Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:47, 4 July 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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Atsme

No consensus to grant appeal, and sanction is expired, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:13, 2 July 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: Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 19:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: [1] Article ban from Kombucha (you may still edit the talk page and are encouraged to do so) until 7:59 pm, 28 June 2015, this Sunday (6 days from now) (UTC−4); You have been sanctioned as this is second time you have edit warred on the article in the past week so this sanction will stop the edit warring and encourage discussion.

Reason for the appeal

Callanecc has demonstrated an indisputable bias towards me and maintains a double standard. He automatically assumes that I am at fault without investigating the evidence. I am also requesting that this block be removed from the DS log, and that Callanecc recuse himself from future administrator interactions involving me.

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

Notification of that administrator: [2]

Statement by Atsme

History of bias and double standards

Feb 10, 2015 - Callan imposes revert restriction on Griffin and simply warns editors involved in tag-teaming and reverting my edits.

Feb 22, 2015 Callan advises another admin on how to prepare against me, clearly showing favoritism...if/when this eventually ends up at AE for someone to look through your edits and believe that Atsme was pushed or harangued through incivility or personal attacks on your part.

Feb 23, 2015 Callan's summary and the RfC close which substantiated that my edits were indeed correct in removal of BLP violations even though I was repeatedly threatened and harassed by other editors, and also warned and told by Callan to drop the stick while he supported the position of the other editors who opposed me.

April 20, 2015 6 weeks later, more of the same suggestive tone by Callan with reference to acting against me by taking a harder line (purposely mentioning STICK) while ignoring the false accusations of the OP. This is further indication of Callan's bias against me, and his double standards.

Inadvertent Emojis and 1st unwarranted ARB warning

Callanecc's first ARB warning to me which was unwarranted

March 11, 2015 Callan posts my first ever ARB warning (CAM) not long after consensus supported my position and problematic editors refused to abide by it - This edit is disruptive and is not commenting on the content but instead on the contributor.

Other editors respond to Callan's DS warning

March 12, 2015 An editor confirms other instances of double standard w/diffs to demonstrate.

March 13, 2015 Another editor comments, Is that a joke, or are you actually threatened with prosecution for using an emoji?

March 11, 2015 I asked Callan why I got the warning.

March 12, 2015 Callan explains The pun regarding SPECIFICO's username and adding the rolling eyes are the bit which is uncivil.

Note: I used specificolly instead of specifically in a harmless comment. The emojis were inadvertent and the result of a glitch in the emoji dashboard which I proved many times over before Callanecc would remove the warning.

March 14, 2015 Explanation with diff from T13 about the emoji dashboard glitch.

More evidence of bias and double standards

Feb 16, 2015 Issues ARB warning to a very offensive editor (also an admin), then removes all trace of it from the DS log the next day. My warning remains as a strike-thru as evidenced below.
March 12, 2015 Editor who previously cast aspersions against me now asks Callan to do more than just warn me. Callan responds with .... working from memory and my opinion of Atsme's conduct (which overall I haven't had a problem with).... Yet he issued an ARB warning for inadvertent emojis?

March 12, 2015 I request help from Callan because other editors are casting aspersions.

March 12, 2015 Explains warning, acknowledges aspersion but does not act on it. Asks me, Can you explain why you think it's casting aspersions, the only one I can see there which could be is the implication that editors are leaving the article because of you.

March 12, 2015 Callan simply hides offending comment directed at me by the same user who caused me to get the ARB warning and is asking Callan for stricter penalties imposed against me.

My warning remains on DS log with a strike through - more evidence of the bias and double standard considering he removed all traces of other editor's warning who was far more deserving of more than just a warning.

Atsme (talk · contribs) warned for making a disruptive and uncivil edit on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Vacated following discussion on my talk page (see 1 & 2). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

March 14, 2015 Discusses my warning with other editor who repeatedly harassed me, and continued to ignore my requests for removal of the warning from the log, not unlike what is happening now in the Kombucha case.

March 25, 2015 My response to Callan's discussion with now desysopped Dreadstar regarding Griffin and how he failed to accomplish what Callan wanted done with regards to me. (my bold for emphasis) Sorry Callanecc, I tried to help but apparently failed miserably. I'll keep an eye on the talk page of the article and try to keep it on the straight and narrow, but helping with the above editor is beyond my ability.

The above exchange made me feel as though I have a target on my back, and that I'm fair game for the gamers who like to play games with human lives.

Current DS Block article ban re: Kombucha

June 21, 2015 Request to Callanecc to repeal the DS but my request was ignored; typical of our prior interactions.
June 22, 2015 Callan's response is reminiscent of Griffin, not unlike what was happening at Kombucha. .....you need to get consensus before making large or contentious changes to articles, or if you have been reverted (especially more than one) barring things like WP:3RRNO you need to get consensus It was apparent to me that he didn't even bother to evaluate the situation, and the ~~block~~ article ban was a knee jerk reaction based on his bias, double standard, and in support of some of the same editors that were involved at Griffin. ^{correction made 15:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)}
Some of the noncompliant material I disputed at the article have been removed but the issues are ongoing.
June 23, 2015 I provided a sequential list of diffs demonstrating my edits and attempts to remove noncompliant material (scientifically unsupported death claims) that is grossly noncompliant with our 3 core content policies and MEDRS. Instead, I was ~~blocked~~ article banned for it.

Article is PP by NeilN 23:48 June 20, 2015 Which should have been the initial action imposed by Callanecc instead of the ~~block~~ article ban he imposed on me, clearly resulting from his past biases and ongoing double standards. ^{block to article ban correction 04:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)}

Response to Doc James

A wise admin and former ARBCOM member Someguy1221 explained Verifiability well: "In an encyclopedia built by volunteers, in which no real vetting of an individual's expert status is feasible, this policy simplifies discussion greatly. Instead of relying on debate over the validity of a fact or viewpoint, the debate focuses on the easier to tackle issue of whether it is verifiable. Even if experts could be vetted, this philosophy is still preferable. Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles."

With the latter in mind, I can't help but consider the following with reference to MEDRS when Doc James stated: "This guidelines is malleable to accommodate poorly studied areas such as this one." June 22, 2015. The poorly studied area being kombucha, and the questioned source being a low quality, single author, 13 yr. old systematic journal review that Doc James green lighted for citing unsupported scientific claims of potential causality based on the poor reporting of a very small group of anecdotal case reports. No, this appeal isn't about my misunderstanding of MEDRS as Doc James is trying to make it appear - it's about my refusal to accept his suggestion that MEDRS guidelines are malleable. My first obligation when writing any article is to maintain compliance with NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR, and in the case of health and/or food articles, to strictly adhere to MEDRS which clearly conflicts with malleable, particularly when citing material regarding human health. I remember how, 2 mos ago, I was castigated by certain members of Proj Med for once referring to MEDRS as a guideline, not a policy, when writing my first essay. The words, "strict adherence", were tattooed on my posterior. A group of Proj Med editors immediately requested the essays deletion, partly because they felt it didn't show enough respect for MEDRS when I wrote "follow" MEDRS guidelines instead of treating it more like policy with strict adherence. The new essay WP:AVDUCK now reads "requires close attention" but based on current events, I should probably update it to read, MEDRS, the malleable guideline. And the irony - here I am now appealing an ~~block~~ article ban for having respected MEDRS. Atsme^📞📧 03:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) ^{strike correction made 03:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Response to Callanecc

Interesting. The diff Callan provided was the same diff I used as evidence to demonstrate his bias. He still hasn't responded to my questions on his TP [3] wherein I provided a sequence of diffs with edit summaries. I realize he is one of our busiest admins, however he did manage to find time to impose DS against me, so I would think he would have shown me the courtesy of responding (with supporting diffs) to the questions I raised. His silence in this matter is quite telling. I am more certain now than before that he acted without even investigating to confirm that I was edit warring. If I had been edit warring, I would have been taken to 3RR but that didn't happen because I wasn't edit warring. So why was Callan called in? Callan has a record of imposing improper DS warnings against me - re: the rogue emoji caper that I had no control over (and I wasn't even aware of at the time). And now Callan's response here is to simply drop off a diff in a drive-by appearance that does nothing to support his action, and serves to further demonstrate his bias toward me. I'm sorry but it is not ok for an admin to show bias toward any editor or automatically assume an editor is guilty based on bias and unwarranted preconceived notions all the while turning a blind eye to tag teaming edit warriors.

Logging an article ban against me gives an admin license to impose an even stricter ban in the future. Had I deserved it, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. However, I will not sit back quietly while an unwarranted article ban has been logged against me. In fact, the other unwarranted warning should have been redacted from the log the same way Callan redacted the warning against the other editor who was being grossly uncivil. Again, more evidence of his bias and double standard. I brought this case here hoping it would be reviewed by uninvolved admins who actually have the time to analyze what took place. Callan did not review the situation before he imposed DS against me or he would have known another admin had already posted to the TP June 23, 2015, and drew attention to the unwarranted reverts (TW rollbacks of GF edits, etc.) by the real edit warriors. Having that ban logged on my record leaves me open to being railroaded again by this same group of editors, except next time the sanctions may be worse because of the log. It's a tactic often used by cabals when faced with editors who are following PAGs but disagree with a particular POV, but that's a different case for ARBCOM. If we are to allow any admin the authority to impose DS like those we'd expect to see in an ARBCOM hearing, then each appeal deserves to be reviewed in a fair and equitable manner from a completely neutral position. I just want the log redacted, and in the future, Callan recuse himself from any administrator action involving me in the future. Atsme^📞📧 19:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ca2James

I should probably thank Ca2James, and Andy the Grump (who is no stranger to disruption) for their comments and diffs because they actually provided further support that I was not edit warring. I was editing and expanding prose. In this diff, [June 18, 2015, Ca2James stated: "The lede no longer includes the fact that deaths have been reported. I agree with Andy that describing the deaths as "claims" when they've been reported in RS is a POV characterization and wouldn't be acceptable anywhere in the article, let alone the lede." Despite the admitted POV characterization, Ca2James makes the following edit completely ignoring the scientifically unsupported death claims in that same section: June 25, 2015. Atsme^📞📧 22:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callanecc

I'm away until around 8 July. However I'll briefly point out that an article ban (not topic ban) is one of the lowest level sanctions which can be placed, and it was pretty short at that. Regarding the merits of the appeal, please see the reply on my talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Doc James

It was a good top ban. This user by comments like this is struggling with respect to proper interpretation of the WP:MEDRS guideline [4]. And unfortunately this has been ongoing for a couple of weeks at least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Petrarchan47

When I found this article, the Lede read in part:

Drinking kombucha has been linked, in rare cases, to serious side effects and deaths, and improper preparation can lead to contamination.1 (link to now removed page on cancer.org)

Atsme rewrote the lede and removed unsupported claims of poisoning, infection and death in compliance with NPOV, MEDRS and UNDUE:

June 15, 2015

Edit Warring to restore non-compliant material ensued:

Alexbrn reverted to death claims: June 15, 2015
Alexbrn reverted to death claims: June 15, 2015
Alexbrn reverted to death claims: June 16, 2015
I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reverts to death claims: June 16, 2015
I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reverts to death claims: June 16, 2015

The mention of death, poisoning and infection has finally been removed from the Lede and the death incident clarified in the body, at the expense of a good faith editor. Atsme is blocked for reverting non-compliant material but those who were edit warring remain unscathed.

