The discussion on the talk page did by no means support the blanking of the new history paragraph. Therefore I reverted Tgeairn's blanking, with an edit summary that seems to me appropriate.
Ad 3. This is no personal attack at all. My conclusions might have been unpleasant to Tgeairn, but they seem to me well-founded and even inescapable.
Ad 4. See Ad 2.
Ad 5. This allegation of a violation of WP:BLP seems to me not only far-fetched but wrong. Tgeairn had objected to some article text on the topic of Werner Erhard's lack of education. I replied by saying that such information is to be expected in cases like this, because (as I said) "Erhard is in large part an autodidact and a dreamer". This remark does, as far as I can see, no harm to Erhard's reputation. Moreover, it is well-founded (autodidact, Erhard is frequently called a 'visionary', having had a decisive 'vision' on the Golden Gate Bridge), and it was a remark on the talk page, not in the article.
Ad 6. I recommend to read the complete Reliable Sources Request. This request, done by Tgeairn, is plainly absurd. I have answered it to my abilities.
Ad 7. Revert of unmotivated blanking with an edit summary that seems to me appropriate.
Ad 8. See Ad 7.

A topic ban for Tgeairn seems to me indicated. My blocklog on nl.wiki has absolutely nothing to do with Landmark as two admins on nl.wiki (Josq & CaAl) and a Dutch speaking admin on en.wiki (Drmies) have attested. I wish the Arbitration Committee wisdom and understanding when investigating the case and passing judgment on our actions. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS Tgeairn pulls an angelic face confronted with criticism of having mentioned my blocklog on nl.wiki, but the way he/she did it - "There was some kind of block put in place (block log), and I am unclear what the circumstance of that is" - is outright insinuating, offensive and malicious. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for a conflict of interest on the part of Tgeairn is overwhelming, both onwiki and offwiki. Asked if there is a COI, Tgeairn's has persistently answered in an evasive manner. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The treatments I have received since I have done some contributions to the Landmark related articles is really unbelievable. As the uncivilised idiot I happen to be, I prefer to be banned indefinitely from this miserable project. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Astynax

Tgeairn was also explicitly made aware of discretionary sanctions[21] and hopefully admins will take his own activity into account. Tgeairn is almost certainly aware (as he commented here, where it was a notable part of the discussion) that the calumny recently raised at ARCA[22] regarding Theobald Tiger's participation on nl.wikipedia has no more merit or relevance here than it did a week ago. Nor were Theobald Tiger's reverts unjustified, as they merely restored massive and incremental blanking reverts of referenced material. Tgeairn himself participated in the blanking of this material. Arbcom invited new eyes to the article, yet those who have arrived (Manul, Cathar66, Legacypac, IronGargoyle, in addition to Theobald Tiger) have been subjected to the same intransigent reversion/blanking and talk page hectoring (including unilateral reversion, citing an invalid rationale, of a Move survey by a non-involved editor[23][24]) behavior by Landmark advocates which I attempted to describe in the original arbcom case. This is also not the first attempt to entangle fresh eyes who have come to the article in WP:DR processes, which is itself very off-putting. • Astynax ^talk 19:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dave Apter's assertions: As was pointed out on the article's talk, there were no BLP violations (material accurately reflected the references, it was noted in the text that tax fraud charges were eventually dropped, and the text intimated nothing illegal regarding the "Hunger Project" fiasco). Even were one to suspect such BLP violations, that would have not in any case justified the summary blanking by MLKLewis of an entire section of fully-cited material or the similar incremental blanking by Tgeairn. Nor is complaining about the length of a History section by Dave Apter as WP:UNDUE a valid reason for blanking, most especially in an article where other sections have yet to be fleshed out. Admins will also note that Dave Apter has a self-declared CoI with regard to this topic, even though he disputes and has been warned about this by admins and others repeatedly. The accusation of tag-teaming is ridiculous; as far as I know, there has been absolutely no coordination among editors Dave Apter has accused of tag-teaming. • Astynax ^talk 19:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legacypac

1. BOOMARANG this - the edit history on Landmark Worldwide shows the tactics clearly of systematically deleting material. 2. The Editor who filed this unfounded complaint is the subject of an active Sockpuppet investigation [25] over conduct on this article. Let's see where that goes before taking this too seriously. 3. It was well established that th nl-wiki block was nothing to do with this issue. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What DaveApter calls disingenuous and Tgeairn calls a bad faith attack while disparaging my edit history is actually a legitimate use of SPI to find out which editor is hiding behind an IP to edit war on the article. I filed the SPI before this Request for Enforcement was filed and I signed the SPI so I'm hardly hiding my actions. User:Tgeairn is even asking for sanctions against me for filing the SPI while not even denying he used an IP to edit war. Sanctions are needed here, but against Tgeairn. Legacypac (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DaveApter

It seems disingenuous for Legacypac to point out that Tgeairn is the subject of "an active sockpuppet investigation" without making it clear that he himself was the editor who requested that investigation. I can't help wondering what prompted it, as the reasons seem no more than conjecture. Rather than attempting to introduce distractions to this Enforcement Request by making counter-accusations, perhaps a specific request, with evidence, should be made here if Legacypac thinks this is called for.

I should have hoped that the conclusion of the recent Arbcom Case with no findings or sanctions passed against Tgeairn would have put an end to the continued accusations being levelled against him, but if anything the intensity of the attacks has increased. DaveApter (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further responses to comments by Cathar66

The comments from Cathar66 below seem to be the latest attempt to draw attention away from the substantive points of this request by casting aspersions on the messenger.

Cathar66's principal contribution to the Landmark article has been to re-introduce the majority of a highly contentious mass edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=645233779&oldid=645085794

This sequence started with the replacement of the 'History' section of the article with an overblown bulk edit by Astynax on 29th January which was about as big as the whole of the rest of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644672518&oldid=644672217

This was (quite rightly IMHO) reverted by MLKLewis on the grounds that it violated BLP by accusing a living person of tax fraud and of embezzling charitable funds, without adequate evidence. There are also other grounds for objecting to the material – including the fact that it is undue weight, and that it is largely irrelevant to the subject of the article, dealing mostly with events long before the corporation was formed.
Without engaging with discussions on the talk page, a tag-team edit war was undertaken to keep this material in:
Theobald Tiger on 30th Jan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644768203&oldid=644741559
and again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644824862&oldid=644819594
Astynax later on 30th Jan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644878221&oldid=644877732
IronGargoyle on 30th Jan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644880836&oldid=644880331
Legacypac on 30th Jan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644884569&oldid=644882151
and culminating with the partial re-insertion by Cathar66 above.

I have also followed the links alleging 'forum shopping' and cannot find anything contentious, nor any “less than truthful comments” by Tgeairn, or even any mention of Cathar66.

