Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Cwobeel

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 Cwobeel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cwobeel (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:NEWBLPBAN

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

03:43, 23 January 2015 Original insertion of an inaccurate, out of context, and less than half a sentence passing mention sourced to an organization with long standing disputes with Emerson.
17:55, 23 January 2015 Adding: " One more source for good measure)" A tiny quip labeling him as an Islamophobe without any reason or evidence.
4:27, 2 March 2015 Reinserting into lead after protection lapsed.
16:31, 2 March 2015 Continuing after a month long protection to insert inappropriate material
4 March 2015 Inserting the material again despite no consensus
Steven Emerson - Part 3 - A BLPN discussion is made and Cwobeel acknowledges WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE
7 March 2015 Restoring the problematic material again during a BLPN dispute.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

12 December 2014 - Cwobeel was notified of the AC/DS for BLP.
24 January 2015 He was blocked for violating the sanctions after I submitted a Arbitration Enforcement request when the user was restoring unsourced BLPs - and sourced them only to IMDb and arguing with an admin over whether or not it was appropriate.
25 January 2015 A sanction was placed on "Awards and nominations" except for adding Reliable Sources - This sanction is not relevant here, but it was the end result of the previous AE about BLP.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This needs a bit of background. The source being used here is from organizations which Emerson has had legal battles with and has actually sued for defamation arising from said disputes. Cwobeel asserts that the sources are high-quality and reliable despite this. Biased sources exist, but accusations of bigotry are very serious and should not be sourced to less than a single sentence. Secondly, the only source which gives a "reason" is actually committing a very biased and judgmental attack on Emerson. Emerson has also highlighted that it is a partial quote being used.[1] Within hours of the Oklahoma City Bombing, media, law enforcement and even the FBI raised concerns of Islamic terrorism.[2] Emerson was not the origin, but merely one of numerous persons used by the media to further the Islamic Terrorism angle, he simply acknowledged the speculative and rampant rumor about six hours after the blast. Publications from the Wall Street Journal to the The New York Post ran stories with other experts (not Emerson) making clear the "middle east" terrorism links.

After the removal on March 4, the BLPN petered around a bit. Essentially the "gaff" is important and everyone agrees it needs to be in the article - but the "Islamophobe source" accusation is shown to be flawed and have no consensus to be included and Cwobeel re-added it anyways. Unfortunately this is not an isolated example because Cwobeel has also repeatedly edit warred to re-insert completely false material shown here removing an ACLU reference (containing the document) and replacing it with the erroneous and false claim saying it does not exist. I do not understand why Cwobeel does these things or has this attitude, but can the article also be placed on 1RR restriction since the 1 month protection failed to stop this?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning Cwobeel

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 Nomoskedasticity

This AE filing is a gambit in a content dispute. It's fine for the OP to disagree with the proposed edit, but when several other editors dissent from the notion that it's a BLP violation [4] it's very poor form to state that notion here as if it were an indisputable fact. The basis for the claim includes the idea that because Emerson sued a couple of scholars over the way he was characterised by them the scholars are therefore unusable as sources about him. That's a very strange idea, and again it does not enjoy consensus in discussions about this article. What that means is that "the 'Islamophobe source' accusation is shown to be flawed" is a matter of the OP's opinion. I really don't see how all of this adds up to a need for an immediate block, nor a block at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, there's a context here that's worth knowing; I've just addressed your point via a post on BLPN; perhaps it's redundant to repeat it here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Isn't it standard practice to allow the accused to make a statement on their own behalf in Arbcom enforcement cases, especially when the case is opened in the middle of the night? I'm deeply concerned about the strained interpretation of WP:BLP being advanced here, on the basis of original research and without the consensus of the community. In my opinion, these types of blocks based on novel interpretation of policy have a potentially chilling effect on open editing of any BLPs and the potential for seriously affecting neutral POV by keeping any and all negative information out of articles if anyone objects. - Mr X 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: The diffs you provided are not evidence of Cwobeel violating BLP. The first three are complaints from you and ChrisGualtieri. Specifically, in the first diff, ChrisGualtieri conflates source bias with reliability. The second diff is not evidence of wrongdoing by Cwobeel, or Coffeepusher for that matter. The third diff merely shows that ChrisGualtieri objects to this edit sourced to The Guardian or maybe it was this edit sourced to a WP:NEWSBLOG on the Washington Post by Adam Taylor who writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. This bold merge that you claim is tendentious editing, is neither tendentious nor a BLP violation, although it may have been WP:UNDUE. Callenecc protected the article because of edit warring/content dispute, and apparently because he thought there were BLP violations, contrary to finding at WP:BLP/N. We need to protect BLP's from real policy violations, and get out of this groupthink culture where editors can falsely claim BLP violations, and repeat it over and over until good editors start questioning their own judgement.- Mr X 19:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

I could only struggle to say that this is a bad call, because simply it's not. It is a good call. Very straight forward. With that said however I'm not sure this case calls for a straight forward call. [5] This diff really seems in good faith. While I did suggest Cwobeel seek a formal closure,it does seem his view of the consensus is correct. Perhaps he should have waited longer before instituting the change. In this case a direct warning and pointing out the problematic behavior may very well suffice. The thing is the article was just locked down for a month. I'm not sure this does anything to target the disruption to the article, just perhaps Cwobeel's. I'd hate to see DS to be used as a replacement for consensus making and reviewing related conversations of the subject of Steven Emerson I question if that may be what is happening. I'd like to ask you to consider over turning this block and I would like to also ask that you consider Chris' request above to institute 1RR in the article if you haven't already.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cwobeel

Given that this was unarchived to address HJ Mitchell's concern in which he states that I'm concerned that Cwobeel has a tendency to revert without discussion and to dismiss good-faith BLP concerns that he personally deems to be invalid rather than waiting for consensus on noticeboards and talk pages, here is my response:

I have learned my lessons from previous sanctions, and striving to be more careful.
In this specific instance I initiated a BLP/N discussion and waited for consensus to emerge before reinstating the material. As per other editors commenting here, I may not have been the best person to take that initiative, and I should have waited for someone else to perform that edit, but that was a mere technicality.
The block was uncalled for if HJ Mitchell had taken some time to look at the context. There was no reason to assume that I would revert, because I did not. Other editors did that and for good reason as there was an established consensus to override WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.
We need a better process to deal with situations in which editors use BLPREQUESTRESTORE as a blunt instrument, as I believe it was the case here. I respected BLPREQUESTRESTORE, started a thread to solicit uninvolved editor's input at BLP/N, got consensus, and still the OP felt entitled to post an AE and waste an enormous amount of time.
AE requests are serious matters, and there is an expectation that admins take some time to evaluate the situation before pulling the trigger, and assess the OPs arguments not just prima facie.

I hope to continue editing BLPs in my area of interest, and will strive to be extra careful when BLPREQUESTRESTORE is raised, using BLP/N and DR as necessary. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)

While it would have been preferable for Cwobeel to edit more patiently, the same is true of ChrisGualtieri. It takes two to edit war. This enforcement request looks above all like forum shopping and an attempt to sudo a content dispute when BLP/N looked to be leaning Cwobeel's way. BLP matters should be treated carefully of course, but when there's consensus that the burden of proof has been met for BLP restoration only little concession is due to an editor refusing to acknowledge that proof. The actual dispute seems to have more to do with due weight than BLP, concerning use of the word "Islamophobic". Having no prior knowledge of the article subject, I turned to Google. In the first three pages there was not one source that discussed Emerson in any context other than making false statements with the effect of inciting fear and anger against Muslims. Some used the word "Islamophobic" and some did not, but if that's not an accurate paraphrase I don't know what is. There are many more incidents than just Oklahoma City. I'm sure there's probably much more to the man, but Islamophobia seems to be his principal area of notability. Other paraphrasings are possible, but as a general matter it belongs in the lede. Given there was definitely disruption on the page, it was appropriate to provisionally block, but I'm glad it has been reversed and the matter is getting closer attention. It shouldn't have even taken an appeal to get a more skeptical view. I don't think any further remedy is necessary. Rhoark (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gaijin42

CWobeel and I have interacted on a quite a few articles. Usually from completely opposite political perspectives. In some cases, I have had great frustration with his edits (the feeling is likely mutual). One case I can remember is him insisting on repeatedly removing Ted Cruz's well known Cuban identification. However, on the whole cwobeel is an editor that can be reasoned with and collaborated with.

We were largely on opposite sides of most debates in the Michael Brown article, and while debates there often got heated, the interactions were largely collaborative, and Cwobeel's participation was not a disruption, and helped to bring balance to the article (if by nothing else ensuring that those he disagreed with were using proper sources and accurately representing them). He made a particularly strong contribution with his addition of the shooting scene diagram, and was open to including lengthy rework and feedback at significant cost of his own time and effort, including multiple elements that largely disagreed with his POV (and which ultimately proved to be pivotal in the DOJ/City reports).

There are a great many editors of all stripes involved in editing controversial and heated topics. These topics by their nature are often more likely to have flareups of warring or issues. They are also areas where editors are likely to try and WP:GAME the system with ANI/E3 reports to gain an upper hand, which goes a long way to explain the number of blocks. If these incidents are relatively infrequent, the short term consequences of the relevant blocks seem to be sufficient punishment and deterrent.

I have no comment on this particular edit/incident as I am not involved, and do not know enough to comment.

I weigh in against any broad BLP ban, and if some intermediary sanction is required (1RR etc) I would suggest it should be of a limited timespan (a few months at the most)Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

There is not much more I can add to what has already been stated. It appears Cwobeel is a little perplexed by the strict adherence portion of BLP policy which may explain his WP:DONTGETIT position after he was repeatedly advised of the problem. He does not appear to be either willing or able to understand BLP issues [6] [7] [8] Perhaps even more concerning is the TE evidenced here: [9] wherein he added minority opinions in such a way it created UNDUE. He also expanded the section about Emerson's organization, Investigative Project on Terrorism, in the biography knowing IPT has its own article. Callanecc finally PP the article until mid-May. [10] Atsme☯^Consult 20:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cwobeel

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

I've blocked Cwobeel for a fortnight to prevent the immediate disruption (which is the restoration of the material while it was being discussed at BLPN). Considering this is the second time in recent weeks that Cwobeel's conduct on BLPs as been in question at this board, I think we should consider much more rigorous sanctions, possibly even a long-term block. Note that this is Cwobeel's fifth block in less than a year, and BLP issues appear to be at the root of all of them. Cwobeel also has two logged warnings under NEWBLPBAN, and was banned by Sandstein in January from editing award lists. It seems that Cwobeel's compliance with BLP has been a long-term problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity and MrX: et al, the block is not based on one interpretation of BLP versus another. I have no opinion on that. The issue is that once something is removed on a good-faith BLP objection it shouldn't be restored until the concerns are addressed or consensus determines them to be meritless. Edit-warring because you disagree with your opponent's interpretation of BLP is unacceptable, and doing so citing a discussion that is still open strikes me as disingenuous. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this back from the archive as it was never formally closed and I think wider issues with Cwobeel's conduct on BLPs bear examination. I note that Cwobeel has been blocked five times in the just under a year—twice under NEWBLPBAN, three times for edit-warring (of which two were on BLPs). I'm concerned that Cwobeel has a tendency to revert without discussion and to dismiss good-faith BLP concerns that he personally deems to be invalid rather than waiting for consensus on noticeboards and talk pages. I've unblocked Cwobeel, as the short-term block was only ever intended to deal with the immediate issue, but I think we should seriously consider some sort of revert restriction or similar (broad topic bans are a bit of a blunt instrument, and I don't think that sort of thing is warranted here). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Gounaris

Banned from all topics relating to Greece or the Balkans, with possibility of review after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning A Gounaris

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: A Gounaris (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:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions

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

Persistent edit-warring against consensus of several other editors:
- On Greece: [11][12][13][14] (at least 4 instances of re-inserting "Balkans" in place of "SE Europe"); [15] (rv of [16]); [17] (rv of [18]); [19] (rv of [20]); [21] (rv of [22]); [23] (rv of [24])
  (several of these are partial reverts, usually re-insertions of contentious material previously removed as irrelevant or tendentious by other editors, though sometimes slightly reworded. Similar behaviour is also seen on other articles.)
Refusal to provide references for his insertions; edit-warring to remove {fact} maintenance tags
- [25] [26][27][28][29][30]
Incivility, personal attacks, casting aspersions about other editors' alleged motivation:
- [31][32] (edit summary), [33] (edit summary)
Long-term previous history of similar aggressive attitude and incivility: [34]
- Update: His reaction to this report was this and this (plus yet another rv of yet another editor on the Greece article [35], plus the clumsy attempt at a retaliatory counter-report just below here) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Further update: he is now at 3R over the removal of fact-tags at Languages of Greece ([36][37], [38]) and has engaged in yet more personal attacks in the form of spurious sockpuppet accusations (apparently all the different editors who have been reverting him are socks of mine: [39]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [40] (Arb notice from March 2013); also: [41] (Macedonia 1RR warning); [42] (standard 3RR warning)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [43]

Discussion concerning A Gounaris

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 A Gounaris

Statement by Dolescum

I'm not much one for the drama boards, but I'm supporting Fut Per here. I have repeatedly asked A Gounaris to provide evidence for their assertions as can be seen in the edit summaries here and here. My exhortations seem to be falling on deaf ears. Furthermore, this revert of yet another removal of their edits, in spite of the report here having already been made, seems to indicate a battleground mentality and no desire to work with the rest of the community. This needs to stop. Dolescum (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning A Gounaris

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

I have looked at the references provided, and I am not impressed by the abilities of A Gounaris to edit collaboratively and to accept criticism in editing on topics related to Greece. The enforcement request they obened below to "mirror" this one is a good confirmation. On the other hand, they have an empty block log. A topic ban might be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ymblanter. Suggest the following result: "A Gounaris is topic banned for 6 months from all articles relating Greece, and the Balkans"--Cailil ^talk 21:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer an indef topic ban with appeals allowed every 6 months. Given some of those diffs, I'd like to see affirmative evidence of improvement before considering lifting the topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have the Greece article on my watchlist I keep seeing new reverts and adventurous edits by User:A Gounaris. Usually these changes stay below the threshold of 3RR but these edits suggest that the editor doesn't feel the need for any support from others for their changes. People who are extremely confident that they are right and have strong non-mainstream personal opinions are usually not helpful on highly-visible articles such as Greece. The editor's talk page shows they have received numerous warnings. I would support User:Timotheus Canens' proposal for an indefinite topic ban from all articles related to Greece and the Balkans (which is essentially all of ARBMAC) with the possibility of review after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no problem with going indef in this situation and support T Canens's proposal--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. User:A Gounaris is indefinitely banned from all topics relating to Greece and the Balkans, with the possibility of review after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Thargor Orlando

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: Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned from all edits and discussion regarding User:MarkBernstein and restricted from opening and noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to MarkBernstein without the permission of an uninvolved administrator.

