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

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

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 I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (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/Genetically modified organisms#Discretionary Sanctions :

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

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps) and Alexbrn have edit-warred material into the article GMO conspiracy theories based on self-published sources and other poor sourcing, ignoring objections. Jps created the article on January 31, 2016 to look like this. Many of the sources do not meet our sourcing guidelines. I pointed this out here and then took out a number of these unreliable sources [1] [2] [3] [4]. (Please note that Genetic Literacy Project is run by Jon Entine a Pro-GMO advocate. [5][6]; Mark Lynas does similar pro-GMO advocacy [7].) jps went ahead and put the material back in without addressing any of the concerns and without achieving consensus first here. I reverted here. Alexbrn edit-warred the material back in here despite continuing objections here. Tsavage also explained the problematic sourcing here.

At this ANI, jps's behavior was outrageous. Jps lied about the content of sources: [8]. He originally said that Domingo 2011^[1] was "much criticized" [9]. When Petrarchan47 pointed out he was lying and asked him to "prove it" [10] [11], he responded with three journals [12], none of which criticized Domingo. An independent editor Sammy1339 confirmed it was a lie here. Rather than address the misrepresentations, jps made a mockery of the proceedings.[13][14][15][16][17] Jusdafax noted this disruptful behavior [18], as did Petrarchan47 [19].

^ Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011)" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CLARIFICATION

Although I did use the word "edit-warring" above, that is not my allegation in paragraph #1. My allegation is the unreasonable insistence on use of unacceptable and unreliable sources. That is the reason I brought this action. When I said edit-warring, I meant that both editors had been alerted to the problem with the sources, yet went ahead and forced those sources back in. This action is about the sources, not the number of times an editor reverted in a dispute. I am sorry I did not make that clear.

I will note that ~~not a single~~ only one of jps's and Alexbrn's defenders has been bold enough to suggest those sources are acceptable. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (revised 15:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

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

This warning has been on the article talk page in which both users have participated since 19:27 January 31,2016. I put further reminder pinging user here and another on the talk page here.

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 1/31/2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Regarding Kingofaces43 false allegations that I reverted solely based on "no consensus". Although I did not explain all my reasoning in the edit notes, In every single case, I discussed the revert on the talk page, and King was present in every one of those discussions. Often I created a section on the talk page and pinged the editor.

For [20],[21], I restored material that had been stable in the article for a long time. The deletions were one-side and I and other editors discussed the non-NPOV removals here.

For [22], see discussion and my comment

For [23], see [24]

For [25], the edit note gives other reasons. I further discuss on the talk page here: [26] (part of this discussion).

King's remaining diffs are just as poorly represented, but to spare Liz and others, I will limit providing more diffs:

For the sentence about "pull[ing] a full 180 degrees" to "edit war content back in":
- The first group of 3 is covered in this complaint: I was not adding but removing material that was based on blogs and self-published sites by pro-GMO advocates.
- The next 3 diffs I restored well-sourced relevant material that was removed unilaterally. I even improved one of the sources.

The key difference between material I removed in the first 3 diffs and material I restored in the next 3, is the quality of the sources. That is why I brought this action. There is no reason for editors who have been here as long as jps and Alexbrn to waste our time trying to force material with such shoddy sourcing into the encyclopedia, when they know better.

For the remainder of King's diffs, he actually brings up actions taken against me by a now-topic-banned editor--I brought those exact actions as evidence at the ArbCom that resulted in that editor being topic-banned.

Regarding Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's statement:

Neither of those two editors are new to GMO's or new to Wikipedia. Both were at the GMO ArbCom proceeding. And both had edited and commented on GMO articles prior to the creation of the conspiracy article, advocating pro-industry positions. However, a new editor BarrelProof has shown up that immediately saw the problem that brought this action. [27]. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bishonen's statement:

Why is jps immune from prosecution? How can you be sure jps is innocent when you have not even looked at the evidence? What kind of justice system is this? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding King's accusations of WP:Fringe:

Consider these two allegations: diff1 diff2.

Mentioning the fact that GMO's are banned or regulated more strictly in other countries is not fringe. The material in diff2 comes straight from the World Health Organization [28] and International Council for Science [29]. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Proposed TB's for recent editors

The "nuclear option" might help, but the selection of the "class" of editors to be TB'd should extend back to the date of the ArbCom decision, rather than 1 month, because the problems immediately resumed after ArbCom was closed (or perhaps make it earlier). And the date should end on the date of the proposal, so as not to scare off new editors. Compiling a list of all editors from all articles applicable under the GMO ArbCom decision sounds unmanageable, so I suggest limiting it to just GMO articles, Monsanto and Glyphosate, or just a certain set of articles where there have been the most problems. (The TB's could still be the same as the ArbCom decision.) I would also require--if it is possible--that any editor who wants to appeal the "nuclear option" would be required to appeal the entire decision (i.e. the entire class of editors selected) not just for themselves. And requests for reinstatement would also apply to the entire class, not just themselves. Otherwise, you will have a bunch of individual appeals and individual requests to be reinstated, and it will be an even bigger mess than it already is. If you take a path such as this, I am willing help assemble and/or verify the lists--for error checking (obviously non-involved admins would be responsible to verify the accuracy of work performed by any involved admin. or editor.) I would make sure the list can be checked by everyone before it is finalized.

Even though I would be on the proposed list, please do not consider that I am suggesting I am part of the problem, but I do acknowledge others have long wanted me TB'd for challenging industry PR in the articles and for having the gall to suggest that we make it clearer the indisputable fact that other countries are not as GMO friendly as the U.S., and even ban GMOs. That my accusers would also be TB'd seems fair to me. With the exception of one editor at ArbCom, they have been completely unaccountable for their wrong actions, uncivil behavior, double-standards, etc. and there is no venue to hold them accountable, including this one. The "nuclear option" might help.

I think a better solution is to use juries of randomly selected non-involved editors to resolve GMO disputes (and other similar contentious disputes). This would take the burden off of you admins. and we could expect a fair trial. Obviously ArbCom did not fix the problem, and I am not surprised that admins feel overwhelmed by trying to read the walls-of-text that come with a GMO dispute. ----David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30] [31]

Discussion concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
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 I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
Claims of edit warring are pretty strange. Certainly no violation of 1RR or even anything close to that (weeks in between reversions?) has occurred by anyone active at the article. I have encountered a lot of resistance from people of a certain political persuasion when it comes to the GMO controversy. Unfortunately, discussion on the talkpage has occasionally degenerated into problematic arguments by anti-GMO activists that, for example, sources such as academic books published by Oxford University Press were unreliable.[32] Sorry about my exasperation. I will try to dial back the snark as much as possible.
It would be nice if you all would give David and Petra little breaks from this subject as they are the ones who are most problematic in baiting and changing the discussion from content toward argumentative rhetoric. The AN/I discussion was outlandish for its demonstration that anti-GMO activists are so ideologically inclined to attach themselves to their favored sources, they cannot even understand when the sources are contradicted. I also find it particularly galling when they try to claim that Mark Lynas and David Entine are somehow corrupt sources[33] (e.g., an argument that because Entine works for AEI and climate deniers also work for AEI that therefore Entine is not a reliable source for information on genetic engineering, biotechnology, or food safety -- what?). Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari [34] which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Wikipedia since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers.
jps (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs (for those who like them)
WP:BOOMERANG may apply here as well. These are all David diffs since he filed the report:
Revert by David. See WP:KETTLE.