Present Lede:

Although consuming kombucha has been claimed to have beneficial health effects, there is no high quality evidence to support these claims. Adverse effects related to drinking kombucha have been documented, and reports have raised concern over the potential for contamination during home preparation. A systematic review found that the mostly unclear benefits do not outweigh the known risks.

Body:

At least one person has died after consuming Kombucha, but the death could not be specifically linked to the drink.

petrarchan47 คุ ก 04:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ca2james

Atsme edit-warred twice in less than a week to include text that did not have consensus, as is shown in the diffs she has provided, although she denies having done so.[5] Page-protecting the page was a good interim solution but being required to discuss the issues on the Talk page, which this sanction was designed to do, is better. This sanction is a minor one.

As for the accusation that Callanecc is biased against her, I'm not seeing that this is true. That she was sanctioned before shows not that he was biased against her but that she appeared disruptive on another article, and the sanctions were struck after a technical analysis showed that she had not deliberately been disruptive. Note that Atsme regularly accuses editors who disagree with her edits or interpretations of policies and guidelines or who say she is edit-warring (full disclosure: I am in both categories) of things like harboring ill-will towards her,[6][7] being disruptive,[8][9] lacking competence,[10][11] making unwarranted statements,[12] and casting aspersions.[13] She has also said that Doc James was not a neutral collaborator because of bias towards natural prodiucts.[14] I see her accusations of bias on the part of the DS-enforcing admin being in this same vein as these other accusations. Ca2james (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndyTheGrump

(I am involved, as one of those who reverted Atsme's disputed edits) It should be noted that the contested edits which led to the topic ban did not merely remove material that Atsme claimed to be 'non-compliant', but also added other material - see e.g. the following promotional material - e.g. 'Kombucha tea is often referred to as a beneficial health drink because of its combined antioxidant activity, and its probiotic properties produced by live bacteria or metabolites of bacteria during fermentation. Over the past 20 years or so, scientific research has indicated the potential beneficial effects of tea and fermented tea (black tea) for health, the latter of which is considered meaningful because of its world-wide popularity. The antioxidative properties of black tea have been displayed in vitro and in vivo "by its ability to inhibit free radical generation, scavenge free radicals, and chelate transition metal ions."' [15] The supposed justification for the edits - that they were removing material not compliant with Wikipedia policy (which isn't of itself an exemption under WP:3RR anyway), is thus a complete red herring. Atsme was edit-warring to impose her own personal perspective on the article, plain and simple, and her repeated attempts here to make out that this was some sort of defence of Wikipedia standards suggests to me that the topic ban was entirely justified, if not unduly lenient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should further be noted that one of the sources Atsme cited for the contested edit - for the promotional health claims - was an NBC News article (clearly not WP:MEDRS compliant), [16] which itself specifically discusses the death of a woman after drinking homebrewed Kombucha. I think the double standard here should be self-evident - Atsme cites an article for supposed health benefits , while insisting that material relating to possible risks, as described in the same article be excluded. I can think of no way to describe such double standards that doesn't include the word 'dishonest'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

EdJohnston, I have to question if a close would be best. There are accusations here of bias and double standards against an Admin. Alot of evidence was provided. (Note I'm not endorsing these accusations.) -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Atsme has a history of tendentious editing and querulous complaints. This restriction is lenient given her determination in pursuit of often quixotic goals. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 4)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Atsme

Result of the appeal by Atsme

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

I'll point out that the DS is not a block, but a TBAN (for 7-days). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sanction being appealed is an article ban from Kombucha. The ban itself expired on June 28 so there is nothing to lift. I don't see any merit to the complaints about User:Callanecc, and take note of the promotional language that User:Atsme added to Kombucha as observed by User:AndyTheGrump, above. Since the appeal is now moot, I suggest it be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ed that this can be closed. While we can grant an appeal after a sanction expires, I see no reason to disturb this (rather lenient) sanction. T. Canens (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward

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

Request concerning DHeyward

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Woodroar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

05:13, 9 June 2015, User:Zad68 warned DHeyward about original research and commentary for this edit.
14:10, 19 June 2015, User:Tony Sidaway warned DHeyward about FORUM regarding this edit.
02:25, 20 June 2015, DHeyward made comments about "Indie/SJ game developers" being irrelevant, was not warned.
00:42, 21 June 2015, DHeyward made this rev-deleted comment that he claims was about the "5 horseman" but conveniently used an entirely different word that just happens to reference the gossiping-about-living-persons that started GamerGate in the first place.
01:58, 21 June 2015, User:Zad68 warned him again about FORUM for this edit and also reminded him of that previous warning from 05:13, 9 June 2015.
04:15, 28 June 2015, DHeyward made comments about political correctness and compared current events to censorship by Tipper Gore.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Earlier ANI, DHeyward was admonished but not blocked due to self-revert
Earlier sanctions request, DHeyward was blocked for 48 hours
AE request for battleground behaviour, closed with IBAN
AE request for 1RR and soapboxing, closed with advice not to engage in "uncollaborative or disruptive editing"

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

DHeyward is aware of sanctions per multiple requests for enforcement above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

DHeyward is certainly capable of civilly discussing sources. But he often goes off into FORUM territory, discussing subjects with no reference to sources, often with POV/RIGHTGREATWRONGS rants and BATTLEGROUND approach. He does not appear to be swayed by warnings—3 for FORUM just this month—and the careless asides that could be complaints about other editors or could be BLP violations don't help. Woodroar (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning DHeyward

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

Statement by DHeyward

Frivolous. The discussion was speculation of interpreting sources. I disagreed with the speculation that was already ongoing. That's all folks. By the way, here is one of the sources [17] and a direct quote Apple’s decision to remove games featuring the Confederate flag from the App Store is drawing the ire of GamerGaters, who see this as yet another attempt by those on the left to muzzle expression they don’t approve of.(sic).. I expressed that sourced view in the next section that was trying to attribute racism to GamerGate. That is not WP:FORUM, its a valid interpretation offered by a reliable source stated above. --DHeyward (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never alleged PtF is a sock. Just a SPA that began their editing career at GamerGate ArbCom. That's WP:DUCK evidence that no one has disputed, including PtF that uses it as his signature. I disagree about a 1RR violation at any time and scrupulously use the talk page with less than 30 edits to the main article. PtF also fails to mention his multiple BLP violations that I brought to ANI as well as harassing me on my talk page after being asked to stop. His speculation that GamerGater is now "racist" with no sources is what I disagreed with on the talk page and what Woodroar has brought here. --DHeyward (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PtF, you put quotes around 'there is no doubt' pertaining to other editor accusation I am a sockuppet' as if I said that. One only has to follow the link to see you are not telling the truth or quoting accurately. You are a SPA and anyone that begins their WP career at ArbCom and Noticeboards and GamerGate is a WP:DUCK SPA. You highlight my query to Bishonen as accusatory yet you failed to point out that she agreed with me[18] as did Ryulong. Please drop the charade that you are not a SPA with previous WP experience. --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PtF, you don't appear to understand policy or the difference between a SPA, sock, or alternate account. You can have multiple accounts. You can have it just to edit gamergate. I believe policy forbids using it at noticeboards, whence my query to Bishonen. Socking is simultaneously using multiple accounts. I have no evidence of you using multiple accounts at the same time or in the same area. That would be the only reason to start a SPI and I have not accused you of that nor have I started a SPI request. It is a legitimate request that only primary accounts (even dormant, abandoned, old ones) be used in these WP spaces outside articles. I don't think any reasonable person would conclude you learned about WP policy, editing and process by starting off at arbcom 7 months ago in a SPA area. In fact, multiple people have commented on it. See WP:SPA. It is quite different than WP:SOCK. Your edit history and POV are pretty clear per WP:SPA. --DHeyward (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, PtF, the 1RR violation you filed were frivolous and it was noted in the closing of AE with no action. Please stop. Even Zad68's warning wasn't two reverts but I didn't bother correcting him since there was nothing to be gained. I know it wasn't 1RR and it's why you didn't bring it here since you actually made the final revert as you always seem to do. --DHeyward (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway in this particular complaint, I am opposing an unsourced change in the narrative as other editors contemplate its turn to a "racist campaign" and I quoted from a reliable source (above) "GamerGaters, who see this as yet another attempt by those on the left to muzzle expression they don’t approve of" I'm not even proposing an addition, rather it's a source directly opposed to the course change describing "GamerGate" as a racist campaign. That's hardly arguing for anything you described. --DHeyward (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway I am disappointed that you take talk page discussion as OR or Synth. Particularly out of context diffs that fail to show the context of the comment, E3 in particular and the article by Auerbach. I've made 29 edits total to the article in 9 months so there are no diffs of me pushing POV into anything. The comments you highlighted are shared by others in those discussions, just not you. --DHeyward (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't respond on my talk page about 1RR or FORUM as they didn't need any. However, now that they have been brought up here, I have responded as they are mistaken. See here. Per Gamaliel's suggestions I will voluntarily take a week off gamergate topic just to stop the bickering. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zad68 your diffs don't show the addition of "mass shooting." I find it troubling that you have let it go a week and said the 1RR is not sanctionable. I didn't challenge it then because of what you said. Now that it's been used as some sort of evidence prior to even the 1RR rule and Arbitration I am troubled that this now is the basis for even more of a sanction after I provided support. Using your definition of a "revert" would mean a 0RR restriction stops all editing on any page because it undoes the action of other editors in some form. Really? I offered to voluntarily and in good faith to accept Gamaliel's offer, not out of indifference or defiance but to stop this. I find it troubling that you think removal of an unsourced statement made in January with an edit that matches the article account is somehow twisted into the belief that it's more likely to happen in the future. Considering I've only made 29 edits on the entire article, I don't see the reasoning and it would be pretty impossible to find diffs to support that my original edit was a revert as the entire lead has evolved. --DHeyward (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Requested

Please outline from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Sanctions available which of the items I am violating for AE request? --DHeyward (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

I have similarly had issues with editor DHeyward. My issues with this editor are primarily his incivility, but also his flirtation with violating 1RR restrictions on the Gamergate controversy page.