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

Notification of that administrator: [44]

Statement by Thargor Orlando

Two quick housekeeping notes

Mentions of MarkBernstein in this scenario are for background purposes only, done so under the auspices of "exceptions to limited bans", specifically "appealing the ban" (which I do here and requires discussion of the topic ban to be appealed) and, to a lesser extent, "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban." This is not an implication of trying to enact any new disciplinary sanctions. I opted not to tag Mark in this proceeding in order to not make further implications on the matter, not to keep anyone in the dark, and any editor that thinks I made the wrong call here is free to tag him.
I assume this is the correct forum for this. If not, a point in the correct direction would be appreciated.

This topic ban was put in place for reasons that are not entirely clear, and certainly not supported by any available evidence. Gamaliel's only real citation comes from this diff, where he claims my assertions are "worse" than what was said, and that Bernstein does not have the opportunity to respond. This was the wrong call on a number of points.

First, Gamaliel takes issues with two quotes, both from this comment. The first quote is "It's further evidence that his contributions are a negative to the article space," which is based on Bernstein's block history, multiple topic bans in the area, and own comments, and seemed self-evident. The context is where Gamaliel's second quote comes from, ""Mark's own intentions in this clarification is to drag the drama he continually creates within the Gamergate space into the campus rape disputes," which was directly related to this clarification request, which discussed Bernstein being approached by an "activist" for a "Wikipedia initiative." Given Bernstein's history in the topic space, it seemed incredibly clear to me that this was a blatant attempt to push the boundaries of his existing topic ban (a topic ban initiated by User:Dreadstar that I had no involvement in requesting, I should add) in an area he has clearly shown disruption in.

Gamaliel, in his initial comment, believes we cannot "play nice with each other." This may be granted, although I don't see why we need to "play nice" with what I believe is clear disruption. Gamaliel's claim is that I made "much worse statements about those you are complaining about," but none of those worse statements were provided. Meanwhile, the person I am "complaining about" has, in the past months, implied that I was being "deploy[ed by 8chan"], repeatedly went after me personally with untrue claims ([45][46]), and so on. This disruption is long-standing, and my statements in support of my point of view regarding his status are based clearly in the history of the situation. Statements cannot occur in a vacuum, the history simply must be taken into account.

As an added problem, the language of the topic ban is overly broad, as Bernstein has injected himself into the conflict in the real world, being quoted multiple times on blogs and having his own words reposted in legitimate media. The spirit of the topic ban suggests that Gamaliel is simply tired of having to hear appeals toward Bernstein's behavior, the wording puts my editing in the article space in jeopardy if an administrator or tendentious editor opts to try to make hay of the situation.

The Gamergate sanctions are in place to reduce the disruption in the article space, not to keep editors from making good-faith and evidence-supported appeals for their use against disruptive editors. Perhaps if my complaints were about an editor without a block and topic ban history in the sanctioned space, there might be some merit to this to discuss. Instead, the route chosen implies that I have done something wrong, tarnishes my otherwise clean record, and does the opposite of the intention of the sanctions by keeping editors in good standing from being able to combat said disruption. The topic ban on me clearly needs to be overturned on its merits.

@Ched: the problem is that no behavior issues have been presented. Without any behavior issues to point to, there's nothing to show improvement on and nothing to address. There is no current guidance in place and no problems demonstrated, thus the immediate appeal. If you have specifics in mind, presenting those would be very helpful toward coming to a conclusion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched:: Sure, it's "better" in that it's not a topic ban, but it still implies behavioral issues that have not been detailed, and assumes that I need to be restricted in that area without evidence. The issue is not the type of ban, but that the ban exists without cause at all. To clarify, an IBAN would at least eliminate the possibility of edits at an article being used against me simply because Bernstein is quoted in the media, but it doesn't address the broader issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: can you please detail the "five months" of "disparaging comments?" Preferably with diffs so we can move forward on this? You're correct that we have repeatedly, in the proper forums and the proper formats, requested administrative interventions due to his behavior. In a sense, any dispute resolution will be "disparaging," however, so this just seems to be a complaint about our valid concerns about how this particular situation has continued to be handled. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: my apologies for inadvertently misquoting you. What I'm trying to do is end the disruption, plain and simple. If we want to get down to brass tacks, if he were topic banned as I believe he should be, there would be no reason for me to continue to endorse enforcement requests (you'll note that I have never initiated one with him) because it would be done and over with. WP:BANEX allows him to defend himself, so it's not as if he can't address them, and there is no evidence you're providing that is showing that I'm trying to goad him or talking about him in areas that he cannot respond. In fact, I don't think I've raised anything that he's said or done specifically about me at all, nor am I sure he's actually addressed me in a problematic way since you lifted his block a month ago. The evidence just doesn't stack up in terms of what you believe I've done, which is why I'm not incredibly happy with being hit with the shrapnel as a result. Co-signing on an assertion that someone is continuing to be disruptive in exactly the way you have expressed that you want it to occur after they've assured the block-lifting admin they wouldn't be should not be a sanctionable offense. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: I find it frustrating that, after I've been gone for two days, no actual evidence has been presented here to justify this continued action while, at the same time, appearing to want to ignore the issues of topic bans being ignored with impunity occurs on the same page. To go directly to your criticism, if I had noticed that User:YellowSandals was topic banned, I likely would have brought some attention to it, but, believe it or not, I'm really not up on a lot of the topic bans outside of the ones levied and, in a handful of specific cases, not levied by Arbcom. I would appreciate some sort of evidence-based explanation on why this should continue to be upheld at this point. When I get topic banned without any warning while other actual disruptive people get their (to use some of your words) third, fourth, umpteenth chances, it starts to give the impression of something else at play here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: under what metric are you measuring "equal responsibility?" On one side, you have someone who has never been blocked, sanctioned, or topic banned in any area of the project. On the other, you have someone who has been topic banned and blocked numerous times for repeated disruption which included personal attacks against myself. Why am I responsible for the behavior of anyone else in this instance? "In the interests of the encyclopedia," we have options to deal with disruption. Topic banning people who are not disruptive are not it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

What benefit is it to the encyclopedia if these users are allowed to continue to make negative and potentially disparaging statements about Mark Bernstein?

If Mark Bernstein violates rules or sanctions, then they can report that to an administrator. This does not prevent them from seeking redress or reporting a violation, it merely prevents them from complaining about this particular user on the encyclopedia, as they have been doing for at least five months.

There are many editors and administrators on Wikipedia. They could simply leave this matter to one of them. This is something we regularly advise people to do on Wikipedia. Take the example of NorthBySouthBaranof elsewhere on this page. He is correct that something is wrong at the Lena Dunham article, but he should leave the matter for someone else to handle because his past behavior has proven disruptive in certain areas, just as the past interactions of these editors with Mark Bernstein have increased tensions and disrupted the atmosphere of collaborative editing. Gamaliel (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched: That is correct, the ban does not prevent interactions between DHeyward and Orlando. I believe I clarified that in the messages on their respective talk pages and the sanctions log, but if either are ambiguous I will correct them. I chose a topic ban over an interaction ban because I did not want to inhibit article discussion, just personal remarks. I have no particular objection to changing it if others think it necessary. Gamaliel (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thargor Orlando: You have quoted me in a manner that changes the meaning of what I said. I did not say that the two of you have been insulting Mark Bernstein for five months. You have, however, been enthusiastic users of noticeboards and admin talk pages in an effort to get him sanctioned, and in the process said many things about him that were negative. Some of them were true, others were opinions that are valid, but may be interpreted negatively. During most of this, Mark Bernstein has been under a topic ban or other restriction which has prevented him from replying in kind, and any comment of his that is remotely like some of the things you have said about him gets another round of noticeboard reports about him, along with another opportunity for you to recapitulate your negative opinions about him. Rightly or wrongly, he perceives this as a series of attacks upon him, and has now resorted to filing retaliatory noticeboard complaints against the two of you. And then we do it all over again. This is the cycle that this sanction is attempting to stop. Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: So prohibiting you from participating in endless noticeboard complaints "prolongs the drama" by forcing you to file a noticeboard complaint? Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

I, too, am maligned by the same topic ban by Gamaliel with not a single diff which I consider casting aspersions. Further, my contribution to this was that I brought MarkBernsteins comments to two uninvolved administrators. I did not characterize which statements were problematic but both admins sanctioned MarkBernstein for them including one topic ban. This is the remedy Gamaliel has proposed as the solution but when it led to the TBan of an editor he is sympathetic to, he seems to want to take it out on editors not involved in that. As can be seen, Gamaliel's remedy led to MarkBernstein filing an ARCA reuest, an ANI request, and two AE requests. Neither I nor Orlando have filed. In addition, another editor has filed an AE request against MarkBernstein. In response, MarkBernstein repeated the statements that led to his sanction. Gamaliel seems to be confused as to who is filing requests for enforcement. There is simply no basis for his sanction. In addition MarkBernstein was prohibited from filing AE requests per WP:BANEX. Gamaliel, being the first commenter and admin should have closed the AE request rather than stoking its flames. --DHeyward (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ched Echoing Orlando. Gamaliel has implies it's a three way IBAN issue when really it's a single topic-banned editor (who is again at AE). Gamaliel put a lot of things in quotes without saying who and where they were said. In short, I did everything Gamaliel requested. There are no noticeboard complaints started by me over these issues. I took my concerns about a comment to two independent admins and both acted on it. Those administrative actions drove one editor to open multiple forum requests including ANI, ARCA, and two AE requests. In addition, another editor has brought an AE request against him and you can read his reply [47]. None of this has anything to do with Orlando and me. I had already done everything Gamaliel thinks I should have done and if I didn't, he hasn't provided any diffs. I have no problem with an an on-your-honor agreement but logging it as if I have an interaction issue with anyone misconstrues everything that has occurred here. Certainly there is no conflict between Orlando and I which is implied in the sanction. It has no basis. If Gamaliel's intention was to avoid drama and conflict, he should withdraw his sanction that is not based in either process or fact and let it close. EdJohnston nailed the deficiencies in the request. MarkBernstein is already topic banned so creating a sanction that both Orlando and I will appeal is only dragging out the problem needlessly. --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel I did that. How do you think MarkBernstein received a topic ban? It was by notifying two uninvolved admins. I've only responded to his AE charges that he brought to noticeboards. There are no noticeboard filings by me over this and there are no quotes you cited that he can't or didn't respond to. It seems rather an odd statement to say that my replies to MarkBernstein's noticeboard filings about me somehow have put him at a disadvantage. Where are imagining this happening? I've asked for diff's yet none are forthcoming. You made statements and put quotes around them but without attribution. EdJohnston is correct in his assessment. You should have ended the drama by closing his two WP:BANEX violating AE requests instead of feeding them. It is your sanction, without merit, that is dragging this out. Like I said, I have no intention of bringing MarkBernstein to boards and didn't so your solution is really in search of a problem. --DHeyward (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel diffs or please stop casting aspersions. Posting notices on uninvolved admins pages that have invoked sanctions on MB is NOT any kind of abuse of process. Participating in discussions where we have been the targets of his comments about editors is NOT any kind of abuse of process. I am sorry that you are upset about MBs topic ban and believe it is one-sided but you need to take it up with Dreadstar, not punish his victims. Please explain what behavior you think would be stopped by this sanction? We will still ask admins to intervene if MarkBernstein is abusive. Uninvolved admins will still sanction him. Your insistence only prolongs the drama. If you read the comments of the other admins for both cases MarkBernstein filed, you seem the only one thinking sanctions are needed. Even in Orlando's, that was summarily closed because MarkBernstein is TBanned from even making AE complaints, you still called for sanctions when others correctly saw a process error as well as nothing to warrant a sanction. Please don't make this a full on drama appeal over a sanction that does nothing but tarnish reputations and extend drama. --DHeyward (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel Diffs or stop casting aspersions. A groundless sanction that wouldn't have stopped a single thing you claim to be worried out will be appealed. You have made an accusation of wrongdoing and keep mentioning board participation. I only ask for diffs which you don't supply because they don't tell the story you've been selling.. We wouldn't be here or at any boards because of me and I request you remove the sanction. Close it with no sanctions and there is no more drama. It ended with Mark's TBan. The sanction is unnecessary and I take offense at being painted with your broad brush without so much as a diff showing how your remedy would have played out differently or what egregious error in civility I made. --DHeyward (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here [48] is the first request filed by MB. Note Gamaliel was the first admin to comment on how one-sided MB's TBan is and how his TBan should be dropped (or everyone is TBanned). Luckily cooler heads dismissed it. Moments later, MB files another AE based on comments I made in his first AE. The cooler heads did not join until later and advocated that Gamaliel at least provide a diff and also pointed out the complaint was a BANEX violation by MB. No such luck on the diff. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ_Mitchell, Ched The issue is this accusation of wrongdoing. In a few weeks, what exactly do you think would happen? "It won't happen again?" Exactly what will I not do to avoid this? I've been civil to MarkBernstein. There is no evidence of wrongdoing. There is no "Well both sides...." If there is, find a diff and post it. There is nothing. The fact is Gamaliel lifted his topic ban and he returned to edits that attacked other editors and I've patiently brought them to uninvolved admins. Harry, how many times have you warned MB? How many times did Dreadstar warn him? Show a diff where I should be sanctioned for doing something wrong, or even incivil. Nobody wants the toxic GamerGate atmosphere but it was re-inflicted on us when MB us unbanned and unblocked. It is now much better. Clear the sanction log because this is really just one editor violating every condition of his early release as well as the GG general sanctions. --DHeyward (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a simple request like a diff so hard to comply with? Show me a diff where this sanction would have changed anything or show me a diff of wrongdoing? --DHeyward (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ_Mitchell the only thing not normal is the kid glove treatment afforded MarkBernstein. There is no animosity between parties but there is a lot of animosity between MB and anyone that disagrees with him. He's made accusations of collusion offsite, constantly refers to other editors after multiple warnings, etc, etc. This is why he is now also topic banned. I wish I had as many warnings as MarkBernstein and we could close this as I think I am due about 5 more talk page warnings before a sanction is even contemplated (and the next one would be a "stern warning"). MB endorsed this sanction and mentioned he provided admins with information and that the admins have agreed to his conditions. None of that has been disclosed or offered to anyone else. Please disclose it so we can see how "not normal" this whole ordeal has been. I see the this sanction is working based on the lack of AE requests regarding MB. The only unchanging factor is his champion.

--DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

MarkBernstein brought two frivolous motions, that he didn't have standing to file, on the basis of two editors making factual statements about MB's ban history. I really don't see how anyone could derive "equal responsibility" from that. I get that admins are sick of the whole thing and want to make it go away, but just sanctioning any names that show up at enforcement will only encourage more people with an axe to grind to try their luck at enforcement roulette. Rhoark (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PeterTheFourth is not uninvolved. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Rhoark (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Thargor Orlando

Statement by PeterTheFourth

DHeyward requested (begged for) diffs where this remedy would have 'changed anything', so I've helpfully compiled a small list.[55][56], this entire request, [57][58][59][60], somewhat thinly veiled, [61] PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only this one [62] would have been prevented by the sanction. Everything else was to uninvolved admins which is allowed. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: I was of the impression that 'uninvolved' referred to editors who are not mentioned in the remedy. I'd be grateful to the editor who clarified and moved my statement if necessary. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

Applying sanctions to two veteran editors without producing any evidence of wrongdoing on their part not only offends traditional notions of fair play and procedural and substantive justice, it also fails to demonstrate that (1) there is a problem with these editors' behavior and (2) that the imposed sanctions will do anything to cure this problem. Particularly where, as here, the imposing admin has toed the line of involvement in the topic area and has a non-negligible history of sympathetic involvement with the editor who requested action against these two editors, I do not think this was a proper exercise of admin authority. Besides, I count no fewer than four warnings issued to MarkBernstein about not commenting on other editors by four different admins before he was placed under any sanction this time around, despite having been unblocked under the explicit condition that he was to avoid personally-directed comments. Why should DHeyward and Thargor Orlando not be extended the same courtesy? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Thargor Orlando

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

My suggestion is that everyone put down the shovels, stop digging, accept the current restrictions, and edit productively in areas where you're not restricted. Furthering this situation is more likely to lead to extended blocks than it is to any sort of "ok, go do what you want" result. It is typical that DR solutions begin with less harsh restrictions; but, if that fails then more drastic restrictions will be put in place to ensure a less disruptive atmosphere on the project. If after a period of time (months, not hours) there's evidence that proper behavior can be adhered to, perhaps discuss it with an admin. active in that particular area. In other words: I suggest you take your ball and go play in another yard - before we take the ball away all together. — Ched : ? 19:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

question Would it help if the wording were changed from "WP:TBAN" to "WP:IBAN"? — Ched : ? 20:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note I don't believe that Gamaliel's solution is intended to mean that DHeyward and Orlando must not interact with each other, but rather "both" must avoid MB. I've seen no indication that there are any issues with DHeyward and Orlando interactions. — Ched : ? 20:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

further notes FWIW, we are into the weekend now. With that in mind, I'm not going to rush to judgement here. Several points:

I am not inclined to unilaterally vacate the findings of another admin. (logged here)
There seem to be a variety of views in the above thread (here}, and an even wider view in the statements above that.
It always amazes me when people get anywhere near topics that have resulted in things like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate after such a difficult situation has been dealt with, although it shouldn't be surprising when terms like "collateral damage" and "shrapnel" are found in the aftermath.
I don't think that under normal operating procedures that either Thargor Orlando or DHeyward would be facing anything beyond a "suggestion", and understand the "WTH did I do" attitude. Still, given the atmosphere surrounding "all things considered" mantra - I do agree it is best if both editors were separated from all things related to MarkBernstein.

With all that said, I'll think on things over the weekend, and hopefully find helpful input from other uninvolved folks here when I get back. — Ched : ? 14:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ched's comment pretty much hits the nail on the head. Under normal conditions, we wouldn't be thinking about sanctions like this, but nothing about gamergate has been normal thus far. Considering everything that's happened and the obvious bad blood between the parties—for which both sides bear equal responsibility—I think forcing them to keep their distance is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, even if it's not strictly "fair" or "just". I recommend DH/TO and MB abide by the restriction even if they think it's unfair, and perhaps edit something else for a while, and if it becomes clear in a few weeks that things have settled down, we can look again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryofIran

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 HistoryofIran

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 :

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

User:HistoryofIran for a long time has been displaying an aggressive belligerent approach to editing Wikipedia articles dealing with the history of Iran and the Caucasus which has also prompted him on several occasions to edit-war, as well as resort to incivility in relation to other users.

Despite being placed on 1RR and civility supervision back in October 2013, this user continues to edit in the exact same manner that has earned him this restriction.

1RR restriction violated at Paykar Khan Igirmi Durt: [63], [64] (he claimed reverting vandalism, but later admitted on the talkpage that it was not vandalism), Atropatene: [65], [66].

Typical examples of violating WP:CIVILITY include him defining good-faith edits that he disagrees with as 'vandalism' and the contributors as 'vandals' who are out to 'annoy hard-working contributors such as [himself]': [67], [68], [69], addressing users in a disrespectfully informal manner ('dude') [70], getting extremely personal instead of addressing issues raised due to his edit-warring [71], and making other kinds of patronising, condescending and offensive remarks in edit summaries: [72], [73], [74], [75]. Interestingly, even the information supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Iranica is not only removed, but referred to as 'vandalism' [76], accompanied with an inappropriate comment in the edit summary.

After being warned for incivility once [77], he persisted in making sarcastic references to the user's 'poor feelings' in every message he addressed to them for the duration of the discussion (even if the incilivity issue was not further addressed), to the point of turning it into the focal point of the entire discussion: [78], [79].

I would like admins to pay attention to the aggressive confrontational language that the user permits himself in a discussion: [80], [81], [82]. One can see that the other user did a very good job remaining civil until the end, hence HistoryofIran's reaction along the lines of phrases such as 'facepalm', 'your broken English' and 'understood?' was completely unprovoked.

In violation of WP:OWN, he refers to articles as 'his own' and uses his experience editing Wikipedia as an argument in favour of his version: [83].

I also suggest that admins take note of the manner in which this user refers to fellow contributors and to his own role in bringing about Wikipedia at the very top of his talk page: [84]. While I appreciate the efforts of those who genuinely try to contribute to improving the content of articles on Wikipedia, I do not believe that they should be blinded by glory at the site of many barnstars that other users award them and use their active participation in the project as an excuse to bring others down.

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

The user was previously placed on 1RR restriction, supervised editing and civility supervision [85] and is aware of that [86].

Keeping in mind that this user has been blocked eight times in the past two years (including three times in the past year after being placed on the aforementioned restrictions, most recently a few weeks ago) for a period between 24 and 72 hours, mainly for edit-warring, and vows to continue to 'revert a lot of stuff' [87] in the future, I suggest an indefinite ban, as I consider this user's attitude unacceptable and unconstructive in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, especially if he fails at the very first thing which makes a discussion productive: simple polite communication.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[88]

Discussion concerning HistoryofIran

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 HistoryofIran

I find it funny, you researched so much about me, yet you didn't research the results of what i said in articles such as the Malik-Shah page. That is called lying and which shows that you're really trying hard to have me blocked for no reason - me, a user who has contributed so much to this site (374 articles created, 35 templates created, 168 categories created, 35 portals created and manyyyyyyyy articles expanded. Not trying to use this as an excuse, but just letting you guys know), just because of.. well who knows? personal revenge/hatred? I don't know, I just find this kind of random that you're suddenly reporting me and not even doing it the right way. Anyway, about the whole Malik-Shah issue (and constantly accusing me of being heavily rude when it comes to discussing), here is what it resulted to: [89] [90]. With that "problem" hopefully fixed, let's move to the next one. "One can see that the other user did a very good job remaining civil until the end, hence HistoryofIran's reaction along the lines of phrases such as 'facepalm', 'your broken English' and 'understood?' was completely unprovoked." Seriously? if a admin is reading this, please take a look on the links and a look on the Malik-Shah article, because what I am reading is not true and I'm sure you will understand. He is making me look like the villain, which he is doing this whole report, which I will get to.

By the way, If you are going to report about such things, then show all of it instead of half of it.

About the Paykar Khan Igirmi Durt article: I find it funny, he mentioned that I claimed vandalism (which I apologized for - because I am (well, I was) constantly reverting vandalism I wrongly accused him of being one, which was completely stupid by me) yet he accused me of "bad-faith editing" and still haven't apologized for it. Isn't that double standards? Anyway, I don't get why he mentioned that, since that issue ended when he showed me sources which proved that he was right (which he didn't first time but just randomly slammed some information on it, or else I would never have reverted it in the first place). Furthermore, how is "dude" a negative word? It is a normal word used every day? (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dude) I find it funny that he is trying to make a deal out every word I use. It seems like "dude" is bad a word, but accusing one of "bad-faith editing" and abusing old issues without showing what really happened is normal. Furthermore, while we were discussing in the talk page of the article, I kept telling you to stop turning this into, well, a "personal discussion" (if that makes sense), yet you continued, which I don't know why, what have I done? I apologized (while you didn't) and agreed with what you said when you finally showed me sources in the end (which you should have done in the start).

"Interestingly, even the information supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Iranica is not only removed, but referred to as 'vandalism' [91], accompanied with an inappropriate comment in the edit summary." Great, once again you're not showing everything. Yes, the source states that the Safavids were Azeris, but does not mention their ancestors were Azeris, which the user wrote on the article (which means that he was falsifying information), which was the reason I reverted it. As I said, you're not using this kind of information right and are trying to use it against my favor by doing so. I don't get what you're trying to gain: you're trying to block a user who is barely active (and may be quitting because he is busy) and has done so much on this site by falsifying (not really falsifying (or maybe it is?), but I can't really think of a better word that fits better, I should go to bed) information about him?

"Keeping in mind that this user has been blocked eight times in the past two years (including three times in the past year after being placed on the aforementioned restrictions, most recently a few weeks ago) for a period between 24 and 72 hours, mainly for edit-warring, and vows to continue to 'revert a lot of stuff' [92] in the future, I suggest an indefinite ban, as I consider this user's attitude unacceptable and unconstructive in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, especially if he fails at the very first thing which makes a discussion productive: simple polite communication."

Yes, and you have been blocked 4 times? so what? so you should get blocked for not telling everything about the stuff which you brought up? "Simple polite communication"?, as I said before, you were the one who wanted to create a big and unnecessary issue in the Paykar Khan article, while I kept telling that we should focus on the subject, which you kept getting away from. "After being warned for incivility once [123], he persisted in making sarcastic references to the user's 'poor feelings' in every message he addressed to them for the duration of the discussion (even if the incivility issue was not further addressed), to the point of turning it into the focal point of the entire discussion: [124], [125]." Not really, as I said, I was trying to the discuss with you about the subject, yet you kept targeting words such as "dude" and kept trying to change the subject by trying to turn it into a hostile discussion, which I kept telling you that you shouldn't do and that you should focus on the subject instead. You aren't using this information neutrally, but using it all against my favor by changing what happened to make me look like the villain. About the "poor feelings" thing, as I said, you kept targeting my words and acting oversensitive yet you yourself accused me of something too, but unlike me you didn't apologize.

This is what annoys me the most: "and vows to continue to 'revert a lot of stuff"'. I didn't really say that - you're missing the details once again and are trying to change information to use it against my favor. What I said was "When I get back I will probably have to revert a lot of stuff since these annoying vandals appear on the articles i have created/expanded literally every day." What problem is there with that? It's not like i will go, in your own words, on a "bad faith editing" campaign, but remove edits such as this one removed by a well known user [93]. There are actually many respected users who agrees with me in these cases, take a look here for example [94]. Many people know that I help/expand (well, actually "helped" since I am not really active anymore) many Wikipedia articles, and not one who does "bad faith editing". Anyway, even if it said that i wanted to go on a "bad faith editing" campaign (which I would never do, of course), that wouldn't mean anything either since words means nothing compared to real action.