The combined effect of all these attacks is beginning to look like a classic instance of a WP:POV railroad intended to undermine the credibility of Tgeairn rather than to address the merits of his arguments. DaveApter (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Astyanx

Once again the unjustified accusation that I have a COI on this topic is dragged out as a red herring to distract from the issues. Let's stick to considering the evidence that has been presented here. For anyone who cares, I specifically requested that the Arbitrators give a ruling on my alleged Conflict of Interest (as did John Carter, rather more persistently and aggressively), and their comment was “I did not include Apter in proposed sanctions because I didn't think the evidence presented warranted it.” [26] This should be the end of the matter unless anyone can present some compelling evidence.
My reference to 'tag-team' was not intended to imply active collusion (about which I could not possibly know), but merely the fact of six block-reversions of the same contentious material in a single day by a group of like-minded editors operating in turn, without significantly engaging in talk page discussions.
This page is not the place for discussions of the merits or otherwise of Astynax's material; the issue here is editor behaviour. DaveApter (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

As someone who has never edit the article, and frankly has little interest in the topic, a look at this filing and the article talk page shows dubious behavior all around. (Note that some of the diffs entered by the plaintiff are very borderline, including the so-called "personal attacks.") I conclude that the only way we're going to get a neutral, well-written article is if new editors come in. For that to happen will require admins to ~~knock a few heads together~~ put the current warriors on a very short leash enforced by liberal use of blocks and/or topic bans. Without this few neutral, outside editors will want to dance into the minefield. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cathar66

I visited the Landmark article for the first time on 18 January 2015. Having read the article I edited out 2 pieces within which were not reliable sourced. Tgeairn wrote a note on my talk page wondering why I thought that the Irish Daily Mail and Mayfair (magazine) are not RS.( an unusual question from an editor I now know to have made over 40k edits) I replied that a tabloid newspaper and a soft porn mag are definitely not RS. I understand Theobald Tiger's frustration as this editor purports elsewhere to be an expert on RS. This actually made me interested in Landmark and I the read the talk page reread the article and did a sourced (NYT} 3 word edit which caused a furore on the talk page - I let the other editors get on with it while I familiarised myself more with the subject. I am not afraid of editing but the hostility on the talk page was unreal. How are new editors supposed to get involved with the talk page behaviour of Tgeairn. The wrong editor is before this ANI People in glass houses should not throw stones.

I have looked at the difs cited in the complaint. I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris that the behaviour is borderline in some of the edits but justified by Theobald Tiger in others.

I would also like to comment about forum shopping by Tgeairn who has commented less than truthfully directly and indirectly on me at AN, JzG and also at Drmies and hope that my replies on the first and last of those pages are educational for him .Cathar66 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dave Apter's assertions

Your selected difs are mischievous. The first dif you used was totally justified because of Tgeairn removal of content which was reliably sourced. Tgeairn then reverted it without sufficient reason [27] Theobald Tiger correctly reverted this with an explicit explanation.The next interjection was by a now banned IP who blanked the section noting (Remove slanderous accusations). Instead of reverting this as any reasonable editor would do he edited other sections removing a sourced reference [28]then removed another source with a misleading edit summary [29] and others until ashyntax reverted to the last stable version before the ip reversion which the banned ip 173.161.39.97 then reverted using a bs reason (Removing these attacks. Stop placing untrue stories here.) IronGargoyle correctly reverted this vandalism. The banned ip reverted again for another bs reason and Legacypac correctly reverted this. I read the section that was being edit warred and tried to put it in more NPOV language. Tgeairn ridiculed this on the talk page obviously not understanding my intent despite the edit summaries stating starting abbreviated text - more neutrally worded. The IP as a sock puppet or one of a banned editor I don't know. I do know that another ip 23.25.38.121 [30]may be a sock puppet for Tgeairn as the language used in an anally retentive style is similar to Tgeairn. This ,and other edits by this IP, I will raise this at sock puppet investigations (as soon as I figure out how). (The Irish Mail on Sunday article is only referenced online in Wiki sourced sites and Landmark related PR sites. The Irish daily Mail is not available online as it is a regional version of the UK Daily Mail. (more info) It was originally added to the page by the same US based Comcast IP at 12 July 2012 [31] so this IP is connected to Landmark internal sources. At 23:04, 21 August 2012 Citation bot fixed the citation on this reference with the reference Misc citation tidying. | Tgeairn when this section and others was deleted DaveApter restored it on 10 September 2012 [32] when this was then deleted Tgeairn restored it.

Finally I'm rusty and not particularly familiar with BOOMERANG and believe a topic ban for this and all NRM articles is appropriate for Tgeairn. Like the Spanish Inquisition in Monty Python I have yet one more comment (maybe two) to add Dave Apter your COI is obvious and the “I did not include Apter in proposed sanctions because I didn't think the evidence presented warranted it.” reflects on the quality of the evidence presented and not on your COI behavior. I will review the evidence and eventually present sufficient cause for an enforcement. It's ~~Friday~~ oops Tuesday night / Wednesday morning and I've enjoyed my hot whiskeys but not enjoyed having to do this. Goodnight Cathar66 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Tgeairn, for the content that was removed, but as you appear to be the expert on reliable sources why would you fix an unlinked citation from a newspaper that has a tiny circulation in Ireland and is not available online and only available online through Landmark PR? I find that odd.Cathar66 (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Theobald Tiger

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

I haven't had a chance to have a look through the evidence here yet, just commenting to prevent archiving for now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, having looked at the evidence submitted against Theobald Tiger I believe that there is evidence on wrong doing, specifically incivility and personal attacks (1st sentence, [33], [34], "It is crystal clear...", [35]), edit warring to make a point ([36]), and edit warring generally [37], [38], [39], [40]). I'm considering whether to go with a final warning or a three month topic ban, though I have to say that this edit is pushing me towards a TBAN. If editors believe that there is enough evidence to sustain an AE request regarding Tgeairn could you please submit a separate request, given the size of this request and the amount which has been submitted it's difficult to determine whether action needs to be taken. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me like they seriously need to watch their tone in discussions, but there's no evidence of disruption in the mainspace. A topic ban seems a bit an over-reaction to say this is the first enforcement request that has been brought against them. A final warning would suffice in my opinion, and if the disruption continues there can be no arguing that they were unaware of the standards of conduct and a topic ban would be perfectly reasonable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine with me, I'll close it in 24 hours or so if there are no other concerns raised. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gouncbeatduke

Gouncbeatduke offered informal advice/guidance on their talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 11 February 2015 (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 Gouncbeatduke

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: WarKosign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA :

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

The user repeatedly behaved in uncivil manner towards me, bordering on personal attacks. Any attempt to reach a conesnsus was ignored and responded by edit warring, often in seeming teaming with a similar minded editor. The user demonstrates battleground mentality, treats every user in disagreement as an "anti-Arab POV-pusher".

Here are examples from a single discussion/edit war in the lead of Israel. I understand that you will not go into a content dispute, the content is only mentioned to explain the user conduct.

GregKaye added a {{cn}} tag to a statement about Israel's declaration of independence in the lead of Israel (that the borders of Israel were not specified) and wikilinked to the UN partition plan that did specify the borders. I provided the missing source that proved that the declaration intentionally did not mention the borders suggested by the partition plan and removed the wikilink that this source proved irrelevant.
Gouncbeatduke replaced the statement with another that is not supported by the source and is relevant to the UN partition plan, not to the declaration of independence. Edit summary was "(replace POV-pushing with NPOV version of article cited)". I reverted this edit with "Factually incorrect - UN revision plan suggested borders for "a" state, not "the" state that was declared", GregKaye un-reverted the edit without any comment.
Gouncbeatduke created a talk page section named "Edit warring by WarKosign", incorrectly stating that I've twice reverted the article (actually one edit and one revert), that I removed all references to the UN partition plan (actually it remained referenced two sentences above) and that I was "pushing" a certain version (actually the stable version that existed before their edits). I responded explaining my edits, Gouncbeatduke dismissed my explanation with "I think we both know you are misrepresenting your edits." and wrote that my version was less NPOV (without giving any reason).
I renamed the talk page section to more appropriate "Relevance of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to borders of Israel" and continued discussing the content with GregKaye and other editors. The only contribution from Gouncbeatduke was accusing me of "regurgitating the anti-Arab narrative" and saying that "current version of the article is a much more NPOV", again without any usable explanation.
After some more discussion I made (what I consider) a compromise edit and asked the editors to comment on it. Gouncbeatduke reverted the edit commenting "returning to last good version prior to User:WarKosign multiple edit warring reverts", renamed the talk page section back to "Edit Warring by User:WarKosign" and moved a statement together with an unrelated quote, effectively restoring half of my compromise edit while removing a relevant source and introducing another source misrepresentation.
I added a tag for Gouncbeatduke source misrepresentation and wrote on the user's talk page asking to remove the attack in the talk page section name. The user responded again accusing me of edit warring and pov-pushing without any actual details, and refused to change the section name. Note that the user actually renamed the section on their own talk page, demonstrating understanding of how take page section names matter. Eventually GregKaye renamed the section to something more appropriate.
The user removed the misrepresentation tag while leaving the misrepresentation, with the comment saying "Please discuss in talk section before reverting again" (so far I reverted once in the whole discussion, while Gouncbeatduke reverted at least 3 times). The user insists to keep dispute tags for other matters, so they clearly understand their importance.
The discussion continued for a while then Gouncbeatduke "contributed" another baseless accusation. I expected the user to understand the uncivility of such accusation after having explained it on their talk page, so I asked the user to retract the statement, with no response so far.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think the user is well-intended but unready to collaborate. They seem to think that NPOV is some magic word, once they say it everybody is obliged to accept whatever unexplained and unsourced edits they make. The best possible outcome of this request would be to have the user drop battleground mentality and collaborate in order to achieve their stated goal of NPOV.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Gouncbeatduke