Heavy handed ordering of other editors. Basically asserting an odd form of ownership over the article ordering what edits I can and cannot do without so much as suggesting discussion is possible.

continuing to harass an editor banned in the relevant arbcom case [35]
Responses
@Liz:: You're absolutely right about the arbcom GMO case. The problem, I think, is similar to what happened with global warming. There are just many editors with the same agendas willing to hop back into the game after their friends are banned and there is no arbitration of content (which is really what is needed because at the end of the day that's where the dispute lies -- not in behavior). What ended up happening in the climate change omnibus case was an outright ban of basically everyone with the deniers remaining banned and the "pro-science" folks slowly restored. We're almost at the point where all the things that the pro-science crowd wanted to do back in 2009 are accomplished, but some might argue that Wikipedia is better for having done the shoot first, ask questions later approach since it was ultimately difficult to pin the disciplinary action on any one ideology. But make no mistake, we know which "side" won that battle and it is pretty clear to me which "side" will win this battle too in the long run. If it takes a Boris-style suggestion of kicking us all to the curb to get it done because of the dysfunctional way Wikipedia administration and arbitration works, I guess that's okay by me. As the mother who asked that Solomon give the baby to the other woman rather than splitting it in twain, I would rather a decision made that will ultimately save the encyclopedia from becoming a haven for anti-GMO paranoia rather than preserving any small part I may have in helping this situation along. But you might consider whether the article I have written (for the most part) really is as bad as my esteemed colleagues who have dragged me here would have you believe. jps (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: It's pretty awful when no one can tell what your actual argument is upon filing. It's even worse when your argument is that you don't like the sources. There is essentially zero precedent for an WP:AE ruling over content like this. You're at the wrong venue. jps (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: On what basis do you request that I be topic banned? What diffs in particular brought up in this case cause you to want me to be kicked to the curb? jps (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Tryptofish
This is more complicated than what the filing editor describes. Bottom line: jps should be strongly advised to dial back his sarcasm and snark, with the understanding that continuation will likely result in action here: [36], [37], [38].
At the same time, there is some reason for exasperation on jps' part, and some degree of conduct from the "other side" that gets rather close to baiting. I've gone through every single diff that David T. provided. The so-called edit warring isn't quite that, although David was just as much involved in it as anyone else – and I don't see anything disruptive on Alexbrn's part. When David talks about "unreliable sources", he is throwing PZ Myers and Scientific American into the mix, so the content dispute has a lot more shades of gray than what is presented. About the Domingo source, well, we can probably quibble over whether it was "much criticized", or just "criticized". The three sources cited by jps draw somewhat the opposite conclusions to Domingo, and since then another reliable source has directly refuted Domingo: [39]. Anti-GMO activists cling to the Domingo source, which is why it seems to be such high stakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The more that I see David T. continuing to use this page to argue about content, the more that I wish he would drop it as inappropriate to this noticeboard, and the more I wish he would direct his editing energy back to article talk pages. It's clear that we are no longer discussing any problem with jps, and the longer this goes on, the more likely a boomerang becomes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And now, even the responding administrators are getting cranky and crabby. (By the way, I have been editing in the topic area.) Just close this mess. It's gone far past its expiration date, and is clearly starting to spoil. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that AE should make a decision to topic ban every editor, whether helpful or disruptive, is, to put it plainly, a stupid idea. Does anyone really think that there won't be a new crop of POV pushers? If you want to put your money where your mouth is, request that ArbCom accept a new GMO-2 case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made this edit: [40]. Let's topic ban me. Please just close this thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Kingofaces43
Tryptofish described the overall situation well, but I do have to suggest a boomerang for David Tornheim as jps mentioned for a vexatious AE filing like this, which has resulted in action on other editors before.[41]. David Tornheim does have a tendency to antagonize the situation in this topic by some very clear cut fringe-advocacy behavior, which is only continuing to exacerbate the community's patience as we've seen in jps' case. WP:KETTLE is the most apparent behavior problem associated with battleground behavior for anyone that's been following David's actions in this topic.
Edit warring often occurs with David making demands as jps pointed out[42] or where they revert a new edit basically demanding in edit summaries that material cannot be changed without their approval even when they don't attempt to open up initial talk page discussion on it, which runs entirely against WP:DRNC.(just need to read edit summaries here)[43][44][45][46][47] They still fail to see this problem in their behavior even in their comments in this filing.[48] However, when it comes to David's own edits, they pull a full 180 and try to edit war content back in they are already aware didn't have consensus such as this string (some intermediate edits not included)[49][50][51], and this[52][53][54] More kettle issues come up at the ANI[55] David tries to cite as evidence if someone takes the time to read through their multitude of posts, especially the battleground aspect of bringing up Nazi's, etc.
David has been warned multiple times at ANI now for battleground, edit warring, and general tendentiousness. [56][57][58], plus by admins for peanut gallery type behavior in this topic at admin boards.[59] Continuing that behavior and jumping to AE when someone shows reasonable frustration is just more battleground. We're past the point of warnings, so it's starting to look like the path to a topic ban is already being well traveled. If that doesn't seem clear to admins yet, reading the edit summaries in my diffs should be enough indication for a 0RR restriction for David as an intermediate step at this point.
In short, if someone truly believes there is something actionable here in terms of jps, we pretty much have an unambiguous case for even more severe action against David, especially if admins want to get into more detail than what I've briefly presented. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't think we're in such dire straits that we'd need such a nuclear option. We've been making slow progress in this topic with a decent handful of disruptive editors already topic banned. We basically have two core editors left that really frequent the topic (right now at least) with advocacy/battleground issues. David is one of those with their behavior being the more problematic of the two. My hope is that pruning back David's behavior should finally get us to a relative die-down on drama or at least to the point where action might only needed for one or two more editors to really settle things down. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Alexbrn
I see I have been accused of edit-warring on an article where I have only made two (unrelated) edits ever.[60][61]
That says it all. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
This nonsense has gone on too long. The editing atmosphere is much too toxic for any newcomers to try to contribute, as User:Alexbrn's statement above demonstrate. Suggested remedy:
1. Compile a list of everyone who has edited the topic in the past month. (I would like to exclude User:Alexbrn but this has to be absolute or there will be endless wrangling. Sorry Alex.)