"and making other kinds of patronising, condescending and offensive remarks in edit summaries: [95], [96], [97],". Once again, you're not posting all of it. The first in the first link is a person who usually copies information from various places and then copies it to a article, making much of the information having broken English. The second one was just one of the 100th random users who put unsourced information, which is constantly reverted by me and other users, which annoyed me, but I guess saying "omg" (oh my god) when a article is constantly the target of vandalism is wrong, just like using the word "dude" was in your opinion somehow wrong. About the third one: He is the same person mentioned in the first link, where I said that he usually copies information from various places and then copies it to a article, making much of the information having broken English. Which is against the rules, which means I didn't do anything wrong.--HistoryofIran (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[@The Blade of the Northern Lights:] I'm sorry but I really think you're missing something then, in case you didn't see it, I have answered everything he has written about and pretty much proved him wrong. "Who's of much use to the encyclopedia regardless of topic."? I have done so much for this site (which I posted above) yet I am not to any use? Can a admin properly investigate this please? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

moved here from wrong section by Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[@User:Rhoark:] I don't really have the energy/will to discuss about this anymore, I have written what I could, a topic ban is fine (although not the cleverest idea either when I have done so much in that kind of topic), I am not going to be editing for some months/years anyway because I have kind of lost interest in this site, but I enjoyed my time here and if I will ever return, it would be in a long time (where I would expand Football articles instead). To an admin reading (or who have read) all the information which have been written here: Although I am most likely not going to return, at least topic ban me then, but not infinitive ban, it would be sad leaving Wikipedia like that. Right now, it seems like Parishan managed to fool everyone and I feel like no one have properly investigated what I have written, but oh well. If you did what I asked, that would be great (or you could also don't do anything, but it seems like my words mean nothing compared to Parishan who is immaturely abusing information against my favor, which makes absolutely no since, oh well. Consider this the last message from me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)

My gestalt impression of HistoryOfIran is someone unable to deal with content disputes in a constructive manner. Two elements of their statement however have merit. Firstly, the word "dude" is innocuous. Secondly, @Ahendra: is indeed introducing large amounts of grammatical gobbledygook to article space. An administrator should probably evaluate whether there is a competence problem. It's possible HistoryOfIran could learn better dispute resolution in an area they are less passionate about, so I endorse a topic ban. Rhoark (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning HistoryofIran

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

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any reason not to indef HistoryofIran and be done with it. I'd be all right with an indefinite topic ban from the AA topic area on top of that, but it seems like this isn't an editor who's of much use to the encyclopedia regardless of topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness

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 Supreme Deliciousness

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Supreme Deliciousness (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 - specifically the neutral point of view reminder (4)

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

SupremeDeliciousness has a history of highlighting the occupation throughout Wikipedia while doing little else for the project. I understand that we need to assume good faith and that being a single purpose account is not inherently a bad thing. However, he has shown that his bias negatively affects the topic area.

The editor's clear agenda and tendency to edit war are more nuanced than usually seen at AE. I had a hard time thinking of how to "prove" this and decided to look at every 50th edit (just selected next page in the history screen) the other day. It was surprising how many were reverts. Many edits are factually accurate but I hope this shows that there might be an attempt to put undue focus on the occupation:

Reverting (an IP) to highlight the occupation[98]
Reverting (an IP) regarding the terminology of occupied land[99]
Reverting to highlight the disputed status[100]
Reverting (an IP) to highlight the disputed status [101]
Highlighting the occupation[102]
Reverting to highlight the disputed land[103]
Reverting (a IP) about Israel[104]
Highlighting the occupation. It doesn't neccasarily smack of POV pushing but it is part of the sample size[105]
Reverting to limit the visibility of Hebrew on a food article (a surprisingly common form of POV pushing in the topic area)[106]

The above is not indicative of a problematic editor on its own. Below I attempt to show that SupremeDeliciousess has an over reliance on the revert function. It takes two to tango, of course. I also understand that it can be hard to not revert IPs in the topic area and how easy it is to assume every red named editor is a sock.

2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, 4 reverts since March 1 inserting "occupied". No talk page use.[107][108][109][110]

Open University of Israel, 5 reverts since February 24 regarding a conviction. Other party later turned out to be a sock but hindsight isn't an excuse.[111][112][113][114][115]

Northern District (Israel), 7 reverts since January 29 regarding legality of Israel's control. Again, what would eventually turn out to be a sock, but there is still a ridiculous amount of reverts with little initial conversation besides edit summaries.[116][117][118][119][120][121][122]

Israeli cuisine, 3 reverts in 9 days in February regarding Israeli adoption of Arab cuisine. Possible sock? Talk page could have still been used more.[123][124][125]

For the sake of transparency and to show more possible POV-pushing the following is a current dispute I am involved in.

A controversy section that I feel promotes undue weight of a minor incident at Tourism of Israel (not neccasarily a politically based page) was added. His first reaction was to revert removal. It is now tagged and being discussed.[126]

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

These issues have been going on for years and this is simply a snapshot of recent behavior. SupremeDeliciousness has always made sure not to cross the line too far, which I suppose is a good thing. My frustration leads me to want to request a topic ban but I don't know if that is even appropriate. I believe the editor needs to be counseled by a level headed admin and that a prohibition on reverts should be considered.

I kind of expected blow back and a lengthy discussion but was really hoping it would just be cool. Yes, I have filthy disgusting hands. Yes, SD refuses to even consider that the editing has been an issue. We don't need multiple editors attacking or defending this like sharks. The gus is pushing a POV. ANI is not the appropriate venue to ask for help. Can we just get some level-headed peeps to point him in a better direction. Basically: don't comment unless you want to discuss making the topic area better.Cptnono (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[127]

Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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 Supreme Deliciousness

Please take a closer look at the diffs Cptnono has provided above:

[128], The West bank is occupied so there is nothing wrong with calling it that.
[129], an IP showed up and claimed that the Ariel University in the West bank is in Israel. I reverted this false edit..... why is this being brought up in an enforcement against me?
[130], same as above, East Jerusalem is by the entire international community rejected as Israel, so my edit is 100% accurate.
[131], an IP showed up and changed a sentence to "in the Israeli Golan Heights.", There is no such thing. Israeli claims are rejected by the international community. My edit is 100% accurate.
[132], the text is about Hezbollah attacking an IDF unit. I believe it is important to point out to the reader that it happened on occupied lands and not in Israel.
[133]. 100% accurate edit. Temple mount is not in Israel.
[134]. An IP showed up and reverted me with the edit summary: "Reverted racist vandal Supreme Deliciousness. Supreme Deliciousness wrote anti-Semitic propaganda at User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness/Archives/2014/October#Birthright_Unplugged claiming that Jewish history is fake." This IP was later blocked by admin.[135]. As his revert was illegitimate, I undid his revert. I also discussed at the talkpage:[136].
[137]. The map is now changed but it used to show the Golan as striped brown. So thats why I did that edit.
[138]. Arak is an Arabic language name. It is not a Hebrew name. Therefore the Hebrew translation is unrelated and does not belong in the lead, the same why we dont have Chinese or Russian translation for Arak. I have brought this up at the talkpage: [139]

Concerning the reverts I have done. All of them or the vast majority of them are me reverting disruption by the sockupuppet "I invented "it's not you, it's me", who is a sock of NoCal100.: [140], Or me reverting other IPs and newly registered accounts (likely other socks), who show up to revert me without any discussion at all. Its hard to edit in this kind of environment. At Open University of Israel, Northern District (Israel) (both articles where the sock was reverting me) and Israeli cuisine I also participated at the talkpages.[141], [142], [143].

I would also like to point out that Cptnono comes here with unclean hands, take a look at this:[144] Cptnono make a revert with the edit summary: "Since SD did not answer my reasoning and then another editor made m point for me I am reverting. I likely would not have reverted if it didn't turn into an edit war. I want to play too"

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Greyshark09

The problem with Supreme Deliciousness is that it is a single topic account: Supreme's only interest is ARBPIA topics (and to a lesser degree SCWGS) - most notably the status of various borders and territories disputed by Syria and Palestine with Israel. His emotional attachment to the topic forces him to go to extremes in his "righteous" fight against the other opinion... which is the typical danger sign of Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. This might have not been a problem in some cases, but Supreme has repeatedly caused mayhem in English Wikipedia and in Commons, being blocked on Commons and on English wiki and warned every now and then. There might be a serious problem of accepting community consensus and NPOV concepts by Supreme, as I can recall two cases of problematic edit-warring on his behalf - one on Quneitra Governorate article, aiming to enforce an opinion in contrary to the community consensus, and another on Syrian Civil War maps - as well blatantly going against the consensus a number of times (later fixed at this discussion).GreyShark (dibra) 21:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What community consensus and NPOV concepts have I not accepted? I never violated this consensus that was closed by an admin:[145]. And the last link you linked to is not a consensus, it was a heavily involved editor who was editing articles according to the same pov as you who closed the discussion. So his "closure" is not a real closure and his claims of a "consensus" is a joke. Any uninvolved editor who reads the discussion can clearly see that his "closure" comments is not the real outcome of the discussion. I was just made aware of this actually and I have left a new message at the talkpage:[146]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just a couple of minutes after I posted at the ISIL talkpage that the discussion closure by heavily involved user:Legacypac was inaccurate, another user agreed with me: [147], (Please read his comment). This is the so called "community consensus" that "I have not accepted" according to Greyshark. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IRISZOOM

There is a big problem when it comes to Israeli-occupied territories as some wants to put it "in Israel", though the world rejects that view (even Israel too when it comes to the West Bank excluding East Jerusalem) and view it as occupied. There is a clear consensus on this, also reflected on Wikipedia, and it's only good to remove such NPOV violations. As the world think the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights are occupied territories, saying they are "Israeli" or "in Israel" is unacceptable. I myself, and many other editors in this area, often have to remove such things, and this can't be seen as something negative.

Regarding Greyshark09's point about the Golan Heights issue, it was actually only the RFC at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 26 (started in December 2014 and closed in January 2015) which solved the issue if the Golan Heights should be mentioned. As can be seen at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel#Adding Israel as belligerent on Syrian Civil War maps, a new discussion was started there in August 2014 because it wasn't clear on how to resolve the issue as it, contrary to the claim, hadn't been solved. I can recall Greyshark09 himself making changes to that same issue on his own, such as changing to "Disputed areas" here (in fact, it takes the Israeli view that the areas are only disputed and not occupied, while there later was a consensus to not mention the area at all), though there were no consensus for that. So I think Greyshark09 should be cautious to criticize Supreme Deliciousness on this issue. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the discussion closed in January 2015 did not solve anything. Please see my posts above. It was a heavily involved editor (user:Legacypac) who closed the discussion, and he closed it according to a false "consensus" that anyone who reads the discussion can clearly see does not exist. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

(involved administrator) I did not review all of the diffs provided here, but I looked at many of them and it is clear what is going on. The Israel-Palestine part of Wikipedia is under continuous assault by people (usually IPs or SPAs) who just want to insert their political positions. Common themes are to insert "in Israel" into articles about places not in Israel (including places that Israel does not claim to be in Israel), to remove mention of the military occupation, or to gratuitously remove the word "Palestine". Every day there are multiple such edits, and the people who do it obviously know exactly what they are doing. The principles have been discussed countless times in talk pages and project pages and anyone who wants to reopen the discussion is able to do so. Meanwhile, one of the boring daily chores required for article maintenance is to sweep away the dross that appeared overnight. It is certain not beholden on good editors to start a new discussion every time someone comes past and makes the same old unacceptable edits over again. Zero^talk 01:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)

Edits related to the control or status of territories are a recurring theme, but Deliciousness' versions seem to be those with better sourcing or specificity, not reflective of a pattern of POV pushing. Being a SPA is not a problem; someone has to do the work. I'd semiprotect the whole topic area. Rhoark (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AcidSnow (uninvolved)

I have yet to see Deliciousness do anything wrong. AcidSnow (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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

MarkBernstein (2)

Request concerning MarkBernstein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Starke Hathaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:52, 15 March 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 (discretionary sanctions):

Dreadstar: [148] "Due to your continued comments about other editors [149], I'm imposing upon you a 90-day ban on all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate."

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

15 March MarkBernstein links to an article on his personal blog. The article contains discussion of gamergate. His comment regarding "Sea Lions of Wikipedia" also refers to the gamergate controversy.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

3 Jan Block for prior violation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It seems clear by now that this editor has no intention of abiding by this topic ban. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all clear to me why MarkBernstein expects to be given latitude to violate his topic ban on a talk page when DungeonSiegeAddict510 (who is subject to the same topic ban as MarkBernstein) was blocked for a month for little more than writing the letters "kia" on a talk page. It's not as though MarkBernstein would be unaware of this as he commented in support of that very enforcement action. I would also respectfully suggest to MarkBernstein that the "hounding" will stop when he stops violating his topic ban.

I am very aware that I face the possibility of retaliatory sanctions for bringing this action, especially in light of the difference in the level of scrutiny applied to editors who bring actions here depending on whether they seem to fall on one side or the other of a particular controversy-- compare the treatment of EncyclopediaBob, who was indefinitely blocked for being a sock after bringing an enforcement action against NorthBySouthBaranof despite no one at any point adducing evidence of such, with the absolute lack of any scrutiny of PetertheFourth, a self-admitted SPA, when he brought the aforementioned enforcement action against DungeonSiegeAddict510. It is becoming increasingly evident that the rules are not being applied evenly to those who are perceived to be pro- or anti-gamergate, but I'll risk not being able to edit any longer on the possibility that this isn't in fact true. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom:@Masem: Has it not occurred to you that the words "Masem's talk" in fact refer to Masem's talk page, rather than some shadowy lecture he's given to people you call Gamergaters? Indeed, if you look "below the reply" linked by TheRealVordox, you find... links to discussions on Masem's talk page about sourcing. I suggest you redact, and an apology would not go amiss. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [150]

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

An editor left a pointer on my talk page to a satirical piece he had ~~written~~ read, concerning this very page.I complimented him and pointed him to something I'd written on the same topic. It’s an essentially social interactionm and considerable latitude is allowed and necessary on talk pages.