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

Statement by Gouncbeatduke

The current version of Israel article reads “Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries.” As best I remember, User:WarKosign and blocked sockpuppet User:Ashurbanippal where the two editors pushing a version that said “The borders of the new state were not specified”. I believe the current version of the article is a more NPOV. I believe much of the article reflects a pro-Jewish/anti-Arab bias, likely a systemic bias from the fact there are so many more English speaking Wikipedia Jewish editors than Arab. Part of the article’s bias is to downplay the view of the UN on Israel’s borders, and up-play the promulgations of the Israeli Government regarding the borders. I therefore believe the current version of the article with the “Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN” statement helps to bring about a more NPOV.

I am not Arab or Jewish, I have no bias feelings either way on the subject of Israel, and I am only interested in seeing a NPOV article. I believe that I am in a minority among those editing the Israel article, and most editors have a very strong pro-Jewish bias. I understand Israel is a tough neighborhood, where religious extremists often kill people and attempt to kill more just because they are Jewish. However, I think a NPOV Israel article is a better way to combat extremism than a biased article that fuels resentment.

I believe User:WarKosign and blocked sockpuppet User:Ashurbanippal have engaged in intimidation tactics against many editors who desire a NPOV Israel article. These include accusations of Antisemitism and bad faith by User:WarKosign, for example, his “Israel is critisized out of blind hatred, i.e. new antisemitism. Comments made by … are a good example” statement in the Israel talk section. However, as this is an emotional topic, I would not be inclined to file an Arbitration request or request sanctions against User:WarKosign. As I have said to User:WarKosign in the Israel talk section “I have no problem with you other than you editing behavior, as far as I know you are a good person. I think we both recognize that most of your edits to date push a pro-Jewish POV, and I don't see how we can make progress towards a NPOV article without being honest about that. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a pro-Jewish or a pro-Arab POV, just that a NPOV Wikipedia article is not the place to express it.” Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WarKosign

@Gouncbeatduke: Your statement is misleading on many points:

The subject of this discussion is your uncivil behavior (pushing your own POV while you're accusing other editors of the same). If you are ready to begin discussing the content, let's do it at the article talk page and not here. Now you accused me of intimidation. Read this essay, it matches many of your recent actions. If any of my actions matched this essay kindly let me know which.
Current version of the article is what GregKaye and you pushed. You never bothered achieving consensus before making the changes, and then reverted all the attempts to correct your factual errors and source misrepresentations you introduced. Previous version (one that you accused me of pushing) was stable. When consensus can't be reached the previous version is the one that should remain.
What you consider NPOV is clearly and obviously biased. Saying that you want NPOV is not enough, you need to collaborate with editors that have bias opposite to your so everybody are equally unhappy with the compromise.
You are misquoting my statement: "There are opinions that often Israel is critisized out of blind hatred, i.e. new antisemitism. Comments made by the IP user are a good example - instead of legitimately criticizing problematic decisions made by Israel, the user requires Israel not to be treated like "just another country" but as "illegitimate and ... perhaps the most hated country in the world"."
You wrote twice that you have no problem with my personality, yet used the talk page to accuse me of POV pushing and ignored my every attempt to discuss the content of the article with you. I would much rather you hated my guts but worked with me to improve the article. “WarKosign ” 18:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler

@Callanecc, it does not appear that Gouncbeatduke is a "relative newcomer." I asked Gouncbeatduke if s/he had ever editing under a different username, and s/he stated, "I decided to WP:CLEANSTART"[41]. As a single-issue editor, Gouncbeatduke does not seem to be abiding by the recommendation that "it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start." Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gouncbeatduke

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

There does seems to be an issue here regarding Gouncbeatduke's conduct specifically their use of incivility and personalising disputes rather than engaging in the core issue. Having said that I'm not convinced that there is enough evidence to do anything more than provide some informal guidance (ie third para regarding Wikipedia's norms and expectations of editor conduct (especially considering that they are a relative newcomer). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am seeing an issue here with how they approach discussions and issues they disagree with. I'm considering whether a logged warning regarding battleground, civility and edit warring would be appropriate, or perhaps a topic ban from Israel related articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd suggest we start there, and escalate if it becomes necessary. Nothing is at risk immediately (there isn't an ongoing edit-war or BLP issue, for example), so starting with encouraging encouraging reform is proportionate and can be taken into account in the event of recidivism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - New timestamp to postpone archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by MarieWarren

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: MarieWarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – v/r - T P 03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: "To enforce an arbitration decision and for misrepresenation of sources to push a point of view on the page Abortion Rights (organisation), you have been blocked indefinitely from editing"

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by MarieWarren

I believed that the representation of the organisation was correct. My other actions with regard to this organisation was to make it accessible on wikipedia through providing an updating of the name to its current name. I was providing a summary of information that was on its website. I consider this to be consistent with the ethos of wikipedia. There was no point of view expressed but simply a stating of information that was present on their site. I do not think that this appeal will be successful but if it is I will ensure that I do not edit this organisation again. MarieWarren (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TParis

Statement by MarrieWarren copied on behalf of user account per request on unblock template. Nothing to say here. The user had been warned previously and continued to misrepresent sources. The source has a list of unsafe abortion practices that could lead in injury or death. The user claimed that the organization is promoting unsafe abortion practices. The user's only purpose on Wikipedia is to identify which organizations are pro-Abortion.--v/r - T P 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Squinge (talk)

The "Information on how to perform an abortion" section added by User:MarieWarren to Abortion Rights (organisation) was such a gross misrepresentation of the cited source that simple incompetence is not a plausible explanation. We're looking at blatantly dishonest POV-pushing here, in my opinion. Squinge (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by MarieWarren

Result of the appeal by MarieWarren

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

Per the information above, and my review of the thread in ANI archive 865, it seems that User:MarieWarren is here on Wikipedia to push a POV on abortion. She does not seem to care about the details of what the sources say. I recommend declining this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be better to keep this user away from Abortion related articles, however if MarieWarren is willing to contribute constructively to other areas I'd be willing to consider granting the appeal and replacing with a indef TBAN from abortion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since we can't indef block under DS, the block should be parsed as an 1-year DS block plus a normal indef block, with only the former in AE's scope. Regardless of the technicalities, the source misrepresentation is blatantly obvious, and the claims made in defense makes it doubtful that this editor could ever constructively contribute to any area of this project. Decline. T. Canens (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the fundamental problem with MarieWarren's statement is that it shows no acknowledgement at all that there has been any problem with her editing. If she cannot see what the problem is, then she will not be able to avoid making the same mistakes again. She seems to think that the block is just a result of her editing of one article, and says that she will not "edit this organisation again" (presumably meaning the article about that organisation). However, that assurance is nowhere near sufficient, as she has exhibited the same problems in editing a number of different articles, not just one, and avoiding one article will do nothing to prevent her from doing the same on other articles.