Incivility:

Continuous allegations that I am a sockpuppet despite now 6 month editing history and his unwillingness to file an SPI- [19], [20], 'there is no doubt' pertaining to other editor accusation I am a sockuppet, 'he's been here before', [21], [22]

Deletes and/or derides attempts to engage with him about editing issues on his talk page- [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]

1RR:

This arbitration enforcement request by me concerns a 1RR violation by him. (Note: self-reverted after extensive discussion as the request was filed, no sanctions resulted. A great deal of effort was required in engaging him before DHeyward self-reverted, and displays an unwillingness by DHeyward to examine his own conduct or accept fault.)
Edit here reverts Bilby's edit. Edit here reverts Forbidden Rocky's edit- both of these reverts were within 24 hours. A self-revert was requested here and ignored.
Zad68 notes another violation of 1RR by him here.

The 1RR violations I bring to attention are mostly quite minor, but I believe are concerning combined with his occasional unwillingness to engage with other editors on issues. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: You state "I've never alleged PtF is a sock." Yet in this diff, which I believe I had conveniently included in my initial statement, you say that I should use my primary account if I intend to wikihound you. All of these diffs which I have used to support the statement contain you either accusing me of being a sock, or allude to me being a "WP:DUCK" alternate account of another editor. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now you abandon that position and continue alleging that I am the alternate account of another WP editor. Alright. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: Fair call with American Sniper. ~~I'd just like to note that I had been editing the Anthony Watts article before DHeyward started editing it- any accusations of wikihounding there are a bit misplaced.~~ PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind- was thinking of something else he'd accused me of stalking him to (mattress performance article), checked to be sure and it seems he had edited Anthony Watts before I had. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

The repeated and rather tedious personalised comments about Peter the Fourth are worrying. I hope an interaction ban may cure that.

My main other problem here is that DHeyward does spend an awful lot of time trying to push original research into the article. While reliable sources are near universal in characterising Gamergate as a harassment campaign, DHeyward will often leap at any outlier that may be used to bend the article topic into a narrative about intrusive "social justice warriors" (a term DHeyward appears to use without irony) provoking hostile reactions in a cohesive, often progressive gaming community. The latter is certainly an opinion that should be included, but it surely should not be our main narrative. While good faith editors may be mistaken, and it's healthy to air alternative views about correct weighting, having people hammering for months on end on quite hopeless cases with scant evidence is not good for the cooperative editing environment. At some point it would be as well for an editor to be warned to drop the stick.

DHeyward is not the only editor I think needs a warning about the limits of the good faith assumption. He's the one whose conduct we're discussing now, though. --TS 13:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Gamaliel's request for evidence:

04:37, 17 June 2015. In particular: 'Only the warped logic of wikipedia echoes "journos" views. It's clearly not what others think and their silence speaks more loudly than the "weight of reliable sources." Failing to differentiate Wikipedia from reality is why the article sucks.'
05:01, 17 June 2015. In particular: 'Wikipedia rules don't change reality. [Auerbach is] spot on about the failed expectations of those that "won" in October and are ignored with silence now.'
01:03, 20 June 2015 A rather lengthy piece of synthesis.
02:25, 20 June 2015. Pushing the synthesis again. Particularly "The harassment campaign is notable but the least compelling," quite extraordinary in the light of the thousands of words of international coverage the harassment campaign has received.

Please do request more diffs if the pattern does not become clear. I only stopped because I'm using a mobile telephone and it's rather slow work on a 10cm touch screen. --TS 18:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

On the issue of WP:FORUM, this can be borderline. There are many other editors that discuss non-article-improvement matters that are tangentially related to GG as part of the talk page discussion, and arguably in a manner to push their point, so DHeyward is not alone here. In discussion of a situation like GG it is sometimes helpful to compare to other situations, or to step back momentarily to consider big picture aspects that lead back towards gaining consensus on potential article improvements, so exactly defining a line where a violation can occur is going to be hard. I do think some of DHeyward's are questioning things that we probably are not in a place to question (like the June 21 diff regarding the security at the USU event) without going onto SOAPBOXing within the context of the article (as it is not about gun laws, but the fact there was a threat to start with).

However, I do agree that continual attempts to call out Peter as a sock in article talk page is unwarranted. If one has such evidence, it should be presented at the appropriate forum, but otherwise, one should not be making such personal accusations. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologizes to DHeyward, I misread where the apparent sock accusation was made (at an AN board which arguably it is okay). However, I still express concern when an editor tries to call out another as a sock without having strong evidence ready, or trying to call out an editor as an SPA without similar evidence. It is one thing when there's a range of diffs that could be used for this, and just speculation, and DHeyward does appear to engage in this. But to note, there are other editors that also do this on the GG talk page and other related pages too, and the same warning/aspects should apply to equivalent violations. --MASEM (t) 02:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar The point of noting "other editors do it too" is that in light of no explicit sanction with DHeyward named on it, that putting down sanctions specifically for only those actions on DHeyward without similarly putting similar things in place for others is inappropriate. (If DHeyward had been previously sanctions to not going into OR, for example, that would be different). Now, if we're talking in the context of larger behavior problems, sure, pointing out where DHeyward may be doing actions that others do too but which has been discouraged but not disallowed (eg like edging into soapbox-y OR) on the talk page as part of a larger behavior problem with DHeyward is fine to address. Just that as individual actionable items, some of these things that are done equally DHeyward and other editors on the page should not be treated as standalone offenses against just DHeyward. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add, yes, there are some things that DHeyward has been specifically warned about as documented, but again, I think we're talking big picture, which the actions that others do too aren't individually something to worry about but the overall behavior they contribute to is fair game for investigation. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

DHeyward has repeatedly used the talk page as a forum to discuss his own opinions on the controversy. I mean, almost everyone editing there has opinions, of course, and they're going to come up sometimes (especially when they relate to interpreting or weighing sources); but a significant portion of his posts to the talk page seem more about asserting his views than anything else. For examples of what I mean, see here, here, here, here, here, and here, in addition to several of the diffs other people mentioned above. All of these grew out of discussions about one source or another, but I feel that in each case, he was focused on expressing his overarching opinions on the controversy or its underlying politics rather than anything that would help make a better article; and he's done this repeatedly despite being warned not to use the article talk page as a forum for his views. --Aquillion (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

It has not gone unnoticed my myself that PeterTheFourth has followed DHeyward to at east three articles, two of which are related to each other but neither has anything to do with GamerGate. The first two were American Sniper (film) and the related Chris Kyle and the second was Anthony Watts (blogger). Whether this constitutes wikistalking is unclear, but considering Peter admits in his username signature that they are in essence a single purpose account, these incidents trouble me. While a particular stance on contentious areas may make it easier to work in those areas and avoid harm to main accounts by creating a sock account, I have no proof that Peter is a sock, but more often than not, a SPA usually ends up promoting only one side of the storyline and in my experience, most SPAs have an agenda that is not a benefit to the pedia. With that said, this subject material is highly contested so I encourage all parties to follow policy regarding referencing, undue weight and related issues. An examination of the diffs provided in this matter against DHeyward do not rise to the level of needing a sanction. I do not see DHeyward as being on the wrong side, only that he is very detailed oriented towards following policies and guidelines.--MONGO 16:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel:...I respect almost all your administrative efforts and admire that you would involve yourself at AE, but there has been some bad disagreements between yourself and DHeyward so I hope you refrain from action in this matter.--MONGO 18:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel:...I suppose I was considering interaction ban between DHeyward and another editor which he has asked you to either enforce or remove. I believe that the other party may have made comments regarding DHeyward and due to the I-ban DHeyward has been unable to respond. I may have my facts twisted a bit on this and if so I request I be slapped with a Pallid sturgeon.--MONGO 21:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel:...DHeyward offered to abide by your original suggestion which was at least a week self imposed ban. Why not do this and if we're back here again in two weeks or a month then a long topic ban may be in order. Lets assume good faith here...and give the benefit of the doubt.--MONGO 22:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 108.52.24.214

Although, to be fair, even Jimbo Wales acknowledges that PeterTheFourth looks like an SPA, simply being an SPA does not violate the rules in any fashion. If DHeyward genuinely feels that the creation of this SPA around the time of an ArbCom case in the chosen topic and his familiarity with Wikipedia is potential indication of WP:DUCK, he should have taken formal action by with all the accusations he has levied, otherwise he really needs to lay off.

Also, if DHeyward is sanctioned for his degree of violating WP:FAITH assumptions, the borderline WP:FORUM concerns, and previous 1RR issues that were already resolved, I hope other editors in this topic area are held to the same standards. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ForbiddenRocky

DHeyward, as pointed out above, has several times made contentious claims WRT what GG or GGC is about. He's generally circumspect when it comes to this, but the overall pattern looks very soapboxish to me. Also, in the process of making a contentious claim, he gets challenged, and then he often crosses into talking about the editor (i.e. the stuff about PtF) or into outright incivility.

He's called me a SPA with the implication I'm a sock by referencing DUCK.
This series of (archived) edits demonstrates DHeyward's proximity to soapboxing and incivility at the same time:
- He makes his claim which to me looks soapboxish.
- I read the article and ask him if this is related to the GGC entry, because I just don't see it.
- And he responds with RTFA. Which in the most charitable form reads as Read The Friendly Article, and in less charitable forms reads with a different word for F. In any case he also fails at AGF here by assuming I didn't read the article.
- The rest of the talk goes on to confirm that his claim is not relevant.

- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vordrak

No Action - I am relatively new, but DHeyward has always seemed a diligent editor to me. He occasionally has a slightly uncivil manner but nothing rising to the level of requiring AE action. ~~Like MONGO I agree that Gamaliel may wish to consider recusal to avoid any appearance of being WP:INVOLVED.~~ Vordrak (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel has asked me to explain my statement. I have sent him an off-wiki explanation. Vordrak (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: in fact I would suggest you do nothing Zad, because a count of the votes in this request shows there is no consensus for action - the community is split at a dead heat. A topic ban for DHeyward would therefore be out of process. The same goes for Gamaliel. Vordrak (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: @Gamaliel: in fact with the statement just made by (administrator) Tom Harrison it now seems more than 50% of the community here is against sanctions. Please correct me if I am wrong, as I am new, but as AE is also the appellate venue for discretionary sanctions that means you cannot DS him for the alleged wrong either. Vordrak (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Ryk72, Strongjam and Zad68 for correcting me on WP:CONSENSUS. Looks like I was plain wrong. However it also looks like the WP:CONSENSUS as well as the numerical vote is against action with many objections founded on rules and considerations of proportionality. I commend Ryk's post for its clarity. Vordrak (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ColorOfSuffering

I'm honestly not seeing the problem here. Original research is not forbidden on talk pages. From WP:OR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." I do not understand why Zad68 issued those warnings. As for accusations of violating WP:FORUM, well, a few of those edits look to be borderline (particularly the edit about Indie/SJ game developers). However, the current talk page is chock full of commentary about Gamergate that has little to do with improving the article. For example: "So we can only look at the actions of the group, which are foul." "Hm. Sounds like those fake reports they got later musta been third party trolls." We can only know their actions -- chiefly harassing women in computing, true, but here (apparently) taking some time from that great work to support the flag of the purported Confederate States of America." "The article would have been so much more easy to put together if they had agreed on a spokesperson(s). Coulda, woulda, shoulda though." Violations of WP:FORUM are an epidemic, and if we are going to take action against DHeyward then we should immediately look at the behavior of our fellow editors under the same microscope. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zad68 yes, nuance and I are old friends (while it appears brevity and I are mortal enemies). Fortunately, interpreting that aspect of WP:OR does not require nuance -- the sentence I quoted is blindingly unambiguous. Yes, there was a discussion between several editors in May 2015 about the policy applying to talk pages. So what? Am I missing something? Was the policy changed? Was that sentence removed from the policy page? You're an administrator so I would expect you to be more familiar with these pages, especially if you're issuing warnings as an uninvolved administrator. WP:OR is a Core Content Policy. WP:NOT is a Content Policy, which in my mind gives actually WP:OR precedence (key word: core) without need for "loopholes." And both policies are part of the Five Pillars. WP:NOT is WP:5P1, and WP:OR is WP:5P2. I've now read the WP:OR talk page, and I thank you for the reading suggestion. In turn, I would suggest you re-familiarize yourself with the Administrators' reading list, which (surprisingly) does not include WP:NOT. And if you made a mistake in asking DHeyward to adhere to the no original research policy on an article talk page, I would hope you'd hold yourself accountable and own up to that fact in this enforcement request, as it is being used as evidence. I still fail to see how the behavior of DHeyward is any more egregious than previous AE requests that received no action against the subject of the filing: [30][31][32][33][34]. I agree with Tom Harrison. "The objections to DHeyward seem to be based more on his views than on his behavior." ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel I'm sorry, but "snark?" My response is anything but snarky or uncivil. It was a factual response, and reading any negative inflection into that response is failing to take WP:AGF into account. My comments addressed the evidence in the case, specifically the first diff. My interpretation of WP:NOR was challenged, so I responded with further explanation. Zad68 asked me to read a talk page, so I responded with my own recommendation, which I thought was pertinent to the case. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which I'm sure you know is a valuable essay for discussions about deleting articles, I would say that precedents and previous actions are a very important factor in an AE decision. For example, Zad68 choosing to give the Gamergate talk page 500/30 protection was due to precedent, and WP:OSE did not apply. The point I am making is that previous AE requests with patently obvious personal attacks and soapboxing received no administrative action. Are DHeyward's actions any more egregious than those prior requests? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Woodroar

(Putting my further statements here to avoid mucking up the form.)

I'm surprised by some of the comments here. Saying that "other editors do it, too" is no defense, and is akin to WP:OSE arguments in deletion discussions. The Talk page exists so that we can discuss how to improve the article; FORUM and SOAPBOX comments are rightly discouraged because they inhibit that process. If other editors are ranting about their own opinions and demanding we include them in the article, then by all means attempt to steer them back towards productive discussion, with warnings if necessary. DHeyward was been warned three times this month and continues to treat the Talk page as a forum to express his views and, apparently, RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Additionally, his BATTLEGROUND complaints about a pejoratively-named group of editors that doesn't even exist anymore (and hasn't existed for months) using a term referring to a specific BLP violation are the type of comments that DHeyward has been warned about in the past. Woodroar (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the scope and meaning of WP:FORUM. Behaviors that are not FORUMing include:

Drawing on personal knowledge to suggest a direction for further discussion
Questioning the accuracy of a source based on personal knowledge
Characterizing a summation conflict between sources
Persuading other editors using "policy, sources, and common sense"
Identifying breaches of WikiVoice or impartial tone
Generally, personal opinions as asides when discussing sources and edits

Some things that would be FORUMing include:

Sharing opinions apropos of nothing
Reiterating the same opinion in response to any and every edit or source
Emphasizing that the topic is a WP:OUTRAGE

Rhoark (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: Except inasmuch as every edit is undoing something about what somebody wrote before, I don't think touching months-old language should be considered a revert. Age could be an indicator of a venerable consensus, or of a corner full of cobwebs. DHeyward's edit was not even a direct inversion of the January edit. Rhoark (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: @PeterTheFourth: This[35] is also not a reversion. It incorporates feedback and does not return the page to a prior state. Rhoark (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Bishonen (talk · contribs) has closed the below complaint against MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) on the procedural ground that it requested action on a principle rather than a remedy. If that's the correct procedure, then surely this filing that doesn't even go so far as to single out any particular principle but just links the principles section should also be closed with no action? (I think, rather, it would be common sense to allow both complaints to proceed naturally and respond to them as what they are - requests for new sanctions rather than for enforcement of existing sanctions.) (Also looks like there's an IP edit warring the closure.) Rhoark (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom Harrison

The objections to DHeyward seem to be based more on his views than on his behavior. If the editing and talk page discussion shown in this complaint are so far over the line as to require a topic ban, then I don't see how anyone will be able to edit the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dumuzid

I wasn't going to comment on this, given that I am not terribly experienced in such things, but as vote counting has become an issue, I thought I should speak up. I am, to be frank, torn. DHeyward's behavior is not what I would call ideal, but neither is it terrible. Were this not such a contentious area, I would advocate that no penalty or censure is necessary. But this IS a contentious area, and in light of TRPoD's recent indefinite ban, I don't see how this can be simply hand-waved away. DHeyward's Wikipedia sins strike me as similar in kind, if not quantity, to those of TRPoD. As such, I think some action is required, and though not up to me, I would certainly urge a ban of one week (or shorter) rather than something longer. There you have my 2¢. Dumuzid (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I think the time has come to separate DHeyward from both PeterTheFourth and Gamergate. Three months seems conservative to me. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jorm

I wasn't going to comment on this but I guess some people think we're "voting" now.

I pretty much agree with Guy. DHeyward doesn't seem capable of keeping his shit together when it comes to PeterTheFourth. I also agree with Zad in that his acceptance of a week-long topic ban just to stop the bickering seems to be missing the point, which then brings us back to the point, as it were.

Also: bad behavior is not excused because other people behave badly. It always blows my mind that people use that as a defense for anything. It's like we're in fourth grade or something.--Jorm (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Starke Hathaway: is that a threat? That reads like a threat and intimidation tactic: "You better not sanction DHeyward or you're going to be very busy." Are you sure that's what you want to convey?--Jorm (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

If DHeyward is to be sanctioned for this very mild misconduct, the admins here should expect to very shortly see a raft of complaints against nearly every editor active in the topic area. Maybe the plan is to, as some have suggested, topic ban every active Gamergate editor (and to be honest I see the appeal of that approach), but if not I think the admins should think carefully before pulling the trigger on such a borderline case. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jorm: Of course it's not a threat to say that opening the door to serious sanctions against established editors for minor problems in a contentious area is likely to lead to a lot more complaints about minor problems. ~~What an abject failure to assume good faith.~~ I can see how it might have sounded that way but I assure you it's not my intention to threaten or intimidate anyone.-Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DHeyward

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

@Tony Sidaway: could you provide some diffs as examples? Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: You'll note with the last several requests posted here I participated but I did not close or sanction, and I was not planning on doing so here. I have various reasons for taking this approach, mostly because I'm weary of being a target in these matters. I respect your request and the very civil way in which you have framed it, but I don't think the dim memory of editing some political articles with DHeyward back in 2006 or so really adds up to involvement. I fear you have inadvertently given the peanut gallery another talking point regarding my participation, however. Gamaliel (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vordrak: Unless you are going to provide any evidence or an explanation regarding a policy violation on my part, please remove your comment. Making unsubstantiated accusations is irresponsible and disruptive. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: I have examined MONGO's allegations in detail. Your edits to Chris Kyle were minor, and your edits to Anthony Watts (blogger) were to revert a user who has now been topic banned, so I find nothing to be concerned with there. Your edits to American Sniper (film) are another matter, where in one edit you reverted DHeyward and called him out in an edit summary. I make no judgement about the merits of those edits, and you both are free to edit any article on Wikipedia. However, if you are going to limit yourself to working in a particular topic area, when you step out of that area to edit unrelated articles also edited by an editor you are in conflict with in that topic area, it creates the perception of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I don't see enough here to add up to a pattern, but I would still advise you to widen your areas of editing on Wikipedia and to try to avoid the appearance of WikiHounding. A trout should suffice now, but should this escalate, I imagine we'll be back here discussing an interaction ban. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: On an individual level, I don't find any of the alleged WP:FORUM violations particularly compelling except for #4 listed by Woodroar, which I am willing to accept was unintentional. And there is something to the idea that we all use the talk page for unrelated chit chat or pontificating sometimes. But you were specifically warned about this particular behavior by admins Zad68 and HJ Mitchell, the latter of whom noted it in his log after blocking you for 48 hours. I am more concerned about the constant sniping at PeterTheFourth (if you have a problem with his behavior, you should bring it here in the form of a formal complaint) and the numerous 1RR (and even a 3RR) violations that have gone unsanctioned. All of this adds up to a pattern of disruptive behavior. Given that you have been sanctioned and even outright blocked for your previous behavior, I recommend a topic ban for at least a week, which I think is reasonable and lenient given the number of cautions you have received and the fact that a different longtime editor on this topic area was recently indefinitely topic banned. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "But it says original research is allowed on Talk pages" is very facile, and ColorOfSuffering I've seen you handle nuance before. Read the WP:NOR policy Talk page, there's discussion on the limits of this. You can't use this as a loophole to get around other policies like WP:NOT (which is policy, in fact part of the 5 pillars) or WP:BLP.

The argument that DHeyward violated WP:1RR is: 1RR is violated when an editor makes "an edit ... that undoes other editors' actions" (that's the definition of "revert" per the WP:3RR policy page) more than one time in a 24 hour period. The introduction of the "threat of a mass shooting at a public speaking event" content in the lead was done by editor Parabolist with this edit back on 27 January 2015, and it's been pretty stable there since (minor copyedits), so it can be considered to have pretty solid consensus. DHeyward undid Parabolist's action of adding this content to the lead: one time with this edit (removed the entire phrase "and the threat of a mass shooting at a university speaking event") and a second time about 6 1/2 hours later here, violating 1RR.