The topic of my piece, incidentally, is not Gamergate, but Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee and it's recent ruling on my own Arbitration Committee Request for Clarification. I think it not unreasonable that PeterTheFourth, who has been editing Wikipedia since December, would assume that he might mention my own ARCA request on my talk page. Why not, if it's a topic of mutual interest, and where else shall he mention it? Of course, Starke Hathaway knows better from his vast experience of editing Wikipedia since...December. But Starke has one advantage: his first Wikipedia edit outside his own talk page was a statement for ArbCom.

Ought I to have replied to PeterTheFourth by email? Perhaps. But Wikipedia policy encourages discussion of Wikipedia editing on wiki, and generally discourages such discussion off-wiki. Besides, we don’t all have 4chan, 8chan, KotakuInAction, and WikiInAction to use for our discussions!

Wikipedians might also give some thought to how this unremittingly vindictive hounding looks out there, out in the real world. So, please take your time with the WP:BOOMerang here, because it'll reinforce my argument so effectively.

Have I been critical of ArbCom and of Wikipedia? Yes, I surely have. Have I laughed at Wikipedia's follies? Sure: someone has to! And once you see how funny this is, Starke is quite correct: it’s hard to stop. Still, WP:MOMHESLOOKINGATMEFUNNY is not a thing.@PeterTheFourth: MarkBernstein (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I believe Wikipedia links are nofollow to deter spamming, so they're hard to see in my logs. And, if traffic statistics for my Wikipedia talk page itself is available to me, I have no idea how to find it. But, seriously, Wikipedia traffic is inconsequential at this point. This little satire has already been retweeted by 34 writers; they have among them 209,000 followers. We've had plenty of people dropping by from Facebook. I've got my little regular audience, which has its own sort of influence. And this is for a little light Sunday satire. I don't care about Wikipedia traffic. It's called making a point. There’s another name for what it’s called: “winning.” Give it a rest. I have explained why I link: unlike Gamergate, I don’t whisper about my opponents behind their back, I don’t pretend to believe they're gay or practitioners of strange sex rituals, I don't call them prostitutes or send them pictures of dead dogs or of their dead sisters. If I have something to say about you, I'll say it to your face and I'll show you the link, and I'll accept your rebukes. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I’m sorry to disagree with you here, but you're mistaken in calling the calling the decision “insipid.” Give ArbCom credit: the clarification was not bland, and adding Lena Dunham was about as spicy as you can ask. You couldn't make this stuff up. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: I agree with the general sentiment, but you're wrong in detail. I cannot be a valuable contributor, in light of an inexplicable and absurd topic ban which extends as far as the eye can see -- to every living woman (except maybe to right-wing extremists), to every gay, lesbian, and gender-queer person, and to every topic the tea party declares to be a controversy and which somehow impinges gender, which is to say the human condition, broadly construed. But, in point of fact, I'd wager that my writing of the past eight weeks will do more to shape the Encyclopedia than my work of the previous two decades, broadly construed -- and that work arguably includes those tabs at the top of this page and the breadcrumbs that guide you to its antecedents. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: Wise, prudent, and judicious. I do think, though, that encouraging off-site coordination is still disparaged by policy, that in theory (if not in the real world into which I am accused of having injected myself upstream on the page) we're encouraged to discuss Wikipedia here and openly, not elsewhere and in secret. Correct me if I'm mistaken -- and also correct the guidance we give to new editors, some of whom might (on rare occasions like this) actually be genuine new editors. Grizzled experts like NBSF and myself find these matters puzzling, while outsiders look on aghast and wonder what Wikipedia can possibly be thinking. In fact, I'm pretty sure the banned veteran editors who don’t find the margins of discretionary sanctions puzzling fall into two categories: (a) those who are now editing through new accounts, borrowed accounts, or sock puppets, and (b) those who have retired completely. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bosstopher: I’m not willing today to ask for the favor of having what should be mine by right, or to beg this audience to do what they ought to do despite unreasonable and unreasoning malice. But do feel free to ask on my behalf if you like. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coldacid: et al: The satire to which PeterTheFourth directed my attention is, of course, an allegorical parable of sea lions with a beachball. My mother told me that when someone gives you something to read, it's polite to thank them and to remark on its content, showing that you read it and appreciated it. Your mother may have disagreed, but Wikipedia welcomes people from different cultures and backgrounds. Or it used to. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: Ah yes, topic bans. That would be

The indefensible topic ban for Gamergate imposed by that witty fellow who, in doing so, so far forgot himself as to call me a motherfucker?
Or would that be its new extension to Campus Rape, Lena Dunham, and points East?
Or perhaps the bankshot extension newly proposed here, which topic-bans reference to off-wiki satires of Wikipedia decisions on gender that were inspired by Wikipedia's foolish handling of Gamergate?
Or perhaps the topic ban should apply to my referring to anyone who writes about my writing that ridicules Wikipedia decisions on gender which were inspired (and I use the term loosely) by Wikipedia’s craven appeasement of Gamergate?

Perhaps I should not use links? Does the topic ban also include semi-colons? One of my better-known soundbites holds that “The link is the most significant new form of punctuation since the invention of the comma,” after all. I know it's unfair, my having a place to write and an audience and a modest facility with words other than motherfucker and brony; perhaps I should be required to write especially badly to even the playing field? Or to pretend never to have heard of Donna Haraway or Michel Foucault or Judith Butler.

Now if you want to take some pictures of the fascinating witches who put the scintilating stiches in the britches of the boys who put the powder on the noses on the faces of the ladies of the harem of the court of King Caractacus (or Wikipedia’s credibility)...

... You're too late! Because they've just... Passed... By!

The complaint seeks simply to wield the topic ban in an unending quest to reclaim a failed plan to use Wikipedia as part of another failed PR offensive. No harm or disruption could have been caused by briefly alluding to this satire on my talk page, and in any case no one can possibly know where the ban ends. This complaint lacks the semblance of good faith.

Or perhaps we're talking about a different topic ban entirely? I seem to recall a very recent topic ban on this very subject. I myself have not brought a complaint since then against either ~~Xxxxx~~ Batman or ~~Xxxx Xxxx~~ Robin. But here we are already, back again in our old familiar haunts, brought not by Batman nor by Robin (because that would be wrong!), but – what a coincidence! – by one of The Merry Men, with the usual crew alongside to tell us everything we need to know about sea lions. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Squiggleslash: You are welcome to file one on my behalf. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJMitchell: I did not refer to any editor; I was topic-banned, apparently, for alluding indirectly to the well-known fact of collusive editing, which was the topic of the article under discussion. Here, I only violated my topic ban if the broad construction of GamerGate extends to mentioning my own satirical jeremiads against Wikipedia's recent turn to embrace anti-intellectualism and sexism. Unlike some of your correspondents, I am indeed engaged with the real world, and my interest here is to (a) save the project from mistakes which are -- correctly in my opinion -- bringing it into widespread contempt, or (b) if that is impossible, to warn scholars and writers of systemic biases and distortions in order to minimize the harm it does, especially when used as a weapon by wrong-doers. Yes, I could be (and have been) of great service to Wikipedia: when you look back on this, you will find that my contribution to Gamergate may in fact have been crucial to preventing irremediable harm to the project. I think there is no question that the real world, having examined the question, shares my opinion. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I’m responsible for what I write on my weblog, and for what I publish in journals and magazines. I’m not responsible for satire that someone else writes on their weblog, even if PeterTheFourth tells me about it. I'm not disparaging you at the moment; it appears that some other people are, but like the flowers that bloom in the spring (tra-la!) that has nothing to do with the case. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@=@Ched: is simply mistaken in thinking that links from pages like this page have any meaningful impact at all on Google search results or on web traffic. This page, for example, has opted out entirely from the Google index, and also instructs search engines and other automata not to follow outbound links. You can verify this yourself by inspecting the HTML -- something anyone competent in the area would have checked first. In any case, even if every reader of this page followed every link to my weblog, it would not benefit me particularly -- save that people who are interested in knowing more of my work in this area might do so. That’s the point of links. My weblog has no advertising and I’m perfectly happy with my organic audience, the fruit of a decade of writing. In any case, if I were seeking traffic from Wikipedians, I have signally failed: at no time in recent months have wikipedia servers figured meaningfully in my server logs. The Guardian? Yes. Think Progress? Sure. Der Standard? Check. Social Text? Surprisingly so! Facebook and Twitter* have been prominent in referrer logs, which is unusual and interesting. But Wikipedia? Meh. MarkBernstein (talk)

Statement by Johnuniq

My suggestion would be that Starke Hathaway (150 edits; half on Gamergate) focus on improving the encyclopedia rather than examining every comment at MarkBernstein's talk. Such activity is not healthy for the project. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

I do not at all understand how the reply to my (unsolicited, entirely spontaneous) comment is a violation of anything, especially given that he hasn't even mentioned Gamergate in his reply. This is honestly just more evidence of the ongoing harassment of MarkBernstein. I feel atrocious in my unintentional involvement in the ongoing campaign to drive away a well-spoken, prolific editor whose contributions have greatly enriched Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a completely unrelated aside: I did not author the piece I linked, although I do endorse it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Hello! I appreciate that there's much consternation over MarkBernstein's actions, but he's fairly blameless in this particular correspondence- he replies to my (trout-worthy?) link with another, a brief, silly interlude in his regular editing to link to his own feelings on ArbCom's decisions. You might accuse me of baiting him into something, or similar, and I'd accept anything coming my way re:my flouting of policy- please don't punish him for being polite enough to reply to my comment with anything other than 'I CAN'T TALK ABOUT THAT GO AWAY'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher

Agree with Gamaliel that minor borderline banvios like this one, YellowSandal's and DSA's, are not worth banning anyone over. All this request will do is cause more drama. Is there some way we can set a 1RResque limit to things of one AE request against Mark a week? There are approximately 10 billion admins watching his talk page, so if he does anything too horrific after the week's AE request is done, one of them can just sort it out without an enforcement request. Currently a huge proportion of this enforcement page is Mark-related, and all it's done is create layer upon layer of pointless drama. Bosstopher (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon thinking about things in a much less sleep deprived state, I have come up with an ingenious solution that will satisfy everyone (although it probably wont). Per User:EvergreenFir's comments, Mark should be topic banned from linking to his blog/external links. @MarkBernstein: While Dreadstar's not going to remove your topic ban, have you considered asking him to change it so that it's just a straight up Gamergate topic ban like the ones they used in the good old days? That would solve a lot of the issues you're facing with being confused over what you're actually allowed to edit. Bosstopher (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

I think it would be great if MB would go back to being the valuable contributor of a few years ago instead of a SPA in the area of grousing about ARBCOM, but this filing is a waste of everyone's time. Rhoark (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

I am getting a bit weary of seeing Mark's name here. This isn't a huge violation, but Mark knows full well the terms of his tban and continues to link to his blog anyway. If this doesn't result in a block, this should be a final warning. Mark needs to stop linking his blog (generating traffic and views) and needs to stop all references to GG. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBerstein says, "I don't care about Wikipedia traffic. It's called making a point. There’s another name for what it’s called: “winning.” Give it a rest. I have explained why I link..." This is exactly what I'm talking about. Mark knows exactly what he's doing, that it violates his topic ban, that he's making a WP:POINT, and doesn't care. There is no good faith to assume here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 11:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

Simply more evidence of the ArbCom's disastrous miscalculation that their insipid decision was something that would in any way limit disruption of Wikipedia rather than provide a blueprint for sustained organized disruption.

Gamergate Ahoy! Keep them socks coming! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to open another ARCA to see if by "broadly construed" ArbCom merely meant all Pinnipeds, or if they are inclined to include all ocean bound mammals? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: ", I do not side with GG " is complete and utter bullocks. You cannot go a week without making another 10000 word push on why we cannot follow the absolutely highest quality reliable sources because they "are not fair to gamergate." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you have given talks to the gamergaters on how to edit wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strongjam

Can we speedily close this and just get on with working on the encyclopedia? The linked to diff isn't worth this much drama. Starke Hathaway is simply mistaken in their believe that DSA510 was held to a higher standard. He obliquely violated his topic ban here, more directly here, and I think by accident here. None of that was deemed disruptive enough and nobody bothered to file an AE request. If Starke Hathaway thinks MarkBernstein is being held to a lower standard they are simply mistaken. Strongjam (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: With regards to DHeyward this is what you're looking for. — Strongjam (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: To be clear, are you talking about the link that MarkBernstein posted, or the link that was posted on his talk page? — Strongjam (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Thanks for the clarification. In that case I think PeterTheFourth should be trouted. Links that contain personal attacks on editors are not appropriate for linking to on WP. — Strongjam (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: To jog your memory

You blocked DHeyward for BLP violations and FORUMing previously.

And recently:

Cutting up a quote to put words in an authors mouth.
Repeating BLP a violation.

I considered filing an AE request about the last two, but decided to leave it considering how much drama we've had here.

— Strongjam (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: turning

"Far from women and people of color serving as a shield for white men, it’s white male journalists who — slowly, imperfectly, all too infrequently — often act as a sadly necessary shield for women and people of color who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it."

Into

white male journalists ... who take the risk of speaking out....

Is not OK. It changes the meaning of the quote.

As for the other BLP violation. I might agree with you if GG wasn't trying to harass the subject by constantly repeating that claim. There are a constant stream of editors trying to add it to her WP page. It's not OK to allow Wikipedia to become a tool for them to continue this, even if individual editors are acting in good faith they are still unwittingly helping to continue the harassment and violating her privacy. The statements should not be repeated on wiki, should be redacted, and rev-del'd per WP:RD3 or WP:RD4. I would agree that WP:RD2 probably shouldn't be used, although that seems to be the catch-all category for BLP violations. — Strongjam (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starship.paint

Is anyone reading what @EvergreenFir: has written?