For the reasons I have described, I think we should decline the request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I would call User:MichaelBLewis72 a Confirmed sock of MarieWarren, and it appears both accounts are editing similar areas. It may be helpful to evaluate this as y'all evaluate this appeal. Courcelles 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the userlinks:

MarieWarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MichaelBLewis72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:MichaelBLewis72 has been adding papers by 'M.B.Lewis' to articles. For example here. He has stated he is an expert on face recognition and Google Scholar shows that someone of that name is recognized in the field. One option is to leave the indef of MarieWarren in place, ban MichaelBLewis72 from the topic of abortion and ask him to cease adding his own papers to articles as a condition of continuing to edit. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, they are technically indistinguishable. They could very well be different people, but CU brings them back technically identical. Courcelles 04:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very low opinion of people who misrepresent sources, ad I see no mitigating circumstances here. Even ignoring the possible sockpuppetry, I see no reason to trust MarieWarren to not continue misrepresenting sources if she were unblocked. Consequently we should decline this request. Huon (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially encouraged by MarieWarren's response to a discussion in my talk page regarding her synthesis of these abortion-related sources and how they apply to the organizations whose articles she edited. I later found out that despite the fact she appeared to have understood why her edits were inappropriate, she simply continued to perform them. I'm not very hopeful this time around, so I do not look kindly on this appeal. I think she is here to simply push her POV. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New timestamp to postpone archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close soon?: I suggest declining the appeal by MarieWarren since no admin favors it. The other account, User:MichaelBLewis72, has not edited since 13 January. Conceivably this is a different person using the same computer. Why not leave an alert for him under WP:ARBAB but take no other action at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, however given the username and the CU result I believe that there's enough to block User:MichaelBLewis72 as a sock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Banhammer applied. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steeletrap

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 Steeletrap

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#May 2014 (BLP discretionary sanctions)

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

February 8, 2015 Reverted wording and changed the meaning of the phrase
February 8, 2015 Defied the RfC closing of admin Nyttend after he pointed out the fundamental noncompliance of NPOV, and she adding back the term conspiracy theory
February 8, 2015 Went even further in noncompliance of NPOV by adding more contentious material to the BLP
February 8, 2015 Went into the body of the article and reverted the wording to change the meaning of the phrase
February 8, 2015 Reverted another editor's correction of BLP violations and again brought back the noncompliant contentious material

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[December 30, 2014]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#May 2014 (BLP discretionary sanctions) If I read the information properly, Steeletrap just completed a 3 week TB, and went right back to editing with no regard for DS, the recent RfC results, or policy compliance.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is my first AE, and I apologize in advance for any technical errors I may have made completing this form.

[42] added information re: Steeletrap's behavior since return;

Specifico's claims against me for edit warring are false but expected. He is quite defensive of Steeletrap as evidenced at ongoing SPI [43]. A close review of the diffs at the 3RR initiated by Jytdog will confirm. My edits were measured to comply with NPOV, some were clean-ups of my own prose, citations, and redundancies as demonstrated in diffs below. When done, I removed the NPOV template because I felt the NPOV problems were resolved with my edits. What we're seeing now is, as one editor put it, "a collection of attackers." They do not want the Griffin BLP to be expanded, and insist on stating the contentious material in Wiki voice despite policy that is contrary.

Jytdog is not acting in GF. He has been WP:SQS since December 10, 2014 as the article TP will show. He is also WP:Forumshopping at AN, [44] When he didn't get a response, he added more sections and questions ad nauseam.

[45] Nyttend clearly explained to Jytdog on his TP - the strong point of the "no" was its clear point that "conspiracy theorist", as generally used in contemporary English, is a fundamentally non-neutral way of describing someone. If it's not neutral to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, it's likewise not neutral to call his ideas conspiracy theories. Let me be clear: the core policy is neutrality, and your words make me think that you're attempting to wikilawyer in order to undermine that core policy and make him look bad.
Diff and edit summary shows what I did to bring policy compliance: [46] (Expand lead, modify for compliance with NPOV per RfC close, include inline text attribution to contentious material per BLP policy)
[47] Jytdog reverted me with a faux summary, I reverted Jytdog once
[48] Steeletrap reverted me with a faux summary
I have participated in discussions on the TP for two months, made proposals before and after my edits - all of my edits were reverted and criticized by Jytdog and team exercising bad faith;

[49] <-- Proposal
[50] <--Proposal
[51] <--Explained expansion and NPOV corrections
[52] <--Summary of Jytdog's disruptive behavior

Arthur Rubin reverted my edit that removed NPOV tag saying, "not a chance; the lead is now much too long, but still severely biased." - showing total disregard for the RfC and closer. [53] Atsme☯^Consult 05:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Arthur Rubin's statements below, it should be rather evident that the goal in attacking me is to divert attention away from the disruptive editing of Steeletrap and those who have demonstrated quite clearly their primary purpose is to maintain Griffin's BLP as a WP:Attack page or WP:Coatrack. How many times must an editor be brought under DS before their actions are taken seriously? Atsme☯^Consult 20:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add-on to clarify that my edits conformed to WP:PROFRINGE, WP:BLP#Balance per my interpretation of policy. Steeletrap and other editors who have included or support fundamentally noncompliant contentious statements in order to maintain SQ are doing so by making blanket statements in Wiki voice sourced by partisan and questionable sources cited without inline text attribution. I make note of this because it is a behavioral issue - they have been advised - therefore it appears to be purposeful tendentious editing and dismissal of policy. I invited collaboration and discussion for improvement, but full reverts without any discussion are what resulted in defiance of policy. In an effort to dispel the notion and spurious claims made against me by Steeletrap and the collection of editors who are attacking me now, please read the following passages that I either added, or left as is in the article when making my edits :
In March 2011, he was interviewed on Fox News by Glenn Beck who recommended Griffin's book The Creature from Jekyll Island calling it a "fascinating read."[9] Sean Easter of Media Matters For America wrote a critical review of that interview stating, "Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories.<---lead
...but subsequently banned in the US as it is scientifically unsupported and not approved by the FDA.[11] Griffin includes a disclaimer in his book that states "This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery.<---lead
Edward Flaherty, an academic economist writing for Political Research Associates, characterized Griffin's description of the secret meeting on Jekyll Island as "conspiratorial", "amateurish", and "suspect".[30] Griffin's response was "[t]here is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory...." and "until specifics [of error] are brought to my attention, I stand on everything I have written."<---I actually did not write this passage. It was already there so I left it as is.
Since the 1970s, the use of laetrile to treat cancer has been described in scientific literature as a canonical example of quackery and has not been shown to be effective in the treatment or prevention of cancer.[36] Emanuel Landau, then a Project Director for the APHA, wrote a book review for the American Journal of Public Health, which noted that Griffin "accepts the 'conspiracy' theory ... that policy-makers in the medical, pharmaceutical, research and fund-raising organizations deliberately or unconsciously strive not to prevent or cure cancer in order to perpetuate their functions". Landau concludes that although World Without Cancer "is an emotional plea for the unrestricted use of the Laetrile as an anti-tumor agent, the scientific evidence to justify such a policy does not appear within it".<---passage was already there.
I have not been able to further expand or improve the article because of the disruptions to maintain SQ. It appears Griffin is being viewed more as a pseudoscience issue than as the BLP of an author who writes books about controversial topics, and who also includes disclaimers in his books as I noted above.