Even if it can be successfully argued that these 2 edits didn't violate 1RR, it's very concerning to me that in the editing environment at the article, that anybody could think just having a second go at making the exact same edit soon after it was challenged with a revert would be OK, and doesn't give me confidence that DHeyward will behave differently going forward.

DHeyward's offer "I will voluntarily take a week off gamergate topic just to stop the bickering." is not satisfactory, this is pretty plainly stating "I don't think I did anything wrong but I'll lay low for a short while." If we were to accept this, we could be pretty confident the same behaviors would return in short order.

Given that there's been no change in behavior after repeated warnings and even previous short sanctions, I don't think a 1-week topic ban would be sufficient, I'm leaning to 3 months, Gamaliel I'd be interested in your view on that. Zad68 03:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68: I agree with your interpretation of DHeyward's offer. I believe it was made in good faith, but I do think that it is problematic for the same reason you do. I don't have a problem with the length of the sanction as long as something formal is logged, as I think we're past the point of informal warnings. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ColorOfSuffering: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There seems to be little in your comment about DHeyward and much snark directed at Zad68 and others. Please keep further comments civil and on topic. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Handpolk

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: Handpolk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban per the standard GG topic ban, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive175#MarkBernstein and logged at WP:AC/DSL#GamerGate

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

Notification of that administrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Euryalus&diff=prev&oldid=669314339

Statement by Handpolk

I am requesting that my topic-ban please be narrowed.

Background

On June 3rd, I saw Gamergate mentioned on another website, Googled it and landed on Gamergate controversy. I thought the lede could be improved and was prepared to make a bold edit. However based on the warnings I saw when I tried to edit, I presumed my edit would be reverted, so I went to the talk page. This was reverted due to the 30/500 rule that I was unaware of (admittedly, I did not actually read the warnings in the screenshot). I then came to A/E requesting that rule be changed, so that I and editors like me could edit the article. Here, Bosstopher suggested that I take part in WikiProject Wikify to meet the required number of edits (18).

I screwed up

I followed Bosstopher's link to WikiProject Wikify and I treated it as a game, looking for a way to make a bunch of edits quickly. I saw that List of awards and nominations received by Aamir Khan and List of Tamil films of 1973 had tons of overlinking and decided to remove internal links one at a time. Zad68 asked why I was doing that. I played dumb (19) but also stopped. I reached the remaining edits normally.

As a result I was "indefinitely topic-banned from making edits related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate" by Euryalus.

Onward

I take full responsibility for gaming the system. I should not have done that.

However, all I was guilty of was being over-anxious to edit one article. I never had any problems editing the article, nor on any related articles, nor on any other articles covered by the topic ban, nor any other articles at all. I am prevented from editing a huge number of articles I've never demonstrated any problems editing. I find such a far reaching top-ban unwarranted.

The ArbCom sanctions did not hand out any topic bans as broad as mine. None of those editors were banned from editing 'any gender-related dispute or controversy' broadly construed nor 'people associated with (A) or (B)' broadly construed. I don't know what all of those people did but I suspect my crime was on the low end of violations, yet my punishment was harsher than all of theirs. I do not think that is appropriate.

During the ANI that led to my topic-ban, I was accused by many editors of being an SPA, a 'Gamergate supporter,' and WP:NOTTHERE. I said then and I maintain now that this is not true. I would like to demonstrate why:

My first edit while using an account was to Nick Young (basketball) on July 20th, 2014 (1).

Between October, 2014 and January, 2015 I edited:

Gone Girl (film) (2)
Les Claypool (3)
Ray Dalio (4)
Blueberry Hill (restaurant) (5)
1994 John Tyler vs. Plano East high school football game (6)
From Here to Now to You (7)
John York (8)
CardRunners (9)
McDonald Mansion (10)

Then in the first half of 2015 I made many edits to the following articles:

African American Vernacular English, Ebonics and Ebonics (word) (11, 12, 13, 14) I thought these articles were biased. I dove in and tried to fix them (I met resistance so was only able to make minor changes).
Spokeo (15) I thought was biased, I fixed it (no resistance).
Du Pont family (16) I thought was biased and fixed it (little resistance).
Tom Cruise (17) I thought was biased and tried to fix it (some resistance).

When I think an article is biased, I am motivated to try and fix it. This is precisely what I was doing when I sought to edit Gamergate controversy.

I have continued this pattern since the topic-ban:

I thought Carlos Slim was overly promotional and fixed it (no resistance)
I think a slew of poker BLP's are not notable and full of peacock fluff and am in the process of trying to fix that (some resistance)
I think Betting exchange is biased and written like a blog post and tried to fix it (no resistance) (20)

Thus, I feel that any claims that I am an SPA, WP:NOTTHERE, or a 'Gamergate supporter' -- and that is why I wanted to edit Gamergate controversy -- are a violation of WP:AGF as they are not true and I've done nothing to demonstrate they are true. And I believe the far reaching nature of the topic-ban itself is a violation of WP:AGF. It implicitly assumes that I I am seeking to edit in bad faith.

I am eligible to ask that the topic ban be removed entirely however I'm not asking for that. Honestly, I don't think my editing Gamergate controversy at this time would be productive for me or for Wikipedia. There is too much conflict and I'm bad at dealing with conflict. However -- I do not think it is in Wikipedia's best interest for me to be banned from editing other articles. I asked Euryalus to narrow the topic ban by giving me a defined list of articles I can't edit. Euryalus said "unless a topic ban is extremely narrow (for example just the Gamergate controversy article) the entire thing becomes hard to administer" (21). So I would request that my topic ban be reduced to just Gamergate controversy.

Some articles that I've wanted to edited but have not due to fear they would be covered by the topic ban:

reddit
Voat
Sam Altman (which I edited prior to all of this)
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers which I was told is covered by the topic ban, due to two sentences in the article dealing with Ellen Pao gender discrimination lawsuit

'Broadly construed' allows that language to potentially be applied to literally thousands and thousands of articles. Only one of which I've had problems on.

Lastly, if you review the over 375 edits I've made since my topic ban, you'll see I am making productive contributions. I believe those edits demonstrate very clearly the accusations that were made about me previously (that I'm WP:NOTTHERE, an SPA and a 'Gamergate supporter') are not accurate. I realize this topic area attracted and still attracts many people who those labels may apply to -- but I'm not one of them. And I never was.

Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing, thanks for formatting. Perhaps the length of my statement did not make it clear (did you read it?), so I'll try again here: I have no interest in editing Gamergate related articles, nor gender-related articles. But the 'broadly construed' language make the topic-ban potentially apply to thousands of other articles. Also, I did not 'rack up edits' so that I could make this request. Please assume good faith. Lastly, if you cannot provide evidence that I am WP:NOTTHERE, I ask you to retract that allegation -- as I just provided a mountain of evidence it's not accurate. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 09:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: "If you go on from here to insist that you need your topic ban lifted" I'm not insisting that and it doesn't need to be lifted, as my recent edits demonstrate. I just believe the initial topic-ban was far too broad and implicitly assumes bad faith on thousands of other articles, when none was ever demonstrated. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK: It appears you didn't read my statement. I acknowledged all of that that under 'I screwed up.' Also I never said I was not interested in Gamergate controversy, I said I was neutral on the topic (which was and remains true). "I see no compelling reason in his argument above" well since it seems clear you didn't even read my statement, I'm not sure how you can say that. Are you sure I'm the one being deceptive? Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: "which has been a particular target of GG" I see one questionable edit on that article (which hasn't even been reverted) over the last several months. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. But if you'd like to add that article to the topic ban, I would be fine with that. Any articles, really. Euryalus said that would be hard to administer so I requested what I thought he implied I should request, just Gamergate controversy. Another option would be shifting my ban from articles to content. I would be fine with an indefinite ban on editing any content in any article that had to do with (a) gamergate (b) gender controversies (c) people involved with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Thus, I could edit Kotaku (even though I doubt I ever would), so long as I didn't go anywhere near Gamergate stuff when I did so. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ForbiddenRocky: it appears you also did not read my statement. We agree that I shouldn't be editing Gamergate controversy because I am bad at dealing with conflict. I'm asking for the topic ban to be narrowed. If you or anybody else has feedback on how I could have handled that situation on the Warriors talk page better, I would be very open to hearing it. I was clearly in the right (he wanted to remove from the lede that they won the Finals, calling it 'irrelevant' 'idiotic' and 'vandalism') -- and he was behaving like a child. I know there must be a better way to handle a situation like that, I just don't know what it is. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ForbiddenRocky: that conflict only exists on a few articles. My topic-ban covers many thousands that are not contentious. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@50.0.136.194: Thanks I should have clarified that. I arrived at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers organically.
- On June 14th at 10:38 I made a series of edits and cleanup-type improvements to Joe Lacob who is the owner of the Golden State Warriors (who were then in the NBA Finals) but also a partner at that firm (which I did not previously know).
- One of those edits was to add an internal link to the Kleiner article at 10:41.
- A little later, I followed that link over, saw a group of cleanup tags and after scanning the article, thought they were not-appropriate and removed them at 11:02.
As I said, completely organic. And as you said, I edit a lot of loosely similar articles. My interest there had and has nothing to do with Gamergate.Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens: Thanks for your input. Did you read my statement? If so, could you address my points and how they are not a compelling reason for me to be able to edit an article like Harvard Law School, Barack Obama or Silicon Valley -- all of which are arguably covered by the 'broadly construed' language in my topic ban? Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstient: two are completely baseless (SPI and ANI) and the third is PeterTheFourth hounding me. He has no business reporting me there. He had nothing to do with any of that and I haven't interacted with him at all since my topic ban. The person who filed the baseless SPI stated as fact that I was a sock of another across numerous discussions -- and I kept reverting him. If that isn't an allowed exception to 3rr, it should be. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Euryalus

Statement by ForbiddenRocky

Given the contentious nature of GGC and Handpolk's behavior on the Golden State Warriors talk page, I don't think putting the GGC plus Handpolk together is a good idea at this time. (And before someone brings up hounding, GSW are my local team.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Handpolk:, sorry for being unclear. I meant GGC and its related topics when I wrote GGC. Also, my recommendation for not easing the restriction at this time are largely covered by your statement, "because I am bad at dealing with conflict". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

It appears to me that, at this moment in time. Handpolk is currently the subject of actions at AN/I, AN/3, and SPI, all while his appeal at AE is active. That's pretty impressive. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Handpolk

Comment by GoldenRing

@Handpolk:I've reformatted your appeal as an arbitration enforcement appeal per the instructions at the top of this page. Apologies to all that it took me a few goes to get it right. Sometimes copy-paste is a good thing, I guess.