2. Topic ban them for the next six months.

3. If any of these editors violates the topic ban even once, or if they file a complaint about any other editor on the list in any venue on any Wikimedia project, the remaining period of the topic ban is automatically and without discussion converted as a site ban.
No, I am not trying to be funny. Nothing else is going to work. We need to make this topic safe for new contributors if anything is to change. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Aircorn
A few babies will go down the drain if SBHB's remedy is used. I don't think we are at this stage though. The major problem revolves around our presentation of the safety of GMO food. The divide between the science and public opinion is large[62] and that is reflected on Wikipedia. Correspondingly most of the problems stem from disagreements over this issue. Good progress had been made on this front (for example Talk:Genetically modified crops#First proposal revised) and before we resort to kicking everyone a better first step would be to get a well run rfc to decide this question for an enforceable period of time. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A response to Davids clarification above[63]. Reliability of a source depends on context and blogs by well known experts in the field are reliable for that persons opinion. I wouldn't classify myself as a defender of anyone, but yes these sources are acceptable as reliable source when attributed to that person (as all these were). The question is more an issue of how much weight to give that persons opinion (which can be none at all). This is a discussion for the talk page or a noticeboard, not a reason to come here. AIRcorn (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty clear that the community is well and truly sick of us. That is understandable and I agree half measures are no good, but I disagree with this "kill em all" approach. Not all editors deserve the same treatment. Dialectric, Lfstevens and Tsavage make good contributions and are easy to work with. Tryptofish has worked hard on formulating a rfc which may help with a lot of these issues. SylviaStanley and Smartse have been editing the area for years with no problems. Sunrise, Kingofaces43 and Alexbrn are very knowledgeable in this and other science areas. Despite appearances progress is being made on all GM articles and a blanket ban is likely to hinder this. Also the main issue is not the editors regularly contributing to the article space, but those involved in overblown discussions on the various talk pages that make it hard for even interested editors to follow and those with the habit of regurgitating the same arguments at multiple forums. A better approach would be to get rid of the worst offenders and keep going until only those looking to improve the articles remain. In my opinion a good start would be applying the six month topic ban or some other remedy on I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc and David Tornheim and then work down from there. AIRcorn (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Atsme
I agree with Tryptofish regarding his recommendation to strongly advise jps to "dial back his sarcasm and snark" but I doubt it will do any good because he has gotten away with it for far too long. I admit that my suggestion comes from first-hand experiences but that isn't why I'm here. I have a suggestion that may help resolve some of the ongoing disputes regarding controversial topics. GMO articles by their very nature attract editors with different perspectives, and as one would expect, involved editors almost always reach an impasse. What I've witnessed from the sidelines appears to be more of a syntax issue that escalates into behavioral issues, most of which are instigated by "sarcasm and snark" when the problem could easily be resolved with the help of qualified neutral copyeditors and/or experienced FA reviewers who can corroborate the prose against the cited sources. Perhaps we should consider a neutral "mediation team" who can step in and resolve these syntax disputes and spare the project further POV imbalance resulting from the use of TBs which actually conflict with our efforts in editor retention. Atsme^📞📧 04:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to add - there's a difference between pro-science and conflicting science, the latter occurring when scientists disagree with each other. Please, let's try to keep things in perspective. Atsme^📞📧 21:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Petra
In response to the claim from JPS regarding my supposed incompetence, "Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Wikipedia since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers."
I would like to note that Lynas is known as a pro-GMO writer. The "Food Babe" was an example I used of an advocate who is known as anti-GMO. I suggested that the reader should be alerted to his advocacy in the same way we would do for Vani Hari. That was my only claim. [But... climate change!(?)]
Admins, do you feel that my suggestion shows incompetence? Is it appropriate for JPS to not only fail to ping me, but to call me incompetent? Just wondering.
Comment by JzG
Petra, Lynas is a respected science writer, Hari has a level of scientific ignorance that is hard to convey without resort to hyperbole. This is someone who genuinely wrote that aircraft cause problems because they are pressurised above mean sea level pressure, and asserted that the cabin air is a problem because it's not pure oxygen but instead "recycled" from outside the cabin. That's not even wrong. To assert any kind of equivalence is indeed to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding about WP:PARITY. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Dialectric
This is in response to the proposal by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, and the admin support for the proposal that appears below in the results section. Banning everyone from the area is not the answer. Many editors in the GMO area have made an effort to work through disagreements in a civil and scholarly way, without resorting to personal attacks or battleground mentality. The articles in this area are now by and large stable, supported by extensive RS references; many of the references meet more stringent criteria including WP:SCIRS and the articles usually provide reasonably weighted coverage of minority views.
There are, however, some ‘holy warriors’ at the extremes of the pro and anti GMO spectrum, willing to cast aside civil discourse and disregard wikipedia policies in the service of their agendas. These extreme voices will be unhappy as long as the opposition is reflected in any way in the article, regardless of sourcing quality. Reigning in these extreme voices is a difficult challenge, but there are avenues open to us that do not require a scorched-earth ban-everyone approach: 0rr has been implemented in a few cases; requiring that all changes be discussed on the talk page for at least 24hrs prior to implementation could be a reasonable step before a total ban. Is there any evidence that a 6 month ban would solve the problem? Why 6 months and not 3 or some other time? Why employ an extreme, novel solution when there are other incremental solutions open to us?Dialectric (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I think the lack of admin response to this request is due to fatigue regarding disputes in the GMO area which show up at AE on a regular basis. It seems like the GMO arbitration case didn't settle things down one bit. You all have presented dozens and dozens of diffs so it will take a while for me (and others) to weigh the merits of your arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed very fatiguing. But before I faint from the oxygen-deprivation of tunnelling into the diff collections above and other background material, I will with my last breath oppose any sanction of jps in this matter. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@David Tornheim: Did I say I hadn't looked at the evidence? I have tunnelled into it, and that's the reason I'm oxygen-deprived, dizzy and exhausted. I'm continuing to look, but wanted to register an interim opposition to sanctions, based on what I've seen so far. I'm still looking, and may be back. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
What Bishonen said. Plus, I like what Short Harvester Brigade Boris is proposing. Also, I think jps is really going to get in trouble over snarkiness. Finally, David Tornheim, if you're going to be rude to the admins who weigh in here, misreading them all along, don't count on finding much sympathy. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SBHB speaks the truth --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with SBHB (for once). This area is looking remarkably like WP:ARBCC used to. Problem editors from all sides, and even no side at all need to be removed from the topic area temporarily. Though I think anyone who is completely innocent should be able to file an appeal here, have admins review their contribs, and undo the topic ban as necessary. Toxic areas like these need to be dealt with in a more draconian fashion than I'm usually comfortable with. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this blanket topic ban idea seems to be gaining serious traction, what would such a list of editors look like and who is willing to put in the legwork to build the list? --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I think this idea of a blanket topic ban is an overreach of WP:AE, as much as I'm an IAR fan. There's too much opportunity for collateral damage. --Laser brain (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Askahrc
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 Askahrc
User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Manul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested

Askahrc (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/Pseudoscience :
2 March 2014 "Askahrc (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for using an IP address to harass other users and waste the community's time (see the SPI). Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users, waste the community's time or edit logged out or with another account in contravention of WP:SOCK will result in an extended block. Askahrc is also restricted to using the Askahrc account only when editing pseudoscience or fringe science related topics and is banned from notifying any user of pseudoscience or fringe science discretionary sanctions. See the warning for further information."