Atsme☯^Consult 16:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update Feb 12th: I just realized there is a connection (though not direct, rather an association) between G. Edward Griffin and the Mises Institute who endorses Griffin, and the Tea Party Movement involving Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Lew Rockwall, and the John Birch Society. I'm not sure how DS, TB, and AE work, but I also found the following:
Editing restrictions Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#blpenforce wherein users Arthur Rubin, Specifico and Steeletrap are listed: (excerpt) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. and Steeletrap is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. and SPECIFICO is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. It may explain their tendentious edits, and why they support UNDUE contentious material in Griffin's BLP.
[54] See the section header: Why Griffin Is Basically Correct.
[55] section header Don't Take My Word For It,
[56], [57] which connects Lew Rockwell, Griffin, and Austrian School proponents. Is G. Edward Griffin's body of literary works not a related extension?
With regards to Arthur Rubin's comments about UNDUE and wanting more contentious material added to Griffin's BLP see: [58]. Arthur Rubin has had sanctions imposed involving the Tea Party Movement - Griffin is connected there as well. At the very least it explains what may be happening with regards to the insistence of those editors to add defamatory content to Griffin's BLP. Atsme☯^Consult 20:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[59] Notified by another editor of edit violations at article TP
[60] Warned of the violations and my report to Callanecc who has been overseeing Griffin
[61] Callanecc asked me to make a report of this at AE which I am doing now.
[62] Steeletrap's response to Callanecc - the user has been notified.
[63] Notice of this AE

Discussion concerning Steeletrap

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 Steeletrap

I was not edit warring. The Griffin article has nothing to do with my topic ban. Hence in the last AE sanctions case against me--the successful one--no one raised the issue of my editing the Griffin page. Steeletrap (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC) The diffs cited of Jytdog admonishing me are out of context. Jytdog supported my edit that OP is objecting to here. He opposed an edit of mine which added new content. My edit was reverted and I did not re-add it. Steeletrap (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my single edit to the Griffin page--which I have not tried to restore, and whose reversion I accepted (via the Griffin talk page) prior to the commencement of this action--did not refer to him as a CT. It merely referred to him as a promoter of alternative medicine and fringe science. The man believes HIV does not cause AIDS, and that laetrile cure cancer, so my characterization is hardly non-NPOC. Still, I have accepted its reversion. Steeletrap (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Atsme has unclean hands in this matter. [64]. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog

Suggest boomerang. Please see 3RR thread I had opened with regard to Atsme prior to this AE being opened, here. Please also note Atsme's response in that board action. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Steeletrap did edit aggressively, Steeletrap later (in the midst of Atsme's edit warring described in my 3RR post above) posted on my Talk page acknowledging that she should have shown more restraint: see User_talk:Jytdog#In_retrospect.... That was after I had urged her to stop editing the article and seek consensus first, here: Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#Edits_today. I have seen no such insight from Atsme. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, if reviewing arbitrators want a separate thread on this, or for me to condense the evidence presented in the 3RR thread and present it here, or something else, please let me know.Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

We already have Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_review_of_close_of_RfC_at_Griffin_article where the issues have been discussed at length. That regards an RfC whose close is likely to be upheld which found calling a person a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's voice was improper.

The current issue is whether, presuming that the RfC closer's conclusions were proper, whether "advocate of alternative medicine and fringe science" in Wikipedia's voice falls under the same WP:BLP stricture as "conspiracy theorist" does when made in Wikipedia's voice.

It may be that this is a content dispute, but where an administrator Nyttend (who appears to be an experienced editor and administrator) has apparently ruled that it is a matter of WP:BLP requirement, then it is unlikely that ArbCom is likely to overturn it when the close was upheld at WP:AN. And in that case the issue should be whether the onus falls on the first to undo such an action [65] and not on the successive edits.

Callanecc's solution is good - but does not address that initial reversal of an admin's edit apparently made on BLP grounds. . Proposal's for "boomerang" or the like are, IMO, ill-judged. Collect (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The close was:

Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist". Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Which quite appears to indicate the closer viewed the term "conspiracy theorist" to be intrinsically "derogatory" and violative of NPOV - and the requirement for "self-identification" appears to draw directly onWP:BLP)

Statement by Pekay2

Stay on point. This is not about Atsme, but rather Steeltrap. It's bizarre that this team is supporting Steeltrap knowing that she made edits that the closer said are "a derogatory characterization of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view." [66]--Pekay2 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin

It is quite proper to discuss Atsme's edit warring to include positive controversial unsourced statements about Griffin. That the close covered negative (actually sourced, but for the purpose of argument, call them unsourced) statements about Griffin doesn't make Steeletrap's (I'll come back to correct spelling later, have to meet my wife at a shopping center) addition of inadequately sourced statements about Griffin's views an improper edit; to the extent he/she was edit-warring, he was also cancelling BLP violations by Atsme. I'll check the detailed edits, later. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although my comment is absolutely correct, it is irrelevant to this discussion. Steeletrap now understands what he has done that is wrong, and is unlikely to do it again. Atsme, on the other hand....even if Atsme is correct as to the meaning of Nyttend's close, and the close is consistent with Wikipedia policies, Atsme's his edits still adds WP:BLP violations by adding controversial self-sourced positive statements about Griffin, unchecked by the controversial, sourced, negative statements which Nyttend would not allow. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

I've been watching this article from afar (relatively uninvolved aside from an RfC comment), but I was surprised to see this posting. I don't see any obvious egregious sanction violations by Steeletrap presented here. They definitely came into the article hot, but scaled back pretty quickly when the edit warring was brought to their attention and they were asked to slow down. The fact that they stopped the problem behavior pretty quickly would seem to indicate any action for Steeletrap isn’t going to actually help anything at this point in time.

However, this posting seems to be retaliatory in nature, so it does seem like a boomerang would be in order. Atsme has had a tendency to lash out at editors in disagreement as part of a battleground behavior multiple editors have warned her about, accuse others of stonewalling because her ideas are not getting traction in consensus, etc. [67][68][ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme&oldid=646423626#BRD_at_Griffin.2C_please]. Trying to help out Atsme with her own behavior issues has just resulted in strange retaliatory warnings [69] considering those warnings given to her test edits or improper because she's a "regular". Basically not wanting to hear about her own behavior problems, but turning around and making those same accusations of other editors. Seems very much like a WP:THETRUTH attitude the article has been suffering with for awhile. Statements above by Atsme are pretty common by painting others' actions as BLP, NPOV violations, etc. when it appears she just isn't familiar the spirit of WP:PSCI policy in how we handle BLPs, or the related Arbcom decisions relating to pseudoscience, fringe/conspiracy theories, etc. as Callanec posted in the admin section below. To an outside observer who's been following this topic, the case presented here looks more like a very large and dirty pot calling the kettle black for a smudge. Maybe it would be better to separate Atsme's behavior out into a separate case here if her behavior is really going to be focused on in the context of both BLP and pseduoscience sanctions; there is a lot of history that would need to be explored if that was the case. However, it does seem like the behavior of other involved editors (namely the OP of this posting) should be considered in the specific case of Steeletrap's interactions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Another day, another wall of text defence of quackery apologia on the Griffin article by Atsme.