Handpolk, I'd counsel you to drop this for now. Go do something productive elsewhere in the encyclopedia for a few months. Uninvolved admins may disagree, of course, but IMO this is still waaaaay too fresh to have any chance of succeeding. Racking up edits very quickly and then coming straight back to have your sanction lifted does not exactly inspire confidence that you intend to constructive build quality articles in line with policy. Do something else for a while. The world will not end if you take a break from editing GamerGate- and gender-related articles for a few months, nor will the encyclopedia fall into wrack and ruin. Go and care about the encyclopedia somewhere else for a bit. And, if you're not here because you care about the encyclopedia, then I guess you're not here because you care about the encyclopedia. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Handpolk: I'm not trying to be hostile here. I'm trying to tell you how this looks to an outside observer and give you advice on the best way through this. You are, of course, very free to ignore it.

You've already exhausted the community's good faith to the point that it seemed necessary to impose an indefinite topic ban. If you're going to rebuild that trust, then that's fantastic. I hope it happens. But I'm trying to tell you that it is likely to take months, not days.

I did not mean to imply that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and I apologise if you thought I was making that accusation; my point is that there are lots of ways that you can help build the encyclopedia within the limits placed by your topic ban. If you go on from here to insist that you need your topic ban lifted, well, that looks like someone who cares about gender wars and gamergate, not someone who cares about the encyclopedia. As I say, this is my counsel to you on how best to proceed. Ignore it entirely if you wish. All the best. GoldenRing (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 50.0.136.194

I interacted with Handpolk at ANI a bit when he first appeared there. I don't see a GG connection with his edit at Kleiner Perkins, especially given his activity in other business articles that had nothing to do with GG. Kleiner Perkins is a huge force in the tech startup scene and the Pao lawsuit was a sideshow. They are several degrees of separation away from GG, and that remote connection is basically "enemy of GG's enemy", which doesn't come across in Handpolk's edit.

I think it's too early to lift Handpolk's topic ban (those usually run for a few months) but I myself would feel better if there was some kind of clarification from the AE admins that Handpolk's KP edit didn't really breach the topic ban. I've never edited GGC myself (I've avoided even reading the article) but I've made some edits related to Reddit co-founder and departed Wikipedian Aaron Swartz, so seeing Handpolk get blocked over editing Kleiner Perkins because of KP's distant connection with Reddit scares me, even though my edits about Aaronsw long predated Gamergate.

Handpolk: in cases of doubt, I believe you're allowed to approach Euryalus (the admin who placed the topic ban) and ask if it covers some specific article you want to edit. If I'm wrong, I hope someone below will correct me. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken

Handpolk conveniently neglects to mention his deliberate gaming of the 500/30 system by making multiple very small edits to List of Tamil films of 1973 (154 edits of 4 bytes each in less than an hour) and List of awards and nominations received by Aamir Khan (35 edits in 10 minutes, the vast majority of them of 4 bytes) in order to qualify to edit GamerGate topics, all while disclaiming any interest in GamerGate. Of course, as soon as he had "qualified", he started editing GamerGate articles. A number of admins commented at the time that such behavior warranted an indef block, so Handpolk was lucky to get off with a mere topic ban. Such deceptiveness on Handpolk's part should not be rewarded, and I see no compelling reason in his argument above for the removal or lessening of the topic ban. BMK (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Handpolk

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

Where you write "my punishment was harsher than all of theirs", this is not true. You have received the standard topic ban that has been applied to many other editors. In regards to narrowing the scope of your topic ban, I am open to the idea in principle. I think this is a good way to transition editors to positive behavior. However, I have concerns with the articles that you've chosen as examples of what you would edit, most particularly with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which has been a particular target of GG due to the Ellen Pao gender discrimination lawsuit. If you find the topic ban restricts you from editing, say, Gender inequality in India, then that would be worth considering changes, but these articles you want to edit are far too related to Gamergate to consider at this time, in my opinion. I think you should take GoldenRing's advice. Gamaliel (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to disturb the sanction. T. Canens (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein

I have closed this request as it violates the "Important information" in the big pink box at the top of this page: "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 discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator." Underlining in original, italics added by me. "Decorum" is merely a principle of the Gamergate decision. I would actually have thought it obvious, even where people haven't read the stuff in the pink box, that "Decorum" is too vague and large a concept to be dealt with through this rather bureaucratic and rulebound procedure. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 30 June 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 MarkBernstein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Masem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

20:47, 2015 June 29‎ Diff #1 - Mark comments on why he reverted a change (okay) but suggests that opining that a person is not an expert would require revdel (see comments)
15:59, 2015 June 30 Diff #2 - Mark called unnamed editors but with rather obvious intent on who as "Gamergate fans", and started to question the possible case of a source, harassed by GG, would be invalidated.
16:38, 2015 June 30 Diff #3 - Mark assuming bad faith in interpretation of a comment I made.
17:07, 2015 June 30 Diff #4 - Mark calling me out as assuming I'm okay with people receiving rape threats.
17:00, 2015 June 30 Diff #5 - Mark's reply to a request I made at his talk page which again assumes I and others are acting in bad faith.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

17:39, 2014 November 28 Topic Ban under the community general sanctions for decorum issues.

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

Yesterday, Mark opened a section (Diff #1) with a fair question of why one quote from one of the people (in this case, Brianna Wu) harassed by Gamergate was removed after his restoration (appropriate); however, he begs the issue that questioning if a person is an expert on a topic might be a BLP violation and require oversight (Note that Mark has made many comments that perhaps border on being overly protective of BLP beyond what BLP and BLPTALK require but this alone isn't enforceable). This led to discussion of whether Wu had the expertise as a developer to comment on the history of video games for her opinion to be important, generally agreeing that her opinion should be kept.

In response to comments made by myself, Rhorak, and Torchiest, Mark makes a comment (Diff #2) that calls out unnamed editors as "Gamergate fans" (though the intent is obvious to the reading) and calling the idea that if a person in the media has received harassment from GG that it makes it a "convenient policy" for the "Gamergate fans" to dismiss the opinion of those that have been harassed. While the statement is not directed any specific editors, the intent of the statement is clear, and I consider a personal attack. (Again, from Mark, I might add, more later).

Feeling that his diff was not appropriate and was making a bad faith reading of what the discussion was, I commented on his talk page [36], hoping to avoid elevating this; I also commented on the talk page that I don't think he was reading what we were saying right, in that just because someone is harassed does not make them an invalid source on WP per how we handle independent and dependent sources.

Mark returns this comment with Diff #3 in which again he appears to be taken my comment in very bad faith. He also replies to the message I left on his talk page (Diff #5) where he does not believe that I or others are helping because we aren't fighting hard enough to prevent BLP or prevent arranged GG activities on the GG-related pages, which I think is an overly extreme expectation and assumes bad faith of what myself and other editors are doing at that page.

Finally is that Diff #4 specifically asks me "(I'm just assuming that you think it's OK for victims to object to rape threats, do correct me if I'm mistaken)" which shouldn't even be a question being asked since that never came up in the previous conversations: that's akin to "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions. Mark has called me out as a rape apologist (both on and offsite via his blog) when I had tried to explain in a neutral manner what 4chan's idea of a "rape joke" was (which to be clear is part of the ingrained culture there, it is not something pleasant to discuss but it exists and needed to be discussed at the time for article improvements), see [37] from Nov 2014.

I can tell Mark cares strongly about protecting female developers/journalists (and anyone else) that is being harassed by GG, and that's certainly a strong moral position to take - but that's outside Wikipedia. Mark however appears to be using Wikipedia to try to actively defend and fight against GG by making sure none of these people's names are even tarnished or questioned and making sure those that attempt to tarnish them (whether it is third parties, or WP editors themselves) are shamed appropriately. And that's absolutely not acceptable on WP; we're neutral and not meant to be that involved. We have to be careful and viligent to prevent any unverified BLP from being added, or to allow a third-party to influence GG in the way it has tried to, no question, but there's a point where this goes too far where if we going beyond what a neutral party does, we become involved. Mark's continued personal attacks and assumption of bad faith is nowhere near appropriate, now considering the decorum that ArbCom has asked from the case.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[38]

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein

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

Statement by MarkBernstein

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

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

To any parties who may wish to participate, note that we are not going to tolerate another one of the displays of incivility, virtual shouting, and off-topic ranting that always happens when this particular user is discussed. Keep it calm, keep it relevant, and keep it civil. Post evidence with diffs and not just your gripes or opinions. I have been taking a step back from handing out sanctions and closing requests on WP:AE, but I will assist other administrators here by making sure this is handled in an orderly fashion, up to and including sanctions for people who have been here before if they try to turn this into such a display again. This is a warning to those parties; you won't get another one. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Rows4

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 All Rows4

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kingsindian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: All Rows4 (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

2 July Violates WP:NPA stating that I falsified sources
2 July Again, after I asked him to strike it. I said I will take him to WP:AE if he does not desist.
2 July Again, refuses to strike it.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I can see.

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

While the last DS notice on the user's talk page is in June 2014, so slightly more than a year ago, his talk page comments indicate that he is familiar with WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since I am accused of source falsification, I have to go a bit into the content. This is just for clarifying the issue: I am not asking you to adjudicate a content issue. I urge you to read the whole section on the talk page.

All Rows4 removed a statement 3 June about the role of Sayeret Metkal, an Israeli elite army unit in the Sabra and Shatila massacre, claiming WP:REDFLAG and stating that the sources were not WP:RS. The sources are:
1. Fawwaz Traboulsi, ("one of Lebanon's leading academics") A History of Modern Lebanon by Pluto Press, distributed by University of Chicago press.
2. Alain Menargues, Les Secrets de la guerre du Liban by Albin-Michel, "one of France’s foremost literary and educational publishers".
I found these sources eminently WP:RS and reverted this change 30 June, and immediately opened a talk page section stating that WP:REDFLAG was inappropriately used, and he should use WP:RSN if he finds the sources not WP:RS. I did not verify the claim itself.
Shortly after, another editor added a "clarify" tag to the sources. I was the one who hunted down the Traboulsi source and reproduced it on the talk page. Since I cannot read French, I requested Nishidani to see if he could hunt down the Menargues source. There is a long discussion on the talk page about the various issues involved.
The Traboulsi source actually cites Menargues. It states that Sayeret Metkal entered the camps to "liquidate a selected number of cadres" but does not explicitly state that 63 people were killed. The Menargues source is incompletely verified (I have since opened a request on Resource Exchange), but a second-hand opinion source does state that he makes the "63 people killed" claim.
All Rows4 repeatedly violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA stating that I falsified sources, despite the fact that I was the one who hunted down the sources and tried to verify the claim. All Rows4 has simply engaged in removalism, violating WP:PRESERVE.
My aim is not to have any sanctions on All Rows4. I am quite willing to believe that he acted in good faith in invoking WP:REDFLAG, as I said on the talk page. I simply want him to strike his personal attacks. If he refuses, the WP:AE admins can decide the proper course of action. And of course, you are welcome to sanction me if you decide that I did indeed falsify sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talk • contribs) time, 17:28, 2 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I think Rhoark might be somewhat right. These are just talkpage comments, about a peripheral matter, doesn't really matter for article content. I will just forget this happened.