5 March 2014 (Previous AE request) "Tabled for now, with the understanding that there is a low bar for reporting newer disruption."

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

[Arbcom has extended the word count limit to 1000 for this case.]
Askahrc has orchestrated a number of deceptions on Wikipedia. I once asked at WP:AN about the loophole in the "disruption must be current" rule: Can one conduct an unlimited number of abuses on Wikipedia without repercussions, provided there is a sufficient time lag between the disruption and its discovery? The consensus was clearly "no", so I present the following evidence. Askahrc was sanctioned for the first item below; the second has not been addressed before, and only the third is recent.
Askahrc harassed editors with a sockpuppet, for which he was given the sanction listed above. By issuing threats under the disguise of the sock, Askahrc was trumping up the "bullying" evidence for his Arbcom case, "Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors". (Three admins affirmed the sockpuppetry: two in the SPI and one in the tabled AE listed above.)

Askahrc knowingly permitted Tumbleman's sockpuppet SAS81 to disrupt Wikipedia, standing by while Tumbleman (as SAS81) attacked editors with whom he and Askahrc had prior grievances (evidence to follow). Admins at Tumbleman's AE called him "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll", and "a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues".[64]
Askahrc and Tumbleman had already been affiliated via their off-site harassment (addressed later in this request) prior to the appearance of the SAS81 sock.

Askahrc is the founder of ISHAR[65] where Tumbleman worked.[66]

Out of the millions of topics on Wikipedia, Askahrc "just happened" to become involved with the topic of Deepak Chopra soon after Tumbleman (as SAS81) appeared. Askahrc's first Chopra-related comment on Wikipedia is at BLPN where he replies to Tumbleman.[67] Hours later he jumps into a COIN discussion to defend Tumbleman and "help mediate".[68] And after joining forces with Tumbleman, Askahrc was effectively an SPA for Chopra.

An example of the disruption this produced: in a thread in which Askahrc participated, Tumbleman strongly attacked me with wild and false accusations, calling me "unscrupulous".[69]

Presently Askahrc has relaunched his campaign to falsely paint me as someone who files fraudulent SPIs.
This began with his campaigning in favor of Tumbleman after Tumbleman's block,[70] e.g. "a large number of innocent editors have been blocked as collateral damage".

Other examples from the long campaign:
Suggesting I have an "an inappropriate tendency to accuse people who disagree with them of sockpuppetry"[71]

Suggesting a "high number of editors who have been accused and blocked" by me for sockpuppetry.[72] (In fact it was just one person with multiple socks.)

Suggesting the SPI was somehow equivocal, and falsely claiming that an admin told me to "stop".[73]

Suggesting that I engaged in misconduct by filing SPIs.[74] (No admin has ever suggested this.)

Finally the recent campaigning (my account was renamed from Vzaak to Manul):
Falsely claiming that it was "eventually proven" that I had been "citing inaccurate information".[75]

Falsely claiming that the SPI evidence was "solidly debunked" and making the misleading statement that "the SPI conviction was not supported by a Checkuser"[76]. There was no checkuser request, of course, because checkusers won't link usernames to IPs due to the privacy policy.
Much of the motivation behind Askahrc's deceptions may be found in his off-wiki harassment activities. Askahrc identified himself when he brought attention to his contributions to an off-wiki harassment site containing his name,[77] and an Arbcom member had recorded the page.[78] Arbcom is aware of this request. Out of courtesy I will not mention the name in clear text here.
In the link to the harassment site just mentioned, Askahrc calls editors "unethical" and "pisspoor bastards".[79] By citing the evidence he fabricated from his socking (first item above), he attempts to provoke outrage and rile up support: "Nearly a dozen editors who have disagreed with the skeptical majority's opinion on the Sheldrake page have been threatened with banning." To be clear, Askahrc himself issued the threats and then complained about them in order to generate "buzz", and indeed the story was picked up by blogs.

More recently Askahrc has taken to writing polemics at the Huffington Post,[80] e.g. "The fact that an innocent man's character is being assassinated is apparently irrelevant to these skeptic editors. He is famous, after all, and therefore not truly human."

And in another HuffPo article[81] he says, e.g., "Wikipedia's dishonest biography on Deepak Chopra", "the orthodox-skeptics have grown even more aggressive", "Go here to learn how to edit Wikipedia and, if the above behavior seems unethical, remedy it." Note the last one is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy: recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited.
From these writings we learn that Askahrc holds the view that Wikipedia is overrun by "skeptics" and that it's dreadfully important to right this great wrong. I suspect this is the impetus behind his deceptions. Now that Askahrc has a financial conflict of interest, I find it doubly reprehensible that he would continue the pattern of falsely defaming me. I do consider it harassment, and I am citing Askahrc's current sanction, "Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users..."
A final note: when confronted with his behavior, Askahrc tends to respond by making a slew of false claims. This puts me in a Catch-22: if I debunk each point, the result is a wall of text that repels anyone who might evaluate the matter. If I leave the points unanswered, it gives a sense of false balance. It is a phenomenally successful method of trolling Wikipedia editors, and I discussed this with Callanecc.[82] I would just implore admins to follow the evidence while not taking what Askahrc says at face value. Manul ~ talk 05:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2 March 2014
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 March 2014 by Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Askahrc&diff=708535683&oldid=696033693

Discussion concerning Askahrc
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 Askahrc
There's quite a bit to respond to, though it appears all but two diffs (1, 2) are years old, and those two were me asking an admin for clarification. For the sake of brevity I'm going to ignore issues from years ago that have already been discussed in front of admins several times.
1) The "harassment" Manul/Vzaak references was a request for review I sent to the enforcing admin of the SPI from 2 years ago. I was not trying to attack Manul/Vzaak, I didn't even know they were still on WP; Vzaak being inactive. In it I mentioned the original slew of SPI's and AE's from Vzaak seemed to show a level of WP:GRUDGE. This is the fourth SPI/AE Manul/Vzaak has charged me with: I think WP:GRUDGE is not an unreasonable conclusion.