There are two scenarios here. Either posting a link to his personal blog about GamerGate violates the topic ban, or it does not. Could we make it explicitly clear? If it violates the topic ban, at the very minimum MarkBernstein should be given a final warning, if not harsher punishment. There is another AE request up above, now closed, regarding MarkBernstein posting a link to his blog. He should clearly know better. If it does not violate the topic ban, let's just inform MarkBernstein so he can continue posting such links as and when or wherever he likes.

And has MarkBernstein's Sea Lions of Wikipedia comment escaped scrutiny as well, even if linking his blog post is permissible? Sea Lions are clearly a reference to GamerGate. MarkBernstein has already said he's winning. That's because we are letting him get away with it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: And a remark about sea lions is off-wikipedia? Umm, it was posted on his talk page ... and he chose to reference pretty much the most prominent animal associated with GamerGate. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by coldacid

@Starship.paint: I think without further clarification, Mark Bernstein should be free to link his own blog on his user or user talk pages, but without reference to areas for which he is under an active topic ban. Simply linking his posts, fine. Commentary like "sea lions of Wikipedia" (a clear reference to GamerGate), not fine.

In addition, as EvergreenFir points out, this behaviour from Bernstein is getting needlessly WP:POINTy by now. Yes, there are other editors gunning for him, but the disruption wouldn't be nearly as bad if he didn't keep tiptoeing the line in front of them, and pouring fuel on the flames of this drama. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

Noting that the link put on Mark's page by Peter includes things that call me out as an editor directly (and incorrectly as well, I do not side with GG so calling me a sea lion is flat out wrong), I would have just considered Mark's reply simply needed a trout, a slip of the mind that would have gone through the cracks if people were not hounding him.

But the replies to this complaint show something more. I highlight this part of Gamaleil's statement below: If your aim is to edit an encyclopedia, you are welcome here. If your aim to be the Gamergate police cracking down on the SJWs, you are not. This needs to also work in the other direction - If one's aim here is to criticize and condemn GG, and fight to protect victims of GG (beyond what BLP requires us to do), that's the same problem that should not be welcomed on WP. And Mark's attitude here falls right into line with this. We're back at the neutrality issue that started the ArbCom case, that editors are too involved ideologically or emotionally that they are not editing in the expected behavior for a neutral, impartial encyclopedia, creating the battleground mentality that started the case. This idea works both ways (pro and anti-GG) - it's just easier to deal with the side that comes from pro-GG because they are the new/SPA accounts that have easier behavior to call out.

Again, I don't think this specific instance needs anything more than a warning to Mark (as well as others). But we need ArbCom to be clear that Wikipedia should not be considered a part of the larger GG battleground for either side, and that editors using WP to engage in that should be considered disruptive. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: One post at the site is titled "Sea Lion Emeritus Masem is Not Animatronic. We Swear!" and goes to mock my discussion contributions. Now, being fully aware that Poe's law could be in play and we could be talking about a parody site, I'm also fully aware of the language that proponents on both sides of the issue write, and this is far from just being parody. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Strongjam: That's from the link Peter posted to Mark's page. Not sure if that's the link Gamaliel was specifically talking about in that request. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: I don't doubt that that you have no hand involved in the link Peter gave, I read it that Gamaliel was looking for disparaging comments from that site (and if not, then we should be aware what type of commentary is at that cite). It was not my intention to claim that you wrote on that specific site, if that's how it came out which I apologize if that did. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: As I noted, I thought you might have been talking about what that link is, which is not the case that I can see now. While the site directly does not involve Mark's actions, it's important to note his reply on Wikipedia that uses the language of site , which itself it mocking in tone, is part of his continued behavior problems. And we do sometimes redact links that are known to be sites that only engage in BLP violations as we would gross copyright violating sites. I would argue this one falls into that. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The language of the standard sanction for GG (which I don't think Mark is under but I think should be considered the scope of that topic ban) includes not making any edit about Gamergate (doesn't make distinction about where on WP save for ArbCom). The language "Sea lions" in the context of Mark's reply to Peter is definitely about Gamergate. As I note, I see this as a troutable slip for the instance, but part of a larger behavior issue to consider. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above addition by tRPoD about my participation ([151]) demonstrates the battleground attitude that still persists in the GG situation on WP today. I do not support any of the claimed GG goals or their approach, but I also don't support taking the tone that the press has taken in reporting GG when we are supposed to be neutral and impartial as an encyclopedia. That in no way makes me proGG, but this is unfortunately what (outside WP) the situation has become - if you don't side to speak up against GG, you must be supporting them. (and vice versa when talking about supporting GG). There are many many more sides to this (including a number of editors on WP that simply want a neutral article that recognizes the bias that the press has here and acknowledged in the previous RFC) There are editors like Mark that, based on their conversations, appear to only be here to condemn GG which will never get us to a neutral article. The attitude of a "us vs them" is a poisonious battleground mentality that needs to be stopped. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Please show the diff of my contributions that are directing gamergaters how to edit WP. All my contributions on WP are in the open, and I've mentioned before the only interaction directly I've had with anyone proGG was a reddit message to briefly explain the issue with reliable sources. This is otherwise a personal attack, asserting that I'm leading GG to edit here, and a continuation of the battleground mentality to assume that I'm not "with" the side against GG. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

With permission from uninvolved adminstrator, I only note that MarkBernstein uses a term of disparagement that was used with respect to Orlando Thargor and me. MarkBernstein has falsely accused me of offsite collusion and refuses to disclose his link (because it's false, I presume) but freely links and makes on-wiki comments on external sites that disparage other editors in violation of both his 90 day GamerGate topic ban and his indefinite interaction ban. My only request has been that he stop. Nothing tried so far seems to work. --DHeyward (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel Starship.paint addressed it above. I don't know exactly what a "sea lions of wikipedia" is but I've read the link, read how I was mentioned and I've read MarkBernstein's comment and that term is disparaging. Why he thinks it would be appropriate to use that term on Wikipedia to refer to editors is beyond me[152]. And yes, it's a silly talk page comment. I'm sure everyone has made worse. But not by someone with same reputation, block, tban, iban, warnings and board discussions as MarkBernstein. And I'd prefer that if you are going to sanction or not, that you leave it as a recommendation. --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongjam You are incorrect about Chu. You seem to have misunderstood Arthur Chu's whole point. You didn't even read the source before reverting and it was quite disheartening when you actually posted that you didn't read the article before you reverted and argued about it. The exact quote after telling us what you thought he said: "Self-reply.. I hate the slate website. Turns out you have to scroll down before it loads the rest of the article." -Strongjam Imagining what he said and reading what he said is not the same. To your second point, telling an editor that a particular woman doesn't identify as cis or trans gender, only as a woman is not a BLP violation. Telling the editor that they would need a source where she self-identifies as transgender to add to a category on a protected edit request is not a BLP violation. Your knee-jerk reaction that "trans" = "bad" and redaction of just that word is a micro aggression. You turned a word many people use as identity into an epithet that makes it the most horrible thing you can call someone that isn't transgender. It only puts your privilege and bias on display. It's a personal choice how to identify or even not to identify and none of those identities are negative BLP information absent other factors. You should probably think a little bit more about what you're really saying with your redactions. --DHeyward (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by squiggleslash

You're going to keep getting these reports about every minor infraction MB may have committed as long as you make it clear there's a chance you'll act against him, and little chance those promoting the conflict will get sanctioned. And I say "You're going to keep getting" because you already are. The current gender controversies topic ban is itself an example.

Repeal topic ban. It was never justified. (MB, maybe it'd help if you filed a formal appeal against it, or did you and I missed it?)
Add Starke Hathaway to the TIBAN (is that a term?) that already applies between MB, Thargor Orlando, and DHeywood.

You can continue to do what you're doing, but it isn't working. You can do what the hoards of offsite trolls are trying to get you to do, but that's happened once already, Arbcom did what they wanted them to do, and, well, here we are. Not that anyone that's part of the Wikipedia establishment will ever admit it might, possibly, have been just a slight possible misjudgment, to sanction people trying to protect Wikipedia from trolls for edit warring. --Squiggleslash (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

Just so we are absolutely clear, this is about a link on MB's talk page to his website he offered in response to a comment by another editor. That's all, there was no discussion of GamerGate on a GG-related article or talk page? I'll admit that MB can be provocative but this "it can't go a week without an editor filing a complaint about Bernstein" routine is getting ridiculous. It borders on stalking behavior by the filing parties. The worst part is that it seems like this behavior will continue and they'll keep throwing metaphorical spaghetti at the wall until something sticks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a link to a website. And a remark about sea lions is off-wikipedia and ARBCOM didn't seem to care about off-wiki content when they came to their case FOFs and decisions. If they had included consideration of off-site harassment, the results of the case would have been quite different. And considering that DHeyward can't stop talking about Bernstein on multiple user talk pages, that seems like a much clearer violation of a tban/iban than posting a link to ones website on ones own user talk page.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, I can't see exactly what you are objecting to. That Bernstein shared a link to his website to another editor on his own talk page? Do you seriously think this is about website traffic or publicity? Bernstein has been quoted in some national publications, I don't think sharing a link on a Wikipedia talk page has anything to do with notoriety. Does this mean anyone sharing a link to an off-site website or blog they are involved in in the context of a discussion is self-promoting? If so, I see a lot of user pages, including some admins, who share a link to their off-site websites.

I get that admins are tired of seeing GamerGate related incidents come to AN/I and AE. I think we all are. But can't you also see at this point that this is a war of attrition? If Bernstein receives a longer block, it won't be an end to these proceedings, those on one side of the dispute will just go on to the next active, outspoken editor who involves themselves in editing these articles. After all of the numerous topic bans and blocks, can't you see that it isn't a matter of a few bad apples? There will always be new editors coming to these article pages who see it as a battleground. Discretionary sanctions help but you can expect these problems to continue given the way the GamerGate case ended. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

Please impose the maximum duration siteban allowed by discretionary sanctions.

Apparently MarkBernstein is some kind of journalist / blogger / activist out there. Don't know, don't care. Here he's not here to build the encyclopedia; he here's for WP:SELFPROMOTION, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and make a WP:POINT, as evidenced by his talk page statement A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive.

Now, I generally don't worry about user / user talk pages unless it's disrupting the project.

ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#Dreadstar, in which he reports Dreadstar called him a motherfucker; it's fair to say that fall short of the standards of WP:ADMINACCT, and as another editor once remarked NE Ent may be a lot of things, but an apologist for admin is not one of them. I'm also a veteran with 1K WQA and 2K ANI contributions and I've learned to look at what proceeded an event, and found Berstein suckered Dreadstar with I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter. blah blah doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, and Dreadstar unfortunately fell for it, interpreting the comment as saying he supported rape. Of course, there's enough blah blah so Bernstein can act all innocent 'I never said you supported rape.' Note also how the portion of his comment his posted on ANI omits the "I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter." beginning of the comment.

Notice also the statement "The topic ban itself is, in my view, neither just nor expedient. I do not raise that question here; I may raise it elsewhere." which begs the question why is it in the ANI thread if he's not raising it? The Mark Antony "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." shtick was clever when Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar (play) but its transparently lame in 2015. After I close the turkey of a thread with Bernstein's suggested wording he then absurdly asks "If the intent was not to lift the ban, why adopt my proposed phrasing of rolling back to Sunday morning -- before the ban?". Therefore his proposed wording was to lift the ban which was not the subject of the ANI.

ARCA

Next came the "clarification request" which asked an obvious question, and served as a topic ban breaching WP:COATRACK 10 March Statement WP:SPAMLINKing Bernstein's own blog "benefit our pals," and more fodder for his off-wiki activities [153].

Reichstag

In the thread below he's appalled at WP:REICHSTAG -- which is actually No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. a classic (June 2006) wiki essay referencing Reichstag building built in 1894 and barely used by The Third Reich used by almost everyone including Wales in 2008 and supported by the community. NE Ent 00:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emailabuse

Policy on email is WP:EMAILABUSE. NE Ent 02:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Topic bans are supposed to prevent disruption, not create drama through hyperscrutiny and a resulting flood of complaints. Let me give you an example: Two days ago, YellowSandals violated his topic ban here. None of you editors constantly complaining about MarkBernstein made a peep about it, and obviously some of you saw it. I ignored it just like you did, and that's what you should also do here. (For the record, I felt the same about DungeonSiegeAddict510 and advised only a trouting in that case.) If your aim is to edit an encyclopedia, you are welcome here. If your aim to be the Gamergate police cracking down on the SJWs, you are not. Mark Bernstein is officially trouted - if there is such a thing - and advised to keep such chats off wiki whenever possible. Gamaliel (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: "Policy says, discuss Wikipedia on Wikipedia unless there's a pressing, exceptional situation that makes discussion impossible." That exceptional situation would be your topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: If you object to the topic ban, you are welcome to appeal it in the appropriate forum. This is not the appropriate forum, but you are welcome to open another request challenging the topic ban on this page. Regardless of whatever grievance you may have, you are not free to violate the topic ban. I hope that is clear. Gamaliel (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, since the comment left by YellowSandals appeared to be a direct personal attack aimed at me - I chose to ignore it. Yes I saw it, but if I had blocked for that it would have given the perception of being retaliatory in nature. I'm not able to review the other things properly to add any more beyond that. — Ched : ? 15:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I thought he was talking about me and didn't block for the same reason. That's almost hilarious. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~@DHeyward: Could you identify the admin? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