I honestly thought Atsme was over this crusade by now, but apparently not. The fact that the Griffin article is a biography has absolutely no bearing on the fact that laetrile is quackery of a particularly pernicious and exploitative kind. It has been described as the most lucrative health fraud in American history, and it is just one of a number of conspiracy theories advanced as fact by Griffin. That that he is a notorious crank and proponent of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience is a simple fact, it is not our problem to solve, and certainly not something we should excise from the record.

I do not think Atsme can edit productively in any area related to Griffin. I strongly suspect that anything related to laetrile, and possibly even to the John Birch Society and its many bizarre ideas, may also be a problem.

It's a shame. Atsme is very nice, but on this subject she is entirely wrong, and obstinately so.

Arthur Rubin is precisely correct: Steeltrap will not repeat the problem, Atsme undoubtedly will, and is, and needs to be removed from this article before she ends up blocked for tendentious editing. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Steeletrap

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

I haven't looked at this in detail yet but I note that WP:ARBPSEUDO and WP:ARBCAM both apply here as well if we don't believe that BLP DS are the best option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a real coherent case for disruption here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBySouthBaranof

Removing BLP violations is exempt from the topic ban. In an ideal world, somebody would do it, but in practice BLP prevails over just about every other concern. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:34, 11 February 2015 (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 NorthBySouthBaranof

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AnsFenrisulfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate :

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=646479745 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=646479629 NbSB removes a link in the talk page, cites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Per Sanctions to be Reinforced, NbSB is currently Topic-banned from the article.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The citation of the exemption is improper. The link they claim to be a BLP violation was cited on the talk page, was explicitly said by the poster to be a source for possible additional sources, and not a source to be used in the article itself. Thus, they are in violation of their topic ban.

Also, because I could see the label of SPA or Attack being thrown at me. I had wished to avoid the GamerGate article after I received Bite, and have even by eying other articles that interest me.

@NorthBySouthBaranof The reason I have no article space edits, is because I chose to start conversation instead, letting more experienced users than I deem what is worth doing. Inexperience is not a crime on Wikipedia, especially when the user actively avoids fumbling the ball. Also, I am not an SPA. I have actively moved my view elsewhere, I just have not yet felt comfortable in my knowledge to Be Bold. You can even find my last edit for change was to the Oshkosh, Wisconsin talk page, and i haven't even touched the GamerGate Controversy article since my first attempt and ensuing Bite.

To anyone who might look at this case. I am not above saying I have misunderstood BANEX, though I currently hold this does not appear to fall under it from my understanding.

I find it highly strange that NewYorkBrad chose to vote no based not on what was done, but by who posted it. I acknowledge I am a novice account, but surely your duty is to base your decisions on the evidence, not the person? Note, I am not saying voting no is strange, if it was a no vote based on evidence it would be entirely understandble.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=646560006 He has been notified.

Discussion concerning NorthBySouthBaranof

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

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

The link in question is a flagrant violation of BLP, and in fact was removed from the arbitration case evidence page for that very reason. It is a wholly-anonymous, self-published personal blog which makes a number of allegations of wrongdoing and attacks on living people — as such, it is categorically excluded from being included anywhere in the encyclopedia, including talk page space. If the policy is to have any meaning, it must be enforced. That the list of source links contained within it might be useful is neither here nor there — I have not removed that list of links. Among the entirely-anonymous allegations it makes, besides those mentioned by EvergreenFir, are claims of some sort of shadowy conspiracy by named living people to commit fraud and financially damage a competitor.

The editor who inserted the link stated that i think the dossier is good background reading (for editors) which calls into question their competence, because a categorically-unreliable self-published blog which makes allegations of wrongdoing about living people is absolutely not good background reading for editors on Wikipedia and in fact cannot even be linked to on Wikipedia, by foundational policy.

The reporting user is an obvious single-purpose account with not a single articlespace edit and ~~99% of their talk page~~ 38 out of their 39 total edits being related to Gamergate. I suggest this is a WP:BOOMERANG candidate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is well beyond "borderline disruptive," Thargor Orlando, are the continued attempts to use Wikipedia pages as a platform for character assassination through patently-unreliable sources making flagrantly-unacceptable claims about living people in contravention of foundational project policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

The link in question was full of serious accusations and frankly libel. Examples of statements made on the linked page are:

Naming an individual as a trans woman and saying they intended to raise money for sex confirmation surgery
Creations of black lists
Conspiracy by journalists and corporations
People accepting gifts for favors in a professional setting
A metric crap ton of WP:OUTING

NBSB was correct to remove it and within that right per WP:BLP and WP:BANEX. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AtomsOrSystems

I was an editor engaged in discussion in the topic when NBSB redacted the link. Had I been thinking straight, I would have redacted it myself; however, I didn't notice that the hyperlink above the collapsed section was a link. (In my defense, it was something like 6AM local.) Either way, I think it was a good catch by NorthBySouthBaranof. It seems like a clear example of my understanding of WP:BANEX -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS ^(TALK) 22:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Retartist

~~Good grief, I'd be happy to have the link retracted IF i could find any BLP violating material. 22:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)~~

It was pointed out to me on the talk page so retract it whatever --RetΔrtist (разговор) 22:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

Unrelated to the BLP issues, but on seeing NBSB's activity on the GG talk page, I see that NBSB is also contributing at a GG-related discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales [70] [71] (plus revisions), prior to this BLP issue. This appears to be after JzG started to run into trouble ([72]). --MASEM (t) 22:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

Perhaps an RfC might be a more appropriate venue for a issue like this, but it seems to me that even if BANEX permits NBSB to remove the material in question he is still prohibited from editing to make comments to Gamergate-related pages as he did here, here, and here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thargor Orlando

Ban exception or not, this continued activity appears to be a clear attempt to see how far the edges of the topic ban goes by someone who has otherwise written themselves off the project. It's borderline disruptive, and even if it is within the letter of the topic ban, his activity is well beyond the spirit of it. He's disrupted the space enough to get topic banned, so this continued disruption is not helpful. Actual BLP violations can be and are being handled by other people not in the topic space who are actually trusted to be there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning NorthBySouthBaranof

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

An AE report in the GamerGate area, by a novice account with only a handful of edits, is deeply unimpressive. I vote that no action be taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retartist

Topic-banned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:13, 11 February 2015 (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 Retartist

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions :

Discretionary sanctions for BLP violations.

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

February 9 — Inserts a link to a patently-unreliable anonymous, self-published attack page which makes an array of allegations of wrongdoing, conspiracy, outing, etc. about named living people.
February 10 — After this link is reverted citing the BLP policy, reinserts it and claims "i dont see the BLP vio"
February 10 — Inserts an array of patently-unreliable and unusable source links which attack living people who have been targeted by Gamergate, including personal self-published blogs, Breitbart-published attacks, alleged IMGUR screencaps, anonymous screeds and alleged "archives."

The policy-violating material is also in their sandbox.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Participated in the Arbitration case and was notified of the results here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user is blatantly violating BLP in the context of Gamergate, adding links and putative "sources" that they well know make unsupported, anonymous and unacceptable allegations about living people and flagrantly contravene the letter and spirit of the policy. One person here is using the encyclopedia as a platform to try and attack living people, and it's not me. Either this project is interested in protecting living people from anonymous libel and slander and preventing its pages from being used for a character-assassination campaign, or it's interested in policy-lawyering. Either way, take a stand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "72 percent" of AnsFenrisulfr's edits, he meant to say literally 38 of his 39 edits are related to Gamergate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here.