I would like to withdraw this request. Of course, WP:AE admins are welcome to check my conduct if they wish. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning All Rows4

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 All Rows4

I stand by the charge that Kingsindian has falsified sources. He added the following statement, into an article covered by WP:ARBPIA: "On 15 September 1982, 63 Palestinian intellectuals, notably lawyers, medical staff and teachers, were individually identified and killed by an Israeli unit called Sayeret Matkal.[1][2]".

Immediately after doing so, he explicitly admitted on the talk page that he had not verified either of the sources he used, and in fact, could not do so with regards to at least one of them as he not only has no access to it, but doesn't read French. [39]. For this alone, he should probably be sanctioned, but it is actually worse: In the same edit where he admits to not verifying the 2nd source, he tells us that the first source DOES NOT support the statement that he added: "The other source (Trablousi) mentions Sayeret Matkal going into the camps but not this incident specifically."

Another editor subsequently found and translated the French source that Kingsindian did not read, and it turns out that that source, too, does not support the claim. The claim that "63 Palestinian intellectuals, notably lawyers, medical staff and teachers, were individually identified and killed" is nowhere to be found there. As a side note, that 2nd source, which is the sole source for this claim repeated by other sources, is not a reliable source, but as Kingsindian never even read it, and it does not say what the statement he added claims , it does not even matter.

If needed, I will dig up from the archives of WP:AE multiple cases where people have been topic banned from this topic area for source misrepresentation far milder than this case. This sanction should be applied here. As one example , see [40] where 3 admins supported a 3 month topic ban for an editor who wrote that a source spoke of "more than 2,100 dead", when in fact the actual source said "more than 2000", and in another place attributed a statement to "Hamas Ministry of Health"" when the source actually said "Palestinian health officials". Incidentally, Kingsindian participated in that AE procedure, so he is quite aware that his misrepresentation are at least equally bad.

I do not believe that calling things what they are - in this case a misrepresentation of sources- is a personal attack. Indeed, the archives of WP:AE are full of cases where admins and other editors use this exact terminology to describe very similar cases of using lanaguage not found in sources. I am, however, willing to do this: If Kingsindian acknowledges he was wrong to-reinsert the contested claims without checking the sources , and while knowing that at least one of the sources does not support the specific claim, and agrees to not repeat this behavior, I will change the wording of my claims to "added sources that do not support the claim" instead of "falsified sources".

Statement by Rhoark

Both parties seem to be making good-faith efforts to follow policy and verify sources. This acrimony is not helping anything. I suggest everyone redirect from editor behavior back to the content. Rhoark (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Well, Kingsindian has always, on the rare occasions he comes here, asked for leniency. I think this is more serious than it looks, because All Rows4, after he had read Kingsindian's complaint here where he could not have but noticed the issue of WP:ARBPIA, insisted on repeating his accusation that Kingsindian falsified sources. He didn't. He restored what appear to be 2 reliably published sources removed on dubious grounds by All Rowse. Al Rowse did not indicate whether he had read those sources. His reason in the edit summary was:

WP:REDFLAG If this happened (63 civilians executed) we'd have many more highly reliable and mainstream sources mentioning this

That is a wholly subjective point of view. There is nothing in itself smacking of an exceptional claim in the idea that Special Forces might have been on the ground after Israel had surrounded and sealed the camp a day before the slaughter. Special forces are always first in, in any combat zone like that. On the face of it Alain Menargues (long time Lebanese correspondent for the French Press) published by Éditions Albin Michel, and Fawwaz Traboulsi (Associate Professor of History and Politics at the Lebanese American University) by Pluto Press are not sources one removes at sight.

The second removal by Al Rowse, with the utterly silly pretext, 'Kahan commission said no such thing' was also restored by Kingsindian, quite properly, because Al Rowse has no right to remove something because it is not in the document whose conclusions at least he is familiar with (Kahan Commission, which wasn't sourced) but it is in numerous books, as he could have verified by googling for a few seconds (Mark Ensalaco,Middle Eastern Terrorism: From Black September to September 11, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012 p.138 ‘Israel’s complicity in the massacres is beyond reasonable doubt.’), I.e. All Rowse appeared to be removing was something that might not look good for a country's image or good name.

It is particularly absurd of him to accuse Kingsindian of falsifying sources (rather than doing what he himself didn't do, i.e. investigate the matter in depth before jumping to conclusions), when he himself falsifies the source, a source he accepts, by removing most of its content.

Kingsindian did the right thing. He consulted books, asked for collegial research to be done, which is pulling up further details, and using the talk page, which Al Rowse rarely does, and did rather late in the piece (the 63 number which he fusses about is in Ménargues, as any google search would have discovered. I find it offensive that Al Rowse, a consistent removalist, when checked, has accused a very level-headed, even-handed editor of independent judgement of source falsification, then did it himself, then, told of the complaint which asked him only to strike it out, had the hide to proceed, in full awareness of the Arbpia rules mentioned in the complaint, to repeat the infamy and suggest Kingsindian should be sanctioned. This is just for the record. This wear and tear is extremely tedious and leads nowhere, as usual. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GWH. Kingsindian may have been oversensitive to an imputation of being a falsifier of sources (I get that very regularly, by people who don't read them, but me). I only posted here because Kingsindian has in gentlemanly fashion withdrawn, without obtaining minimum justice. He has a long record of disliking punitive measures here even for those who disagree with him. Not so the edit-warrior All Rowse who writes:' stand by the charge that Kingsindian has falsified sources', and suggests Kingsindian be sanctioned. I think that he too should back down, and retract what is not only unproven, but disproven. Kingsindian has shown style in withdrawing the complaint, All Rowse should reciprocate and withdraw his inane accusation which caused the bother in the first place. Kingsindian should not have to continue to work here with the shadow of an insinuation hanging over him. Honour is important to some people, or was, once. Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning All Rows4

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

Unfortunately, the current wording at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts means that All Rows4 cannot be explicitly determined to know of the DS in this area, as pointed out by the filer; thus, the most I see here is {{Ds/alert}} being given. Any other suggestions? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see enough evidence that this needs AE enforcement; a DS alert seems fine. Both sides should remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that we all edit together, and assume good faith, and work to correct errors in a collegial manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheRedPenOfDoom

BLP violations are a clear exception to topic bans. There is ample precedent for this, and with Gamergate topic bans in particular. No action. Gamaliel (talk) 02:44, 3 July 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 TheRedPenOfDoom

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vordrak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TheRedPenOfDoom (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 :

This user has been made subject to a topic ban in accordance with the standard GamerGate discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom, per the notice placed on their talk page here - here.

This is a topic ban covering - "[...] all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed [...]"

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

Ellen Pao is the CEO of Reddit. She has an article on Wikipedia - Ellen Pao, which refers to a gender related dispute - specifically a discrimination lawsuit also with an article, called Pao v. Kleiner Perkins. On the talk page Talk:Ellen Pao is a discussion about whether to add a note that Reddit users criticized Mrs Pao for her conduct of the litigation. The thread is clearly about a gender-related dispute.

TheRedPenOfDoom commented in the thread. An IP editor reverted the edit. TheRedPenOfDoom then edit-warred, reverting the IP editor four times, clearly violating WP:3RR once and the topic ban 5 times.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

TheRedPenOfDoom then opened a thread at WP:EWN and persuaded administrator Bishonen to block the IP for two weeks 6. TheRedPenOfDoom did not volunteer that they were subject to a topic ban. The IP editor mentioned it and protested, but not in an articulate fashion, without diffs and without explaining how the conversation was covered by the discretionary sanctions.

It appears that in effect TheRedPenOfDoom has gone so far as to mislead an administrator into assisting their breach of their topic ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

TheRedPenOfDoom was admonished by ArbCom

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

Admonished by name by ArbCom per link above
Subject to Discretionary Sanctions directly notified per link above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am particularly concerned that the user has essentially ignored their topic ban and misled an administrator into helping them. I would suggest only a substantial block is appropriate.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here.

Discussion concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

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 TheRedPenOfDoom

The WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior of the original poster in attempting to make an issue of me addressing a question about the reliability of a source with regards to a WP:BLP issue is clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein)

My humble impression is that Bishonen is no one's fool. The complainant, being new here, may not know that. Perhaps I'm mistaken. If I am, never mind.

It's a principle-- and one specifically reinforced here with reference to NBSB not long ago, that Wikipedia pillars (and specifically BLP) trump just about everything. Breitbart is, in fact, not reliable, and the revert war was not in fact started by TRPoD. A good faith editor would have discussed the matter or summoned help from a board or an expert. An actual newbie wouldn't know what a topic ban or a Red Pen of Doom was..

It's interesting that such an inexperienced or inarticulate editor was involved, but that editor is replaced here by a "journalist". The use of "inexperienced" editors to further Gamergate goals is familiar to all of us at this point. TRPoD might have prudently sent up a flare to some editors not employed by Gamergate rather than doing this himself, but any Wikipedian ought to uphold RS and BLP on any page, and of course we must be especially careful on pages, like that one, which Gamergaters have notoriously targeted , 02:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TheRedPenOfDoom

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TopGun

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: TopGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – lTopGunl (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Log: Topic ban from India-Pakistan conflicts & Pakistani politics, Ban explaination by FPAS, Comment after requesting reconsideration (not declined reconsideration but has been made after the request, so I'm choosing to appeal to uninvolved admins).

Administrator imposing the sanction: Future Perfect at Sunrise (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, [41]. 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 TopGun

The sanction has been made without assuming good faith and with lack of proper judgment and not giving me a chance of explaining - this is quite unfair and punitive. FPAS has accused me of showing gross lack of competence which is not remotely the case. The edit for which I was sanctioned as per the only explanation I got on my talkpage was this [42] saying that it was not reinstating a version better than the one added by that user. In my defense, I had no problem if both got removed... I was infact reverting an SPA who first appeared at Talk:Kargil War in a sock infested RFC with several sock farms in play. I merely reverted this SPA on Indian Army based on his POV pushing. The version it consequently got reverted to (which was the original version beforehand - not my own addition to the article) contained possibly a slight POV which was mostly based around facts. This was removed in the next edit all together by another editor and I was completely fine by that. I did not dispute it, nor did I revert it... that alone showed that my revert to the SPA was a good faith revert on top of the fact that I hardly edit Indian Army. The edit in question is not worth anything more than a talkpage warning at max. It appears that this was an attempt to dish out even handed "punishments" to all involved in the dispute at Talk:Kargil War even though socks were the ones causing the havoc.