2) On that page I explained my problems with the SPI's Manul/Vzaak brought against me. In addition to this being a far-cry from "harassment", I simply used factual statements. The first SPI accused me of having an IP in Long Beach, CA that I was socking from, and I was warned on the basis of Vzaak's massive list of clues, but with no Checkuser evidence. In the 2nd SPI Manul/Vzaak claimed I was again using a Long Beach IP to "suppress edits" and threaten to murder people. This time there was a Checkuser, and admins confirmed that I was Unrelated to the IP and far from Long Beach at the time of the edits (3, 4), and there was absolutely no evidence I had suppressed edits (5, 6). No need to trust my word, please review the diffs and linked archive. I presented this information and the admin said it was too long ago to revisit, a decision I accepted. That's the whole story.

3) As far as off-wiki harassment goes, I don't know what to say that hasn't been said already (7). I spoke in Tumbleman's defense years ago, before the full scope of his behavior was known, and have since publicly severed all ties with him and his actions. I apologize if you feel I'm somehow engaged in a "campaign to discredit you," I'm not. The recent "harassment" Manul/Vzaak is upset about boils down to two edits explaining to an admin why the old SPI's against me ought to be reviewed (with no charges v. Manul/Vzaak). It is not WP:HARRASS or WP:ASPERSION to civilly disagree with Manul/Vzaak's opinions (8, 9, 10). I have no interest in tracking down and bothering Manul, but the opposite does not seem to be true. I'd rather not have to spend my days worrying about their walls of accusations, so I'd request an WP:IBAN. If they are honestly concerned about me "harassing" them, this would also resolve that concern. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 11:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I misinterpreted the issue of suppression, but you did directly argue I was issuing death threats (11). Worse, you continue to insist (even here) that, despite the fact I was unequivocally absolved, the evidence is still very strong that I committed this criminal act.

My issue is not about "blaming" or "faulting" anyone. It's when admins tell you I have no connection to a sock, by either geographical region or user agent, and yet you won't drop the WP:STICK. I've asked you in the past to agree to a voluntary WP:IBAN, but you did not (12), and I've repeated the option here, with the only response another list of accusations. This is exhausting... the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 17:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, I find your statements here and on my Talk Page confusing and not particularly civil. You've asked me questions (13, 14), then when I replied told me that you wouldn't believe whatever garbage I said regardless (15, 16). You told me that unless I dropped the WP:APPEAL you would attempt to get me TBANNED (13), then when I told you I had already dropped the APPEAL you declared you'd pursue the TBAN anyway (16). I'm trying hard to AGF, but you seem to be taking your frustration with another editor out on me. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 21:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston, it's perfectly reasonable to question whether I can and will conform with NPOV matters relating to Chopra, though I feel my current conduct answers that. While I do feel there are some WP:BLP concerns that could be addressed on that page, I have always emphasized upholding policy and have not used the kind of battleground language found in the Huffpo article. I try to focus on building consensus, participating in RFC discussions, offering sources, and explaining how I see policy/guidelines applying to the page. While some of my conclusions differ from editors on that page, I have backed off of topics when it seemed to skirt my COI, as well as supported positions that would make it harder to upload positive content about Chopra if it helps NPOV. I value NPOV, and strongly feel that editors with an opinion (as many on that page do) can still meaningfully contribute if they focus on policies and sound sourcing rather than their own POV's. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 00:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Manul and Jytdog have posted another two large lists of new accusations, apparently due to my "refusal to drop the matter". I've dropped it; I dropped it before this AE ever began, I dropped it here, I dropped it on my Talk Page. I asked an admin a question in accordance with WP:APPEAL, I got an answer, and that's all. I've worked well with the editors I regularly engage with (Manul and Jytdog are not editors I generally interact with), but since Manul's AE post every time I log in I see another wall of new accusations I have to spend ages looking into, all from a two edit conversation with an admin! the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 06:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by olive
This is very strange. Almost all of these diffs are years old; the filer seems to be attempting to use stale information and diffs to implicate an editor. When I first looked at this case I thought I had somehow stumbled onto an old case. Might be expedient to withdraw this complaint before more time is well.... wasted?(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Statement by JzG
Askahrc is indeed waging a one man battle against reality-based criticisms of Chopra, but he is open about his COI, polite and in general a decent person. There is a worrying tendency to stonewall and endlessly make the same or very similar requests, but I don't see this as actionable at this point - perhaps an admonition to accept consensus and not spin things out forever might be justified, but no more that that IMO. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: Askahrc is not, and cannot be, neutral. He has not, as far as I can tell, edited the article directly, certainly in recent times, because of an admitted COI. That's fine up to a point, the point being where it becomes disruptive. Are we at that point? I'd say not, but we are at the point where Askahrc should be reminded to accept consensus and move on,rather than repeat rejected claims or stonewall discussions. He seems to be a decent enough person and his input is not, as far as I can tell, preventing us from accurately representing the consensus view on Chopra, namely that pretty much everything he says is faux-profound bullshit. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Looie496
The enforcement request comes to well over 2500 words. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Jytdog
No Askahrc you did not "drop" your appeal. Per your contribs to Callanecc's Talk page, the last thing you wrote there was continuing your argument to have the "conviction" overturned. That is not "dropped". If you had written there, "Hey Callenecc I have i am dropping this, thanks" that would be dropping it.
I was hoping Askahrc would just walk away from the past or come clean, but instead they are dug in and have doubled down above and at their Talk page. I do not believe that this editor is WP:HERE to benefit the project, and has not been for a while. This is a first batch of stuff and there is more. This is enough for now. A timeline.
Tumbleman was blocked October 2013.
Dec 2013 Askahrc worked with Rome Viharo aka Tumbleman aka soon-to-be-SAS81 to post this to Viharo's blog. Askahrc acknowledged this on his WP talk page here at the time.
Feb 2014. As documented in Manul's SPI posting (that resulted in sanctions against Askahrc, and the contesting of which by Askahrc led to Manul filing this SPI) Askahrc disclosed that he was in contact with Viharo, discussing Viharo's banning.
April 2014 in this piece on Viharo's blog, Viharo approvingly quotes Askahrc's comments at Arbcom made in this dif in particular. Which has the great bit where Askahrc tells another editor that it is "unrealistic to claim ignorance." That's from the part that Viharo quoted, too.
April 2014 is also when SAS81 created their user page. SAS81 and Askahrc start working in tandem at the Chopra page to improve it. (I will not provide difs, there are too many)
July 2014 Askahrc offers to help Viharo/SAS81 write an article about the Chopra Foundation article at COIN (!), prepares it in his sandbox, apparently posts it, and then reported to Vaharo/SAS81 SAS81's talk page that the article was posted. I can't see the article b/c it was deleted and redirected per the AfD, where Askahrc was the only one arguing to keep it. btw, SAS81's last contrib to WP was thanking Askahrc for creating that article, on July 15. (If admins don't know, ISHAR is "a Chopra Foundation Initiative" per its webpage.)
Per his contribs from that time, Askahrc too vanished after July 30 (after having made some more arguments at the Chopra talk page) in late July, and then appeared briefly on August 20 and 21 to fiddle with his sandbox and with his talk page.
November 2014 is, according to Viharo, when Viharo separated from ISHAR, see this blog posting.
Askahrc's next edit is on Dec 9, where he first deletes a bunch of stuff from his Talk page, including [the posting in the dif I gave above, where Askahrc acknowledged posting on Vaharo's blog... and his next edit was at Talk:Chopra - the second post at Talk:Chopra - after announcement of SAS81's block as a sock was posted there. Here is Askahrc's dif. No disclosure of COI there, which was a violation of the Terms of Use. A small thing but part of this whole bad faith enterprise. Askahrc's next dif is at Manul's page, asking if Manul is concerned about Askahrc's acknowledgement of his connection with Viharo via that blog posting. Only then does Askahrc post his COI notice, in this dif, where he wrote: 'Please note that I am not currently affiliated with SAS81, nor is that user currently affiliated with ISHAR. As of August, 2014 I work for ISHAR, the Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository, as an archivist. As soon as I was approached for a position with ISHAR I ceased editing any articles or Talk Pages on Wikipedia but my own to prevent any WP:COI issues.
I'll note here that in fall 2014, after Askahrc says he joined the organization ISHAR was busy with an indiegogo campaign That campaign targets Wikipedia's "bias", front and center.
Anyway, Askahrc didn't stick around much after that, per his contribs. He was mostly gone til May 2015, edited a few days in July, August, and Sept, but starting in Oct 2015 and continuing til now, he has been back pretty full press trying to make the Chopra article more positive, exactly continuing the work of SAS81/Viharo, who bragged on his blog that he dramatically changed the article as SAS81.
I find that timeline to be telling. Really telling. What was the phrase? is "unrealistic (for Askahrc) to claim ignorance" about SAS81's SOCKing with all that on-Wiki evidence of interaction, especially since the two definitely overlapped at ISHAR for August, September, October, and at least part of November. Yet in his statement above, and at his Talk page, Askahrc denies knowing anything about this, says he is not associated with SAS, blah blah blah. Says his role at ISHAR has nothing to do with WP, blah blah blah. ISHAR ethics, blah blah blah.
There is some stuff I want to say that i am pretty confident is OK per OUTING, but to be safe I am checking first. Will be back afterwards.
My bottom line here is that Askahrc has dug up the past, in the present. that past appears to me, to be very sordid. It appears to me that Askahrc has lied to the community about his relationship with SAS81, and, although nobody is obligated to tell others when they know someone is socking, didn't do that. And yes, with the Huffpo pieces and the indiegogo campaign, it is obvious that ISHAR is deeply opposed to WP's NPOV policy when it comes to altmed. I believe that Askahrc should be be topic-banned from the Chopra article and from altmed topics as well. If I am able to get the other things I want introduced, that will support that even more strongly, but I think the evidence is clear already. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Askahrc: Clerk notes
Both parties statement lengths have been extended to 1000 words by agreement of the arbitrators. Amortias (T)(C) 22:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning Askahrc
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