Discussion concerning Retartist

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 Retartist

Ok, I didn't know that some of the links contained BLP vio's (there is 121 of them) how about ALL the links get removed, then i submit ones that i think will be productive to the talk page. If one reads the discussion i was trying to make a good-faith discussion about what GG thinks is wrong with games journalism and i added an indiscriminate list of sources that GG has used to support this claim. North, i don't think you have Assumed Good Faith on me, Nowhere have i said that i want to cast aspirations on living people, I just want to have some background on "ethics in game journalism" --RetΔrtist (разговор) 23:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to apologise for trying to help and i won't submit 121 links again --RetΔrtist (разговор) 00:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: You seem to be referring to the first link which i only re-added because i couldn't find negative claims against the 5 people i checked, once the specific claim was brought to my attention i was happy for it to be removed. I just want to say that i did check a portion of those links for BLP and I made a brief lapse in thinking that 121 links was appropriate, but i did have a change i wanted to discuss; namely the addition of gg's arguments for unethical journalism. --RetΔrtist (разговор) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about i just have a 1 month topic ban from gg then I can't put links in talk without a specific wording change? Actually I'm requesting a one month t-ban anyway so i can get back into my anti-vandal, newbie-welcoming editing pattern. --RetΔrtist (разговор) 03:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: you may want to include my ALt (User:Retardist) in any decision --RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnsFenrisulfr

Right... I am willing to concede my understanding of BANEX may be wrong... but this seems like a BLATANT violation of a topic ban.

On the subject of the case, the first diff I agree with, the second one is cherry picked, since the user himself said that he sees the issue and agrees with it being redacted after someone pointed it out, and the second one goes from that. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact NbSB's statement keeps growing to underscore the almost explicit statement "You are ether with me or against me" says far more about his intentions with this, than it does about Retartist's actions. Above this, he accuses me of being an SPA, having obviously not read a single one of my edits since I have explicitly said I am not. He Also claimed I had made no edits outside of GamerGate Controversy.. then sneakily changed it to 99% (The actual number is 72%) with the last one (Not counting today's snafu) being January TWENTY EIGHTH. I will not pretend to know how to deal with him, but this request is in bad faith at BEST, and utterly malicious at worst. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is amusing that out of everyone, it is NbSB who is the one performing Character Assassination. All my user talk page edits were to learn about the workings of Wikipedia in general, so that I could become a better editor IN GENERAL. So I could contribute to more than just a single article. If you were not trying so hard to perform the very actions you claim to decry, you could see that. And again, no edits prior to today on that article for the last 13 days. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I failed to make this clear. I support action against Retartist for these, as they do infringe upon BLP, my issue above is with NbSB going against his topic ban to stay involved in an article he was removed from specifically for being disruptive and for the battleground behavior he has put on full display in his comment section here. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by drseudo

Retartist's defense—that he didn't bother checking the links he posted for WP:BLP violations because there were so many of them—is in a sense more damning than anything in NbSB's (admittedly overheated) comments. It does not take a leap of logic to conclude that recklessly and indiscriminately linking to WP:BLP-violating content is exactly the kind of behavior that discretionary sanctions are intended to curb. drseudo (t) 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

Retartist has brought a number of different sites to a talk page in the hopes that other people would evaluate them for inclusion in the article. In doing so, he failed to check them for BLP, and when notified that they had violated our BLP policies attempted to maintain the presence of these links on the talk page even after being informed of such. I do not believe this editor understands (or has chosen to ignore) the importance of avoiding BLP issues, despite his comparatively heavy involvement in an area which requires a very strict adherence to our policies on BLP. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Woodroar

@HJ Mitchell: yes, this had been an issue (one I thought had been resolved), where Retartist would add BLP-violating statements and, when they were removed or redacted, reinstate them or generally be uncivil about their removal. In August, we had this rev-deleted edit, which was reverted, after which Retartist warned Bilby for censoring and added a slightly nicer accusation that didn't name names. In September we had this and this added in the same discussion, which NBSB redacted in two edits, leading to this drawn-out conversation where Retartist was repeatedly told about BLP and civility. Woodroar (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

Reiterating (copy-pasting from above enforcement request for NBSB) the problem with the link:

The link in question was full of serious accusations and frankly libel. Examples of statements made on the linked page are:

Naming an individual as a trans woman and saying they intended to raise money for sex confirmation surgery
Creations of black lists
Conspiracy by journalists and corporations
People accepting gifts for favors in a professional setting
A metric crap ton of WP:OUTING

Thank you to East718 for revdeling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by the determinedly uninvolved Ryk72

With respect to the more experienced Wikipedians who have provided statements, if this relates to edits to article talk pages which contain links but no actual contentious material, then it appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding & misapplication of the WP:BLP policy.

WP:BLP applies everywhere, but its application is dependent on the situation & location of the edits; links to sources that we might not use to support contentious material in article space are explicitly permitted in article talk space.

WP:BLPTALK explicitly states that inclusion of links (without repetition of any contentious material itself) is the appropriate method for editors to reference such material for discussion. The material could then be reviewed and a consensus formed as to whether inclusion in the article itself is appropriate w.r.t WP:BLP and other core policies.

WP:BLPEL relates only to "Further reading", "External links", and "See also" sections of article pages, and is therefore not relevant to edits to article talk pages. WP:ELNO, a guideline, is similarly explicitly only for article pages, not article talk pages.

While I am not able to view the edits listed above which have been revdeleted, I am able to view the links referenced as "The policy-violating material is also in their sandbox". Iff the revdeleted edits contain an actual repetition of contentious material contained in the links, as opposed to the links only, there has been a breach of WP:BLP. If they do not, as would appear from the information in the sandbox link, there is no breach, and it would be appropriate to reopen the preceding request.

WP:BANEX states Reverting ... obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree. Given that links to contentious material in article talk pages are explicitly permitted per WP:BLPTALK, I am not convinced that they are an obvious violation of WP:BLP, and reversion of such should be discouraged; in favour of policy based discussion & consensus building.

Removal, reversion & revdeletion of links to contentious material prevents such discussion & formation of consensus, and is inherently contrary to the goals of the Wikipedia Project.

I now return to my gnoming. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Retartist

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

Question: Is this part of a pattern of misconduct/poor judgement, or is it an isolated incident? If the former, dated diffs with very brief explanations would be appreciated. In case it doesn't go without saying, please don't quote any BLP violations on this board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had to revdel today's edits because they were so odious, EvergreenFir outlined why in the section above. I'm also convinced that there's enough evidence here for this to be actionable, given that the user is not a relative newcomer and has been counseled about BLP before. I propose that Retartist be banned from the topic area and from posting links discussing living people for some time. — east718 | talk | 03:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problems with this article have been going on long enough so there is absolutely no excuse for a user who has been editing this article since September and who participated in the ArbCom case to engage in this kind of behavior. The links provided by Woodroar make it clear that this kind of problematic behavior has been going on just as long as they have been editing in this area. How many more hundreds of revision deletions have to be performed before editors stop posting this kind of material? A single edit of this nature might be excusable in an editor new to these articles, but after six months? Given all of this, it is time for an indefinite topic ban. The ban can be reevaluated if the user proves they can edit other less controversial and sensitive areas of the encyclopedia without incident. Gamaliel (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Implicit in the topic ban exception for reverting BLP violations and vandalism is the permission to report the same to an appropriate noticeboard. It makes no sense to allow someone to revert a vandal, but not report said vandal to AIV.
I agree with the proposed topic ban, at a minimum. We should also remove the reviewer permissions. T. Canens (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel

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 Arzel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Arzel (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#Arzel warned :