@DHeyward: Strongjam addressed the above question. I've read the link. Can you identify the disparaging comments? I feel like I'm missing something here. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, this all has to end. How many enforcement requests are we up to against Mark? How many warnings has he had? How many times has he been asked nicely to stop commenting on his opponents and comment on content instead? Probably more than any other editor in this topic area. This is the second time he's been topic-banned, and not the first time he's violated a topic ban. Yes, he is probably under more scrutiny than most editors in the topic area (though, while I don't condone one group of editors training their sights on another editor, it is MB's own actions that have led to that scrutiny), but at some point the question has to be: does the problem lie with a small army of editors filing enforcement requests (and even with admins issuing warnings and sanctions), or with a single editor who doesn't seem to want to heed advice, warnings, sanctions, or anything else? At this point, I think Mark has been extended all the rope that is reasonable and more, but has carried on regardless. I can't see how this is any different to the situation with the last topic ban (which was later lifted, although Mark was twice blocked and repeatedly warned for violating it), or to DSA510 (who similarly showed no inclination to separate himself from the topic area). What irks me most is that these editors aren't making good edits in the mainspace that are being met with frivolous enforcement requests, but politicking on talk pages and in the projectspace. I think Mark has the potential to be an incredibly valuable contributor (I think the same of DSA and several other 'problem editors' in the topic area), but his continued participation with regards to gamergate is not conducive to progress, and he has shown no inclination to change the way he participates. Given all of that, I recommend a one-month block, as with DSA510. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there actually are disparaging comments at this link I support this action. As for the rest, there is plenty of blame to go around here, which is what makes this conflict so intractable. Both sides are holding themselves blameless while incessantly complaining about the other side. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward obviously takes offence at the "Sea Lions of Wikipedia unite!" comment, which he seems to believe is directed at him; regardless of its intended recipient, it's not a constructive comment. It does nothing to make the project a better place and it does nothing to improve the encyclopaedia.
Mark: You've been repeatedly asked to stop commenting on editors, or to put it another way to focus your energies on the encyclopaedia and not your opponents. Contrary to what you seem to believe, it is possible to believe in good faith that gamergate is not the root of all evil. It's also possible to criticise your conduct in good faith. I've never seen, for example, DHeyward or Thargor Orlando intentionally libel anyone, and I haven't seen you file an enforcement request against either of them for doing so. You didn't stop, and Dreadstar imposed a topic ban—you can disagree with it, but you're bound by it unless and until you successfully appeal it. And even that hasn't prompted you to refocus on the encyclopaedia. I don't want to block you, but everything else has been tried and still you persist; I'm wondering if you're trying to get blocked, quite frankly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with a lot of what you've said here. MarkBernstein obviously feels the topic ban is unjust and it appears to me that such feelings are prompting him to respond in a less than productive manner. I see that he has formally appealed the topic ban below, which I hope is a sign that he is channeling his energies in an appropriate direction that is more compatible with encyclopedia editing. Gamaliel (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this isn't about Gamergate, abuse directed at Zoe, TBAN, IBAN, or anything other than using Wikipedia as an SEO bump for markbernstein.org (linked many times in previous threads, often seen as [#] rather than spelled out.) which gets that website a higher slot in google searches. Mark doesn't "attack" individual editors in the WP:NPA sense on wiki. He's cautious of his language, and intelligent in his presentations. He's able to do quality article work here. But riding the coattails of the Gamergate fiasco to promote a website isn't what we should be doing here. Yes, entire websites (ED, Wikipediocracy, and others) have plenty of martyrs (see Harry's link to WP:SBA above) who revel in any divisiveness on wiki. I also see that below. Mark (again) posts excerpts from an email, and I don't recall seeing permission from Dreadstar to do that. (although I did read an apology that Dreadstar offered ON-wiki for something he (Dreadstar) had said OFF-wiki, due to a possible mis-understanding of intent.) I always understood that posting email contents was not allowed, but once again so very close to the "lines" - it is done so without the headers, so I guess he gets a pass on that as well. Perhaps we could lift all restrictions everywhere. Perhaps we could block for WP:NOTHERE. It seems to me that this particular drama-monster has an insatiable appetite, - and me, personally - well I'm done "feeding" it. — Ched : ? 23:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the current practice here: We delete and forbid links directly to personal attacks, but we don't ban entire websites for such things. For example, if someone posted a link to an attack on me on Wikipediocracy (which happens there daily, it seems like), then I could demand its removal, but I can't demand removal of all links to Wikipediocracy anywhere on Wikipedia. So MB should not link to that particular blog post but is free to link to other entires. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: It's been pointed out to me that the blog post "Sea Lion Emeritus Masem is Not Animatronic. We Swear!" is not on Mark Bernstein's blog, but on a different blog not linked to or written by him. So what does this have to do with Mark Bernstein? Gamaliel (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Let's focus only on actions taken by Mark Bernstein here. There's enough drama to keep track of. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bosstopher: That is an excellent solution, so of course no one will be satisfied. If we imposed such a ban, we should make it clear that it only applies to MB himself, so no one comes here demanding sanctions on MB if someone else drops a link on his user talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban Appeal: MarkBernstein

On Friday, March 6, Think Progress published an article by Lauren C. Williams describing how The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims.

For months, [Talk:Gamergate_controversy] has offered a boxed section of articles in the media that discuss the Gamergate page. As this was a long investigative report on that very page, I proposed adding the new article that list. As I anticipated, GamerGate supporters teamed up to revert the change. Discussion followed on the talk page, as discussions do.

Two days later, I was topic-banned by @Dreadstar: under the standard AE sanctions. [154]

The pertinent passage appears to be the following:

“It is fascinating that the particular group of editors who recently were so eager to cite Gamergate wikis, weblogs, and Breitbart are reluctant to inform newcomers to this article of this important new essay. Why would that be? There is no question that Lauren Williams’ study is the best examination of the Wikipedia scandal to appear to date. It is also very widely read. The Twitter stream for "Gamergate Wikipedia" is filled with references, it’s got 1700 Facebook shares, it’s generated secondary coverage in Slate [11].”

I had been asked not to criticize other editors on talk pages, but here I do not criticize or mention any editor: I allude to a pattern of collusive editing. Collusive editing is the subject of the article under discussion; it is natural and necesssary to discuss it in this context. The italicized question might be taken to allude to the insistent, relentless, perfervid POV pushing practiced by a coterie of editors on this page, abetted by a constantly-refreshed stream of socks and zombies working with expert admin assistance and supervision, in blatant and unchecked violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FLAT. Discussion of the application of policy to article and front-matter changes is not uncommon on talk pages.

Moreover, my assertion above is inarguably true, it is reliably sourced, and it reflects the overwhelming consensus of opinion of outside observers of Wikipedia’s Gamergate article: [155].

I responded to the topic ban with wry astonishment, and with a query regarding its intended extent.

Shortly afterward, Dreadstar responded by email:

This looks like a threat to me, you'll be lucky if I don't indef block your account.

I do not recall that I made any reply. A few minutes later, he wrote again:

Oh you motherfucker, you DARE ACCUSE ME of condoning RAPE? You'd best retract, NOW.

A few minutes later:

It's about to get really ugly; accusing me of condoning rape....well, now that gets personal....

The topic ban is neither expedient nor appropriate; it is the reverse. It does not improve the encyclopedia; it makes it worse. It does not advance the project; it invites additional derision and ridicule at a moment when -- let’s face it -- Wikipedia needs all the friends it can find, and among whom I might perhaps, once again, number myself. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I submit this very reluctantly, with scant hope of a sympathetic reception or a fair hearing, after others urged me to do so. It’s doubtless in the wrong form or the wrong template; I can’t for the life of me figure that out; feel free to apply necessary mops to make it right. I may monitor the discussion that follows but do not promise to do so; if you wish any information or comment from me, please feel free to contact me at my office or by email. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the first of the troupe arrives. Does Starke Hathway comment on what I wrote? They do not. Do they comment on content? Nope. Instead, they disparage me personally, impugn my motives, and claim that I speculate about the motives of other editors when, in point of fact, I did not: I speculated that motives might exist. How much of this garbage do the admins intend to tolerate? (My guess: as much as can be mustered from every slop pail they can find, but we’ll see.) MarkBernstein (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The attention of administrators and all decent Wikipedians is drawn to the charming references to my speaking from the Reichstag below by inveterate Gamergaters @Rhoark: and @ColdAcid:. Aside from not being germane to the topic, this dog whistle -- whatever it means -- is appalling. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

I don't see any issue here that should invalidate the TBAN. When an editor has been warned at least four times not to make comments about other editors on article talk pages, that editor shouldn't anticipate good things coming from the decision to post a comment speculating about the motives of a "particular group of editors" on an article talk page. Frankly anyone other than MarkBernstein would have been TBANNed and blocked (likely indefinitely) long before reaching this point, if admin action in this topic area is any indication.

For what it's worth, MarkBernstein, I'm sorry Dreadstar called you a motherfucker. He shouldn't have done that, and I hope he apologized (did he?) -Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Squiggleslash: If Godwin violations on AE pages upset you, you're gonna hate this guy. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Squiggleslash: I think it's instructive, if not "helpful," to compare the handwringing, consternation, and concern about anti-Semitism that has occurred over use of the word "Reichstag," the referent of which is an essay having absolutely nothing to do with Nazis, to the gentle sound of distant crickets that greeted TRPOD's attribution of a defense literally used by Nazis in war crime trials to the administrators here. It is almost as though different standards are being applied to editors depending on which side of a particular controversy they are perceived to support. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

While MarkBernstein, writing to us from the top of the Reichstag, continues to flog his link and assume bad faith on everyone else in the topic area, I'd like to encourage everyone to consider the totality of his behavior, not just his interactions with Dreadstar. Rhoark (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The people who were banned at arbcom were banned for battleground mentality and assuming bad faith, not feminism or protecting against BLP violations. MarkBernstein is attempting to convince us by pointy filings and more assumption of bad faith that the arbcom decision has left the encyclopedia open to unchecked abuse, when that is patently not the case[156]. Lena Dunham and Campus rape are fairly quiet and orderly, more so since the GG sanction scope clarification. There is simply no BLP crisis arising from the absence of a few editors. While he's skilled in oblique statements and plausible deniability, the continual pushing of this arbcom narrative is a WP:SOAP impediment to consensus-building in whatever conversations he injects it. Rhoark (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that MarkBernstein, as Wikipedian primus inter pares knows full well that the Reichstag is invoked here as reference to the humor essay, No climbing the Reichstag Dressed as Spider-Man, indicating that the user is engaging in or threatening to engage in irrelevant publicity stunts in order to get their way. Rhoark (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've all secured our place in history as MB may be the first person to ever climb the Reichstag[157] over WP:REICHSTAG. Rhoark (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although it shows a slightly uncharitable view of Germany, its understandable that someone could assume "Reichstag" might be an allusion to nazism. A reasonable response would be, "Hey, what did you mean by that?" An unreasonable response is to write up yet another blog post and tweet about your persecution at the hands of Wikipedia, but that seems to be MarkBernstein's purpose for being involved in the project - more grist for self-promotion. This is a Xanatos gambit with drama in store regardless of whether admins lift restrictions or lay them on heavier.

I suggest the path to minimize harm would be to reconsider the scope of Gamergate topic bans. Spillover of drama to other gender-related controversies was probably rife when this whole thing started, but I think at this point its more likely to be a WP:BEANS concern. Removing that from the discussion leaves the least ammunition on the field. Rhoark (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipocrite: I've made an effort to read as many policies, guidelines, and essays as possible as research for a planned series of essays on content dispute resolution. The first, on reliable sourcing, isn't done yet, but it's close[158]. Constructive comments from anyone are appreciated. Rhoark Rhoark (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TenOfAllTrades: @Thryduulf: It's absolutely correct that I had some experience with Wikipedia before registering an account - experience that I gained as an IP editor. I have never edited under any other account. If the matter requires further discussion, I'd prefer it be centralized here or another dedicated space. Rhoark (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by squiggleslash

The topic ban was an over-reaction to something that if it was a violation of any rule, was clearly an ultra minor one. What purpose is it supposed to serve beyond intimidating someone with views unpopular amongst those pushing the ban (and the two subsequent follow-on attempts to sanction him)? What editor read a reference to a self defining group, in the context of a discussion about the principles behind accepting or rejecting sources, and said "Why, that fellow is obviously attacking me! I shall immediately post an angry unwikipedian response even if this means the once polite, friendly, and constructive discussions of Gamergate here are forever tainted!"

It's absurd. It's even more absurd this has gone on for a week and nobody with power has fixed it. --Squiggleslash (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I initially interpreted the Reichstag comments as Godwin law violations too - I'm pretty certain that the burning of the Reichstag is infinitely more well known (and infamous) than the analogy apparently intended. My advice to those using it would be to find a different way of wording your points. Or, you know, don't make them, as they don't seem appropriate and look like an easy smear to make against someone showing upset at constant harassment that uses Wikipedia's often unwitting admins as weapons. --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SH - I don't hate people, and I can't explain why you'd link to an unrelated comment in another discussion by an unrelated person simply because it's borderline (the principle you shouldn't blindly follow rules felt to be unjust is hardly controversial) Godwin violating.

@SH - Feel free to either remove your comment, or clarify as to whether you're attacking me for not trawling Wikipedia looking for potential Godwins that someone who may or may not agree with me on some issues may have said.

Statement by coldacid

Just because nobody was mentioned by name doesn't mean it's not criticism of other editors. And the collusion accusations, insinuated or explicitly made, are certainly no sign of good faith. Wording the accusations the way they were on the GG talk page violates at the very least the spirit of the "no criticism" restriction. The insinuations made above in this very appeal regarding admins tolerating filings against Mark Bernstein from every slop pail they can find just leaves even more of a bad taste in the mouth.

I'm sorry, but honestly this behaviour really needs to come to a stop. All we get now is Reichstag climbing over admin actions, not even content, whenever Mark Bernstein is mentioned. If he truly wants to continue considering himself a friend and valued editor of Wikipedia, he needs to learn to contribute without the snark, attitude, and insinuations that keep leading him here. I'd suggest the tban stand, and that Mark Bernstein ask himself if he really wants to keep being dramatically WP:POINTy or if we wants to be a positive contributor. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: Hear hear. However, I don't agree with reducing the scope of the GG topic bans, because it's fairly obvious that both sides of the battle are rife with troublemakers just itching to make points or become glorious martyrs for their cause. Relaxing the ban of the scope will more likely allow the flames to be fanned further, rather than reducing the heat of the whole situation.