The original complaints about User:Askahrc arose from editorial disputes at Rupert Sheldrake. This report doesn't mention Sheldrake and doesn't speak about any recent problems with editing articles. It appears that Manul's report is way over the 1000-word limit, and I suggest he condense it. If he does there is a chance it will become more persuasive. Askahrc has an admitted COI about Deepak Chopra due to his connection to the ISHAR organization, and since March 1 he has engaged in vigorous commentary at Talk:Deepak Chopra. My question is whether he is capable of working neutrally on Chopra-related topics. If not, then a topic ban from Chopra under WP:ARBPS might be considered. For a person with only 1200 edits in nine years, Askahrc gives the impression of being in a lot of disputes. The term 'battleground editing' was mentioned by one admin in the March 2014 AE. A writer who identifies as the founder of ISHAR wrote about the Chopra article in two Huffington Post blog posts, one in November 2015 and one in December. He harshly criticizes the Deepak Chopra Wikipedia article and concludes with "Let's fix it". The term used about our article by the ISHAR founder was "open-source character assassination." If Askahrc is affected by an ISHAR COI and has any of these views himself, you might be asking how neutral he can be. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the new post by User:Jytdog and am hoping to say something later about it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi
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 Chesdovi
User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested

Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tachlifa_of_the_West&type=revision&diff=710075488 Chesdovi moved the page to his POV version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive279#Tachlifa_the_Palestinian Chesdovi discussed my moving his page back to the correct page and Nishidani told him that my version is the more correct version. "I think Sir Joseph's literal version is well grounded in sources."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balady_citron&type=revision&diff=710084016 Changing Israeli to Palestinian

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yisroel_Moshe_Dushinsky&diff=prev&oldid=710082233 Adding anti-Zionist cat to article

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yisroel_Yaakov_Fisher&diff=prev&oldid=710082280 Adding anti-Zionist cat to article

and he did the same to about 20 more.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106#Chesdovi TBAN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/707337240#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles TBAN still in place

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I did not add all his recent edits since that's not necessary, but he has begun to edit again in this area.
Here is the original TBAN, that the above referenced clarification references, asked for by Liz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106#Chesdovi,
He has also continued to discuss the ban on the ANI and on user's talk pages.
RolandR there are many diffs, one of them is changing the title of an article from "of the West" to "the Palestinian" to further his POV. This is the same person who created a now AFD'ed Jewish boycott of the Western Wall. When you change the title of an article to suit your POV that is certainly against the TBAN. The article may be about a 4th Century rabbi, but his edits are not. His edits are about the ARBPIA topic area and it is clear to all.

Hmm, I thought continuing to discuss your TBAN on user talk pages and on ANI is a violation of the TBAN, regardless of the other diffs.

Zero0000Can you explain how changing a person's name from what it is to "the Palestinian" is not pushing an agenda that we have seen from Chesdovi? Articles may not be covered by TBAN or ARBPIA but edits are. His edits are covered under ARBPIA TBAN "broadly construed." In addition to the other diffs? How much more can we take?

Serialjoepsycho, I'd ask you to AGF and strike your last comment. This has nothing to do with my ban. I moved the original page weeks ago. This has everything to do with Chesdovi pushing his agenda to put the word Palestine where ever he can get a chance, even where it has no business being, and that is why it's a violation of his TBAN. Don't try to threaten me with a ban. The whole point of AE is to bring violations to AE for enforcement. Now I'm to get a ban for bringing a violation? I do not appreciate that one bit.

Serialjoepsycho, there are also sources that say Tachlifa of Ceasaria. so the easiest and Wikipediest solution is to use his actual name and not a SYNTH version of his name. His name translates to Tachlifa of the West. His consensus move was just him, that is not a consensus. As for him adding Palestine, that's not righting great wrongs, that is his POV, similar to him creating a Jewish boycott of the Western Wall which was deleted and other POV pushes.

@Drmies, I initially did not see those diffs. Jeppiz below pointed those out in his comments and so I edited to clarify that he is editing in the area without abandon and not just one article that may, to some, be on the periphery.