I will also note that editors have authority over content (not admins) and as I said to FPAS on my talkpage, I would not have disputed if he had reverted me as an editor - as seen in the removal in next edit of the same - so he has no justification for the sanction in that regard too. There was no pov warring from my side. On the other side (on a related mess), any edits I had made in Talk:Kargil War or the article were either reverting blatantly disruptive editors or obvious socks that any sane editor would revert or strike. The RFC was eventually so much over run by socks that it had to be closed without going forward. In the RFC, after noting my own part in consensus, I started to avoid engaging others and focused on SPI and sock hunting along with trying to stop an editwarring editor (through proper course of action including WP:BRD, talk page discussion and AN3) who was disrupting the same article on an unrelated issue [43]. I edit intermittently, and when I do, I've not been accused or warned by an admin on my talkpage to be heading towards any kind of sanction since the last. What makes this revert such disruptive that it warrants a sanction without warning?

Some background: I have been dealing with a topic area which is highly sock infested. Starting from the abusive sock puppet, Darkness Shines who now returned to troll at this RFC and a few other articles (who I caught and reported along with his sock farm of IPs), there were some other obvious socks too. Dishing out sanctions even handedly is misjudgement and lack of common sense while handling such situations a fact accepted by an admin here with the statement that this is the exact aim of such socks. To cause so much disruption and muddy the waters so much that every one gets some kind of sanction. While this might have been considered something truly beyond control of unaware admins at that point in time, now when all are aware that obscure SPAs along with blatant socks are POV warring, this should not be allowed. Based on this and my block log addendum, working in this content area has earned me a lot of accusations and even admin actions - which were either reverted right then or later when the socks were recognized. My previous AE sanction was also later revealed to be resulted from a long time sock master abusing multiple socks since years and using them all to create fake consensus. I chose not to take this again to a noticeboard and avoid drama, but I'm mentioning this now to show the reviewing admin(s) the extent to which these two editors were socking and hounding my edits. This is relevant here because I suspect, in addition to Darkness Shines, OccultZone socks were also involved in this RFC (although blocked without report). In no way should I have received a sanction, not to mention a sanction escalated 6 month to stale actions that were previously related to / due to baiting of the mentioned sock masters based on FPAS's individual lack of judgment. Instead he should have asked a second opinion or acted impartially while using discretionary sanctions. This would be incompetent use of admin authority if not an abuse while imposing discretionary sanctions on an established editor. Although all my actions including my blocks, sanctions etc (baited or not) are all stale, the sock masters are still active and evidently hounding me and the topic area.

This massive hounding and trolling by socks should have atleast warranted a leeway to revert a (now blocked) nationalist SPA's POV to a last standing version without being sanctioned. Even if my edit was reverting to a POV version, it was not incompetent - the fact that I was catching so many socks is itself proof of competence in handling a POV sensitive, sock infested topic area. It is not an unforgivable offense to make such a revert and esp not one that warrants a quick sanction with no questions asked.

Therefore, I'd request to uninvolved admins that this sanction should be revoked / reverted.

PS. Pakistani politics (a part of the sanction) is an unrelated topic area I seldom edit (I don't know how that came in relation to "India-Pakistan wars and conflicts" disputes). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Future Perfect at Sunrise

Your comment does not address the fact that I did not re-add the statement when it was removed. There was no disruption caused, no editwar (not even a second revert), neither was there any cycle of POV war which you claimed. It was a matter of content which I didn't dispute rather an editor that I considered not Kosher and all his editing in general to be disruptive (such as copy paste complete, exact, comments of IPs into RFC. I was bound to take a look at his editing history to see what other articles he was disrupting. Blanket reverting such SPAs does come in handy at times and the aim is to curb the content they are adding, esp. when dealing with such massive new accounts, out of 10s that I correctly caught to be disruptive and reverted their out right vios, one edit that reverted in bad content in a blanket revert (to another one of those disruptive SPAs) does not qualify as worthy of ban even if considered in context to the whole topic area. At this pace no established editors would be ready to put their hands into this and the socks get what they want (as it happened to the RFC, which got shut down with your WP:SUPERVOTE rather than no result as you ended it to be). I should not be made the scapegoat for what is wrong with the topic area - I'm one of the few editors who are trying to clean it up of socks... of both sides as I face them: [44] [45]). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Human3015

I restored the edit you mentioned on its own merits and I agree with reviewing quality of edits, correct but that does not mean that I am in favour of socking which is evident by my report of the same editor [46]. I don't collaborate with socks or take their opinions into any consideration as you did here to file a report on sock's advise. It only appears the one you are mentioning just came back as soon as he saw you raise his edit and my topic ban [47]. In this case, I was dealing with more socks than a few editors could have dealt with alone. I did what I could - the net result was that many sock farms got detected and blocked (see barnstars on my talk along with diffs above)... there's no need to cherry pick this single mistake (which I did not redo when I saw it was just bad both ways). We don't punish or flog editors on wikipedia. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human3015, that is pure accusation of bad faith / WP:AOBF, that too not based on action rather inaction of mine towards another sock while I was busy catching a full sock farm. I reported Indian Karate Girl (sock of a banned Pakistani editor) just as it appeared along with its "opponent" sock. Both were done as they happened. Please note that as you chose to comment at this AE appeal, your own actions (esp. the ones here) are also under review. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

The edit I pointed out to TopGun is, of course, not the only matter at hand here, but it is representative of what's wrong with this entire topic area and with TopGun's own approach to it. TopGun is arguing essentially that because the other editor involved was a POV-pushing SPA, he was justified in blanket-reverting it without looking at the merits of the edit. Well, no, he wasn't justified in doing so. In the present situation on those India-Pakistan topics, where several sock farms and crowds of POV-warriors are fighting with each other, all because each of them (rightly) thinks the other side is POV-pushing and then (wrongly) concludes you have to fight that other side with dirty tricks, the very last thing we need is editors making blanket reverts as a routine reaction. The edit in question did not just contain "possibly a slight POV", as TopGun claims now. It contained the grossly obvious (and ridiculously misplaced) POV editorializing of " which ought to be a part of Pakistan. Therefore Pakistan Army had to step in"; it contained the unsourced and equally POV statement that "people of Kashmir wanted to be a part of Pakistan", plus it contained multiple instances of horribly bad grammar (to be fair, the remaining text around it is still equally full of those, but the alternative text parts Tejas MRCA had inserted instead were noticeably better). Tejas MRCA had provided a clear and informative edit summary [48] explaining that he was undoing an old POV edit by some other account that had slipped through some weeks ago [49]. It took only a minute to check the editing profile of that old account to verify Tejas MRCA's assertion (well, except for the fact that he'd wrongly labelled it as "vandalism", when it was "just" a gross POV edit). TopGun's knee-jerk reaction of reverting to this horribly bad edit, merely because he instinctively distrusted the editor who had removed it, was just the paradigm case of the type of action that keeps these vicious circles of revert-warring moving. A responsible editor would have taken the edit, looked at it, recognized what was wrong with both versions, and tried to reword it into something that did justice to both POVs. If you're not willing or able to do that, you shouldn't be editing this topic area at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Human3015

I'm Human3015. There is some indirect mention of mine here, the main central article here Indian army was later edited by me, and there was some discussion between TopGun and FPAS on my talk page. I just want to say that, as said by FPAS this sanction on TopGun is not just for this one gross edit, but for his overall attitude. You can see user page of User:TopGun, it have many user templates, one if it is "This user supports unification of Kashmir with Pakistan". We don't have to think that he is hardcore nationalist just because of this one template but this can be just one of evidence. And he claim that he just blanket revert sock it doesn't matters merit of edit, ok, but see deep edit history of article Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Excipient0 who is sock of Nangparbat [50] first time deleted apparently relevant and sourced matter from said article [51], who was later reverted by many [52] including Cluebot NG [53]. But this time TopGun don't think about blanket revert of sock rather he go for merit of edit and lastly Excipient0's version restored by TopGun [54]. Here apparently relevant and sourced edit he feel original research, ok, it can be a original research even if edit war was started by sock still we should go for merit of edit. We should check for quality of edit as said by TopGun in restoring sock's version. But he forgot these point while reverting sensible edits by sock on Indian army. --Human3015 knock knock • 10:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You reported Indian-Karate-girl only after you got topic banned maybe to show how neutral you are, while you never cared to investigate Excipient0 on Anti-Pakistan sentiment when he was active in edit warring and apparently a sock puppet at that time, maybe because he was pushing your POV. In fact, at last you restored Excipiant0's version. --Human3015 knock knock • 12:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TopGun

"Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar, which ought to be a part of Pakistan. Therefore Pakistan Army had to step in"? You're responsible for your edits, regardless of what SPAs or socks are doing. I could buy you were being hasty and reverting more based on who was editing than what the edit was. It would be better to simply acknowledge that mistake than write a wall of text of "socks made me do it". Mntzzr (talk · contribs) needs scrutiny for the original edit. Rhoark (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoark, I agree, it might have been a POV version on par with the one added later, but is it a sanction-able offense while blanket reverting an SPA (not going in and typing in that text)? I don't agree - a note on talkpage would have suffice. I don't mean to say the socks made me do it, simply reverted to whatever version was standing last (my whole statement narrows down to what you are saying; that an editor should be given enough leeway - to make a few mistakes without being cherry picked - based on "who" he is reverting when dealing with explained situation). And as another editor completely removed it, I realized it was better now. Did I even remotely showed signs that I would add that version back after that? No. I think that is plain acceptance even before FPAS ever went through that edit --lTopGunl (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by TopGun

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

[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 470: / Line 470: @@
 *@T. Canens: Thanks for your input. Did you read my statement? If so, could you address my points and how they are not a compelling reason for me to be able to edit an article like [[Harvard Law School]], [[Barack Obama]] or [[Silicon Valley]] -- all of which are arguably covered by the 'broadly construed' language in my topic ban? [[User:Handpolk|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#006BB6; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Handpolk</span>]] [[User talk:Handpolk|<span style="color:#FDB927">''¯\_(ツ)_/¯''</span>]] 18:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
+*@MarkBernstient: two are completely baseless (SPI and ANI) and the third is PeterTheFourth hounding me. He has no business reporting me there. He had nothing to do with any of that and I haven't interacted with him at all since my topic ban. The person who filed the baseless SPI stated as fact that I was a sock of another across numerous discussions -- and I kept reverting him. If that isn't an allowed exception to 3rr, it should be. [[User:Handpolk|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#006BB6; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Handpolk</span>]] [[User talk:Handpolk|<span style="color:#FDB927">''¯\_(ツ)_/¯''</span>]] 12:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 ===Statement by Euryalus===

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