@Gamaliel and Beyond My Ken: I'll note here that WP:REICHSTAG was pretty much the original WP:POINT, or at least appears so from a cursory glance at the oldest edits to the essay. Nothing anti-Semitic was ever intended, not by my referencing it, nor I doubt by the original author of the piece; rather the choice of building was probably for the humour factor that seems all too lacking nine years later. Perhaps given how political things are these days, we should play it safe and change the Reichstag to the CN Tower? I could certainly agree to that change, as a Canadian. (Not even really being sarcastic here; now that it's been outdone, the CN Tower needs more love.)

On another note, I suggest that MarkBernstein retract his blog post and ask that the admins add a box to the top of this appeal for anyone visiting from his blog informing those visitors about the essay. As someone whose own family suffered due to the Nazis during WW2 I don't appreciate his further insinuation of Nazism simply because of a reference to an essay about pointy, attention-seeking behaviour. Beyond that, you'd expect someone active in the hypertext research community[159] and who apparently is so used to hyperlinks he adds them almost subconsciously to his writing (CN, but I remember reading that here or on ARCA) would actually bother to follow the links before making veiled accusations of Nazism over them. Oh, and Mark, inveterate Gamergater I may be, but you should note that I've actively restrained myself from getting involved in the article and its fights myself, and continue to make productive changes to articles in my areas of knowledge instead. My comments here and on ARCA have been based on my observation of you and other editors, and I'd expect myself to hold others to no lesser standards. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher

@MarkBernstein: Read WP:REICHSTAG. Also please note that the Reichstag building was almost never used while Germany was under Nazi rule. I strongly suggest you retract your most recent blog post, and apologize for equating all things German with Nazism. I am sure the intent was not to accuse you of NazismBosstopher (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@Gamaliel: Apologies, the Anti-Semitic harassment completely failed to cross my mind while I was writing that. It's disgusting some of the comments you read in some places. I shouldn't have phrased my comment so aggressively. I've always thought of it just as "that building which burnt down, just before the Nazi rise to power," and didnt realise people felt so strongly about it with regards to Nazi Germany. I guess it's not a huge leap to associate the Reichstag with Nazism, but I still think it was a very big missing of the point, especially given both their comments linked to the essay in question. Bosstopher (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypocrite: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain Wikipedia contains no software that stops editors from reading widely circulated essays created before the date of their account registration. Bosstopher (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Statement by Starship.paint~~
MarkBernstein in this very appeal: The italicized question might be taken to allude to the insistent, relentless, perfervid POV pushing practiced by a coterie of editors on this page, abetted by a constantly-refreshed stream of socks and zombies working with expert admin assistance and supervision,^{[citation needed]} in blatant and unchecked violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FLAT.
Coldacid above: And the collusion accusations, insinuated or explicitly made, are certainly no sign of good faith [...] If he truly wants to continue considering himself a friend and valued editor of Wikipedia, he needs to learn to contribute without the snark, attitude, and insinuations that keep leading him here. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Statement by Hipocrite~~
Why is Rhoark, an obvious sockpuppet being used in administrative spaces unblocked? The WP:REICHSTAG ridiculousness is a 2006 joke. Rhoark created his account in late 2014. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rhoark, you are required to use your primary account to edit project space. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~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.~~
@Bosstopher: The burning of the Reichstag and Hitler's subsequent use of it to blame convenient enemies are pivotal events in the establishment of Nazi Germany, so equating the Reichstag with Nazism is hardly a stretch. It's a poor choice of metaphors for use on Wikipedia and I'm a bit shocked that it has its own essay here. Per AGF, I assume that the uses here were not attempts at baiting someone who has been the target of anti-Semitic remarks offsite. However, if we are going to demand hyper-scrutiny of every passing remark by Mark Bernstein and demand sanctions because he maybe kind of called somebody a sea lion by linking to a blog post where no one is named, then those demanding that scrutiny should be more circumspect themselves. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Appeal to lift topic ban by Ashtul~~
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
~~Request concerning Ashtul~~
User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ashtul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested

ashtul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
~~Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it~~

14:36, 7 March 2015 reverting to earlier version.

14:38, 7 March 2015 added additional source with video interview with Drucker.
~~Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any~~

11:17, 20 January 2015 - block for 1RR on Carmel (Israeli settlement).

00:47, 28 January 2015 Topic request after an AE case I filled over Nishidani's POVPUSHING which admin saw as retaliation.

19:42, 1 February 2015 - block over also adding info at Shavei Tzion, my grandparents town, about an IDF memorial and a grave of Acre Prison break fighters and on the relevant article (Nothing current or arguable but geographical locations).
~~Additional comments by editor filing complaint~~

HJ Mitchell, have expressed concern about my ability to keep on editing in the I/P conflict area and thus topic banned me. This came as a result of a message I wrote on his talk page about a revert by Nomoskedasticity who without participating in a talk page conversation reverted my edit.
HJ Mitchell have suggested I will focus on proving I am capable of editing in this area so that is what I will do.
Quick background of the current content dispute - Raviv drucker, a reporter have wrote a tweet that lead to articles such as this this this and many more, which accused him of causing multihomicede and war-crime. About a week later, he published this article and a video interview.
Haaretz article starts with the words "I apologize, Naftali, sorry, I was wrong" and ends with "There is no doubt - in 1996 you were there that night, in an important [place for] Israeli society. But Lieutenant Bennett, where the hell were you all night since you Israeli politics?"

Nana article states "Drucker highlights that he has no complaints about Bennett as an officer, but only as to the function as a politician. "He was real brave Magellan officer, without cynicism," he says, "but very brave politician, although successful, and that's what is most disappointing. Every node which could tell us the truth, to speak out against things were risking their skin, is Always fear. ""

The video interview says (my rough translation) "this was a tweet I didn't think about enough where I quote a veteran idf officer who spoke of Bennetts behavior that night. I didn't do a investigation or wrote an article" … "Bennett was probably a brave officer, for real, no cynicism, but he is not a brave politician, successful but not brave which is disappointing" and ends with a Question "would you have tweeted it again?" Answer "No. Or I would have tweeted it with other tweets which would explain what is my opinion and what is the information. I think it is irrelevant to leading position and even if Bennetts was stressed at that time and even if it caused a chain of mistakes it doesn't put on him a moral dent, it was a biographic. In that sense, for that tweet to stand by itself isn't right and not wise".
Other editors have claimed it is ostensible apology, irony, antiphrasis (Nishidani) or sarcasm (HJ Mitchell). They are confusing his current criticism over Bennett's behavior as a minister (in the midst of a heated election season) and accusing him of partiably being reposible for the death of over 100 people "radio call for support was "hysterical" and contributed to the outcome that ensued" as stated by the article. Maybe 'recanted' isn't the best word but doesn't WP:BLP require extra care? How many times a person (Drucker) need to say he made a mistake before his word is taken for it?
Among other conducts I have done lately to prevent WP:WARs, I have initiated an RfD (which concluded with consensus in a few days and effected tens of articles) and an RfC in which, so far, my opinion was supported by 3 editors (and 1 sock), describing the edit I contested as "rampant POV-pushing", "tangential POV laden picture does not belong in this article" and "does not belong in an encyclopedia".
An AE case was filed against me over a revert which was NOT contested and was edited back by mistake. Then, when admins weren't convinced (the case was open for over a week) it was turned over charging me with POVPUSHING over text that is supported by the source with the word 'coexist' not appearing in the original but rather 'a bridge between peoples' or 'this is a chance for Israelis and Palestinians to work together, to talk to one another, to trust one another'. If editors don't agree with one word, why remove the whole statemene? TWICE!^[1]^[2] (Same editors from Carmel article).
So to sum this up, I am engaging in conversation and actively trying to resolve things. I believe my edits are within the borders of NPOV as I try to use NPOV language. If I have failed before, it happens. It is defiantly not a system or even intentional. In the case of Bennett, it should be mention Drucker recanted/apologized/reexplained this original tweet. I believe HJ Mitchell have made an honest mistake with my topic ban and ask for it to be lifted.

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barkan_Industrial_Park&diff=647612424&oldid=647585051

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barkan_Industrial_Park&diff=647872466&oldid=647867328

~~(sorry for going beyond 500 words. There are many quotation included to save you some time).~~
~~Respond to admins~~
@T. Canens: HJ's topic ban was solely based on the Drucker dispute after he decided to sit out the case which I personally asked him to advise on. Would you please respond directly to that? Is Drucker in his voice saying he was wrong about the original accusations not REQUIRED to be mentioned in such WP:BLP info? Ashtul (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Discussion concerning Ashtul~~
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
~~Statement by Ashtul~~
MLK and Malik, you didn't read the links at the top which refers specifically to HJ Mitchell reasoning of the topic ban and where he suggest I may appeal it. About the AE case itself, HJ Mitchell wrote "I'm going to sit this one out" and then moved to close the case based on what I described above. Everything is in the links. Thanks for allowing me to highlight this point. Ashtul (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell topic ban in essence is over a content dispute where "the sarcasm in the apology that thread refers to is blindingly obvious" so "that I can quite comfortably comment on it as an admin". As I wrote and demonstrated here in length, HJ Mitchell is wrong. It happens.

If holding ground in case of being right, on topic that is clearly WP:BLP makes one unsuitable to edit on Wikipedia then by all means block me all together. Drucker in his voice on the video apologizes but somehow people fail to believe him. The fact he moves right away to attack Bennett's current politics doesn't mean he still think his actions had contributed the the death of 100 people. Ashtul (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Statement by Beyond My Ken~~
If I understand the history correctly, this was not a ban placed by HJ Mitchell as the action of an individual admin, it was placed by him as the result of an AE discussion among multiple admins. The ban had a provision for reconsideration after 6 months -- so why is this even being considered now, mere days after the ban was placed? It's clearly not timely. BMK (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Statement by Malik Shabazz~~
~~I agree with Beyond My Ken. This appeal should be declined on procedural grounds. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Statement by Callanecc~~
While I'm not technically involved (as I didn't impose the sanction) I'm going to take the careful route and comment here rather than in the result section. While discretionary sanctions are imposed by an individual not by consensus (which is why I could technically comment as uninvolved) I see no reason to overturn the sanction except to say that my reading of the discussion was for a TBAN which expires after six months not an indefinite one, but the sanction is up to the enforcing admin. I would decline the appeal and recommend that they consider appealing again after six months of active editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Statement by Cptnono~~
This comment is primarily based on the procedure. The banning administrator initially opted to sit this one out but saw drama on his talk page and pulled the trigger. I understand that Ashtul has not done great at showing an ounce of humility but the problem with his editing is almost all based on drama filled interactions with one other editor. Nish has had his fair share of issues in the past. Ashtul's topic bans were of much longer lengths than previously dealt out in the topic area. Unless there is a case for sockpuppetry (someone else mentioned it previously), the length was primarily out of admins being sick of the drama. I understand that but I also appreciate that Ashtul has brought up decent points before getting railroaded.
I also don't think Nish needs a reprimand or anything, but it would have been cool if he would have stepped back and taen a deep breath before disregarding Ashtul's points.
Just to be open, I'm actively considering opening up a case for community intervention against another editor who has skirted the policies and guidelines for years now. Although a 6 month topic ban would make me feel a little happy inside I know the project would be better if more novel and level-headed solutions were considered. This whole topic area is broken and it is primarily because a handful of editors who have been around for awhile know how to successfully push their POV, buck the system, and screw with people.Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Statement by EvergreenFir~~
~~Repeating Beyond My Ken's comments. Decline this speedily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Statement by EdJohnston~~
I'm one of the admins who participated in the original admin discussion that led to the topic ban of Ashtul, the one closed on March 7 by User:HJ Mitchell. That discussion led to a result which was essentially a consensus of the participating admins. There might be a reason for immediate appeal of a sanction which was imposed by only a single admin, but I don't see the logic here when there was a group decision. Also, since no time has run since the original complaint, there is no additional record of contributions that could conceivably motivate lifting the ban. I recommend that the reviewing admins decline this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Statement by (username)~~
~~Result concerning Ashtul~~
~~This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.~~
I take a slightly different view from User:Callanecc here. User:HJ Mitchell can clarify for us, but it seems HJ offered User:Ashtul notice that he could appeal his actions imposing the topic ban or he could accept the topic ban and ask for it to be modified after six months. Otherwise, it seems to me, the topic ban stays in place indefinitely. So the request here seems to be an appeal against the imposition of the ban itself. Commenting narrowly on Ashtul and not on any other editor, I would keep the topic ban in place and reject the appeal. Come back after six months and we will revisit it. JodyB_talk 12:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally, I have no problem with this appeal. After six months of productive editing in another topic area, I would be happy to re-evaluate the topic ban, but that's not an appeal per se, and if Ashtul wants to contest the topic ban or the grounds for it, then appealing here is appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given User:HJ Mitchell's comments I see no problem with this appeal. However this discussion followed by this discussion make it clear that the topic ban is appropriate. I would suggest the appellant speak with HJ Mitchell after the 6 month period. I'm happy for HJ Mitchell to continue to monitor this and approve or decline the topic ban at his discretion. JodyB_talk 11:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appeal is malformed - it uses the request template, not the appeal template - but at this point there's not much point in changing it.
I agree that the six-month time limit before reconsideration doesn't affect our ability to hear an appeal on whether the topic ban should have been imposed in the first place, but I think the topic ban was validly imposed, and I would decline the appeal. T. Canens (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchived. T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barkan_Industrial_Park&diff=647612424&oldid=647585051

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barkan_Industrial_Park&diff=647872466&oldid=647867328

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

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