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

February 12, 2015 "So when Carson is called a hate extremist by the SLPC it is fine to plaster his page with that idiocy, yet when the SLPC retracts the statement it is not fine? Hypocrites." (Personalizing and politicizing a content dispute)
February 11, 2015 "You confuse WP:NOTNEWS with WP:N and do many WP editors wishing to frame a political story. Hell, it is barely 2015 and the silly season crap has started already." (Personalizing and politicizing a content dispute)
February 10, 2015 "Added response to the tripe. SPLC loses respect by the day." (edit summary - Politicizing a content dispute)
February 10, 2015 "Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Al Sharpton.....it is pretty well-known. If anything, it is acting as a propaganda arm of the Obama administration." (Politicizing a content dispute)
January 5, 2015 "Please don't wipe the media mentions from the talk page without discussion. You can't simply whitewash this out of existance. Also, please leave your conspiracy theories elsewhere." (Personalizing a content dispute)
February 4, 2015 "Your answer speaks volumes about your purpose here. There is no evidence that this has long lasting notability, your statement has no weight. The event was political to begin with even if your man is trying to hide the fact behind stupid words and a cluelessness about reality."(Personalizing a content dispute, and a clear personal attack)
February 4, 2015 "Some of your edits appear to be quite transparent in your goals." (Personalizing a content dispute)
January 19, 2015 "If you want to attack Emerson for his views on Islam go do it somewhere else." (Personalizing a content dispute)
January 12, 2015 "You are an admin, you should help reign this crap in, not propagate it." (Personalizing a content dispute)
November 2, 2014 "Why do you feel the need to trash a living person?" (Personalizing a content dispute)

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Admin warning on 4 February 2015

Arzel has a long, well-documented history of abusive and disruptive personal comments. Arcom gave a clear warning to Arzel not to persist in this type of behavior, but unfortunately it has had little effect. Arzel spends a great deal of his Wikipedia time reverting other editor's contributions, complaining about liberal bias, and making insulting claims about editors' intentions. He gravitates to controversial political and news agency articles, but does very little to collaborate with other editors to actually try to improve the articles.

There are other milder examples from the past few months. I don't think there is any point filling the page with addition diffs, but will do so if it helps.- Mr X 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[73]

Discussion concerning Arzel

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 Arzel

Mr.X's preferred method of dealing with those his disagrees is drama boards. I try to uphold BLP issues and am constantly attacked by him for it. Arzel (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Arzel

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

Whatever Mr.X's motivations, these are clear examples of problematic behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc

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 Tarc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Avono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Tarc_topic-banned :

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

00:57, 12 February 2015 Commenting on a request for enforcement concerning NorthBySouthBaranof's gamergate edits
13:28, 12 February 2015 Commenting on a gamergate related article concerning WP:ARBGG.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[74]

Discussion concerning Tarc

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 Tarc

Diff #1, albeit snarky, is in regards to a policy question wrt ban exceptions, it was not a comment on the Gamergate topic. This was on an admin's talk page, and if said admin did not have a problem with it, I see little reason for Avono to come crying to AE.

Diff #2 is an observation that either the God-King or an Arbitrator may be being a bit less than truthful, as their statements are in direct contradiction to one another. Again, not a discussion about Gamergate itself.

The weight I put upon a "complaint" filed by a) a single-purpose-account who b) was not involved in either discussion is immeasurably infinitesimal. In both instances, I was discussing the failings of Wikipedian editors in regards to policy. None of it was directly died to the hallowed gamergate...a topic which no longer exists on my watchlist in any form. In perusing recent AE cases though, it it heartening to see that several of Avono's GG cohorts have been shown the door, which is likely the source for this angsty and malicious filing. He and bros no doubt celebrated the Arb finding that topic-banned...or banned outright in the case of the shafted Ryulong...several of us, and anticipated that the coast was clear for a pro-Gamergate slant to the topic area. It must be a bitter pill to swallow to see karma returned in thrice. For that, my joy is immense. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avono, I have a field of cares; gaze upon it, and witness the barrenness thereof. You had your say, I had my rebuttal, and I am not going to lower myself to further debate. The admins are perfectly capable of looking at what was said without further elucidation from you. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avono

You edited a talkpage titled "Barnof" in which Carrite states Your interpretation of BLP that ostensible BLP defense excuses violation of an Arbcom topic ban by NxSBaranof is, shall we say, unique. That you have at the same time moved to topic ban off one of Baranof's innumerable opponents does not speak well for your judgment. Please consider yourself "involved" with respect to any future motions made against him — his site ban is coming. This relates to an enforcement request related to NBSB editing the GG page under WP:BANEX. According to WP:TBAN ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages. NBSB ban exception occurred when he edited the gamergate article. The discussion about the Arb was related to the Gamergate case. Therefore I conclude that these edits are covered under the broadly constructed topic ban. Avono (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tarc

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

It seems that both users are continuing to use Wikipedia to fight over GamerGate here. These comments by Tarc appear to be borderline, but these sorts of edits should be discouraged. Avono was recently topic banned by User:HJ Mitchell from discussing Mark Bernstein after repeatedly commenting on his off and on-site remarks and making several attempts to get him blocked for violating his topic ban. Perhaps Avono should be topic banned from trying to get other users blocked or banned? Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AnsFenrisulfr

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 AnsFenrisulfr

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamergate :

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

[75] First ever edit, acknowledges membership of the gamergate cult.
[76], edit no. 32, is plainly not the action of a genuinely new user, raising very strong suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry in an area already overrun with drama-only accounts collaborating off-wiki with an agenda orthogonal to Wikipedia's foundational goals.

AnsFenrisulfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a "brand new user" who has essentially no contributions to Wikipedia other than commentary around Gamergate, some of which seems to me to amount to simple trolling. The user exhibits classic gamergater WP:CPUSH tactics. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DS notice was issued by Gamaliel, 22:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC) ([77]) but does not appear to have triggered the edit filter.

This account should, I think be speedily removed from the fray.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning AnsFenrisulfr

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 AnsFenrisulfr

Statement by (username)

Result concerning AnsFenrisulfr

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

I don't understand why we spend so much effort and angst over obvious SPAs. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, yes. So just topic ban this one and they can still edit any other article of the millions of articles on the encyclopedia. We should not continue to pretend that accounts like these are not here to push their agenda, nor should we continue to allow sensitive and controversial articles to serve as the apprenticeship of novice encyclopedia editors. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 843: / Line 843: @@
 The weight I put upon a "complaint" filed by a) a single-purpose-account who b) was not involved in either discussion is immeasurably infinitesimal.  In both instances, I was discussing the failings of Wikipedian editors in regards to policy.  None of it was directly died to the hallowed gamergate...a topic which no longer exists on my watchlist in any form.  In perusing recent AE cases though, it it heartening to see that several of Avono's GG cohorts have been shown the door, which is likely the source for this angsty and malicious filing.  He and bros no doubt celebrated the Arb finding that topic-banned...or banned outright in the case of the shafted Ryulong...several of us, and anticipated that the coast was clear for a pro-Gamergate slant to the topic area. It must be a bitter pill to swallow to see karma returned in thrice.  For that, my joy is immense. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 19:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
-:Avono, I have a field of cares; gaze upon it, and witness the barrenness thereof.  You had your say, I had my rebuttal, and I am not going to lower myself to further debate.  The admins are perfectly cable of looking at what was said without further elucidation from you. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
+:Avono, I have a field of cares; gaze upon it, and witness the barrenness thereof.  You had your say, I had my rebuttal, and I am not going to lower myself to further debate.  The admins are perfectly capable of looking at what was said without further elucidation from you. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Avono ====

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