@Only in Death, changing "Israeli" to "Palestinian" in an article about citrons is certainly pushing a POV.

He is still editing, even after told to wait until a decision is made one way or another: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATachlifa_of_the_West&type=revision&diff=710223772 clearly he doesn't care about the TBAN.

The fact that he is still editing the offending page and other pages listed as well as creating contentious edits while at an AE action shows that action is warranted. I have warned him repeatedly at the talk page of several of the articles not to comment and to wait, one way or the other, but he is continuing to edit. This can't continue.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChesdovi&type=revision&diff=710081001
Discussion concerning Chesdovi
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 Chesdovi
Jeppiz, Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism is not linked to the I/P conflict: [83]. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I may not be a "major editor on Orthodox Jewish topics or on historical rabbis of various periods", but I have spent hours adding my fair share to Wikipedia over the years, besides from my numerous edits on Haredim and Haredim and Zionism , I have created pages about rabbi throughout the ages ([84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]) and added tens of images to supplement rabbi pages. Chesdovi (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
I am also not sure how הָאֶתְרוֹג הַפַּלֶשְׂתִּינִי translates in "Israeli citron", changed by a vandal and not linked at all to the I/P conflict, (except by those who will go to war for the sake of a lemon's name it seems...) Chesdovi (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer, the category was not plastered over "random pages". I felt this category would be in line with Category:Criticism of the official accounts of the September 11 attacks and the like. It seems not. I may create a page about this topic instead. Sorry for any offence caused. It was not meant as an "attack". It is a widely held belief, and I thought I could group together the relevant pages. Chesdovi (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph, you think I should be banned from that page, but I am not topic banned from that page, just like I am not topic banned from Tomaccio. Where have you explained that the venerable old rabbi is related to I/P? This is a dispute centred around name conventions. I prefer the historic common use in RS, while you prefer literal or translation. You persistently force you POV without waiting for due consensus and wish to drag this innocuous article into the I/P conflict. It seems some people will go to war over the name of a lemon! I was not banned from using the word "Palestinian" and I don't see why I should be. Maybe you should be banned from using the word "West"? "Changing "Israeli" to "Palestinian" in an article about citrons is certainly pushing a POV" does not stack up. I reverted "Palestinian" to match the Hebrew text next to it, something you will appreciate in your efforts to call Rabbi Tachlifa the "Westerner" - a literal translation of the Aramaic. Chesdovi (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (modified)[reply]
AnotherNewAccount: The motivation for the creation of Palestinian wine can be viewed from various perspectives and ANA is entitled to see it through his own understanding and bias. I have in the past been sanctioned for non-neutral editing, favouring a the pro-Israel zionist stance, indeed, I believe my TB was secured due to an edit which sought to designate Rachel's Tomb as a synagogue specifically, rather than a mosque, bolstering Israel’s claim to the site. I wanted to document Palestinian wine, as the term so appears in numerous RS, and felt it would not be appropriate to simply add the material to Israeli wine, just as I would not expect an article on Israeli rabbis to include the material on Palestinian rabbis. I am also quite surprised that my prose has be so badly received by ANA. Again, what one editor sees as a tool to “taunt”, another sees as a light hearted, witty response to a hostile, condescending and unnecessary AFD nomination. (You see, Sir Joseph did not opt to resort to talk and propose merging or renaming the article. As soon as he saw it, he saw red and wanted it gone... That is what I would call appalling editing...) Chesdovi (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (modified from [95])[reply]
Debresser: I find Debresser's view here unequivocally hypocritical. In my mind Debresser has a problem with the word "Palestine" if it appears in an article to do with anything specifically Jewish:
"This editor has for years been pushing the word "Palestinian" where it is not appropriate" – actually it is Debresser who finds it "inappropriate".

"I strongly feel we will all be better of [sic] without this unscrupulous and unprofessional POV pusher" - Debresser is a POV pusher as s/he removes any mention of the word "Palestine" where it is in fact due, neutral and supported by RS: [96], [97], [98].

"In this case it was Chesdovi himself who enlarged the scope of the articles related to the conflict by propagating the name "Palestinian" at improper locations" – Scholarly RS, both inside and outside Israel, chiefly use Palestine/Palestinian in relation to matters prior to Israel's creation. Since Debresser can not handle this, s/he views it as being "contentious" automatically related to the I/P conflict. It clearly is not. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Jeppiz
I came here as an uninvolved user who has had no interactions with Chesdovi, but the topic ban violations are so rampant it seems to be deliberate and provocative. In the space of one hour, Chesdovi has already violated the topic ban 20 times! I'm afraid an indef block is the only solution, this user seems determined to go on violating the topic ban. Jeppiz (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR
The article in question is about a 4th century rabbi; as far as I can see, it does not have even a minimal connection to the Palestine/Israel conflict, however broadly interpreted. The complaint is without merit. RolandR (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Drmies notes below, at the time I commented, the only diff listed in this complaint was about Tachlifa of the West. I have not examined the diffs added subsequently; but I repeat my view that the complaint, as originally submitted, was totally meritless.RolandR (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Zero0000
As per RolandR, the article in question is not covered by ARBPIA and Chesdovi is permitted to edit there. Zero^talk 23:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Serialjoepsycho
This topic ban includes any thing that can be construed to be a part of the Palestinian conflict. Edit warring because you disagree that something is a part of ARBPIA is a violation of ARBPIA. [99]. If you disagree that something is a part of your topic ban WP:ARCA has been set up for clarification. There is also here at WP:ARE. Be more careful Chesdovi.
An additional side concern, This seems to have more to do with Sir Joseph's recent ban than any disagreement with Chesdovi. Disrupting wikipedia to make a point is grounds for a ban. Be more careful Sir Joseph.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I strike my comment again? I am assuming good faith, I'm just not slitting my wrist.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Materially I'd have to agree with RolandR, that Tachlifa of the West is not covered by ARBPIA. How ever, a Google search suggests that Tachlifa of the West and Tachlifa the Palestinian have both been used by sources. I note the comments in the diff I linked above. That his page removal was appropriate because of it was "changed by two editors with a history of pushing anti-"Palestine" POV in all its various guises." It certainly wouldn't seem that he has an exemption to his topic ban to right the great wrongs. Actually it would seem where righting great wrongs are involved with Palestine he should know not to edit there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph, I'm not actually interested in having a pissing contest with you. My comments were directed at Drmies, they were not directed at you and your comments suggest that you simply do not understand them. The implications of "righting the great wrongs" above is that Chesdovi was Povpushing. In short, you are trying to argue against me while making the same case that I did. Let me further add this is not the place to argue out the content dispute portion of this. That would be in an RFC. The admins that are involved here are here to help end disruption thru enforcing active arbcom sanctions and not to help you achieve a consensus. If they were to help in achieving a consensus they would do so either in their capacity as editors or in the capacity of an uninvolved closer.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Besides an article on Palestinian wine, I'm not familiar with Chesdovi to the best of my knowledge. Content wise this article is outside of his ban. You couldn't even argue that it is a part of ARBPIA. However with that said my talkpage, contentwise is outside of his ban. He however is banned from bringing an ARBPIA related discussion to my page and it would stand to reason that he is equally banned from taking action combat what he sees as Anti-Palistinian POVpushing. After 1 revert attempt he chose to hit ANI, where what was basically a pissing contest took place. He could have instead used the talk page. We also have page moving procedures. He could have discussed why the page should be moved instead of going into a tangent about AntiPalestiant/antiIsrael povpushing by using sources and pointing out the relevent policy. He's actions more rooted in battleground behavior. This is a realistic concern. This is not to suggest his actions are the only of concern.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Only in Death
Editing articles about historic or even recent Rabbi's does not necessarily infringe upon 'Arab-Israeli conflict' Which is what he is topic-banned from (emphasis mine). Unless those rabbis are themeselves embroiled in the conflict in some way its just not part of the ban. Unless you are going to modify the ban to 'Anything remotely Arab, Jewish or middle-east broadly construed'. This is a non-issue. The description for the category added is "The category Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism includes articles about groups and subject matters that oppose Zionism, on Jewish religious grounds." Thats not exactly related to Arab-Israeli conflict. If anything its Jewish-Israeli conflict... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Debresser
According to a recent clarification request at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_.28February_2016.29 the unanimous opinion of 7 editors is that the topic ban is still in place. This editor has for years been pushing the word "Palestinian" where it is not appropriate. His recent move of Tachlifa of the West to Tachlifa the Palestinian is just the latest of them. I strongly feel we will all be better of without this unscrupulous and unprofessional POV pusher. Debresser (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Only in Death, Zero, RolandR, Serialjoepsycho I beg to differ. In this case it was Chesdovi himself who enlarged the scope of the articles related to the conflict by propagating the name "Palestinian" at improper locations. That is precisely why I called him a "unscrupulous and unprofessional POV pusher". Debresser (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to all those who insists on a minimalist interpretation, as opposed to {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} which uses "broadly construed", how is Western wall not related to the IP-conflict? Debresser (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz I agree with your assessment and proposed solution. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho SirJoseph did have previous running ins with Chesdovi, as had I in 2010 or 11 or so. Then I didn't see Chesdovi for a few years. Now he is back, and is continuing the same POV pushing he was at in those years. Just shows we really need to do something about him, if even a topic ban doesn't stop him. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ EdJohnston The approach you propose is too mild in this case. Especially since Chesdovi has already showed himself to be able to find ways around sanctions, as this post proves. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AnotherNewAccount My point precisely. That Palestine wine article is typical of his editing, which I have been unable to really do anything against over the years, even though it is intended to be grossly misleading. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz In view of Chesdovi's many transgressions over the year, perhaps you can be lenient on the word count? :) Seriously, we need a reasonable limit, and this is completely up to the admins here, but it makes sense to allow him to defend himself. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chesdovi
It is consensus which finds your usage of the word "Palestinian" out of place.

You show me 3 removals from one and the same article, while you added it to numerous articles. By the way, I also add it, but only where it is appropriate: [100], [101], [102] (this so proves you accuse me wrongly of having a POV it disgraces you)

Those so-called scholarly sources are 1. often based on old sources using old terminology 2. often biased, which is why you chose them 3. always cherrypicked by you to prove your POV.

Debresser (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Brewcrewer
He's now commenced with a conspiracy theory category blaming Zionists for the Holocaust [103] and plastering it unsourced all over random pages. If this is not what the intention for topic bans I don't know what was. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by uninvolved Finnusertop
ArbCom members, uninvolved administrators or Chesdovi. Please amend the opening post to hide (using a :File link rather than embedding) the following non-free images because they are not allowed in Wikipedia: namespace: the first 13 images plus File:Steipler Gaon.jpg. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has been fixed since. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by AnotherNewAccount
As I see it, without managing to violate his topic ban as such, Chesdovi deftly exploits genuine confusion between the historic Palestine (region), the Mandate of Palestine and the modern State of Palestine in order to give 'Zionists' the elbow.
The example given above is the Palestinian wine article, which largely described the Palestinian Jewish (now effectively Israeli) wine industry from when the area was under the Mandate, but written in such a manner that made it very easy for one of the pro-Palestine nationalist editors to then connect everything to the modern State of Palestine. This enabled the bypassing of the inconvenient reality of Israel's creation, and opened the door to the implication that the modern Palestinian nation has existed since of the dawn of time (a preferred tactic of nationalist editors in general). This was the root of the ARBPIA discord that Debresser complained about a while ago.
Incidently, Chesdovi's conduct in that article's AfD was appalling - and even included composing a poem to taunt the nominating editor there. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Malik Shabazz
Chesdovi's conduct during that AfD was deplorable, but the AfD was closed more than a month ago. The time to complain about his conduct came and went.
Since AnotherNewAccount has the chutzpah to complain about the article Chesdovi wrote about Palestinian wine and about unnamed "pro-Palestine nationalist editors", let's take a look at Israeli wine—which is mostly grown on occupied Syrian and Palestinian land, but you would never know that from reading the Wikipedia article about it. You also wouldn't have a clue that one of Israel's biggest foreign trade issues at the moment is its fight to prevent the European Union and the United States from properly labeling "Israeli" wine based on whether it is produced in Israel or in Israeli-occupied territory.
No, let's throw the book at Chesdovi—who probably deserves it—and lob stones at unnamed "pro-Palestine nationalist editors" instead of being honest and requiring all editors to follow NPOV, which is allegedly a core policy here at Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(In fairness to AnotherNewAccount, it doesn't appear that he has edited Israeli wine. That doesn't make that article, or the rest of Wikipedia's coverage of Israel and Palestine, any less of a POV mess.)
Result concerning Chesdovi
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Can you provide a link to where the specific topic ban for this editor was imposed? I don't see it on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[104] Chesdovi (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Chesdovi was banned for a year in 2011, but placed under an indef ban in January 2012. The indef ban is currently still in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yisroel Yaakov Fisher is not a 4th-c rabbi. I am interested in hearing from RolandR et al. how those edits do not violate the topic ban. Sir Joseph, the last last remark by Serialjoepsycho warned you to be careful. That sounds like good advice to me. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seriajoe, I see now that at the time of RolandR's comment the third and fourth offending diffs were not yet part of this--another reason to think carefully before one files a complaint. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that Chesdovi likes to see the word 'Palestinian' in articles, as also 'Palestine'. If you check his last 100 edits, you'll see many examples. He doesn't appear to be a major editor on Orthodox Jewish topics or on historical rabbis of various periods, but often these articles have at least a traditional use of 'Palestinian' to identify certain people. He wants to be sure that 'Palestinian' is inserted wherever possible. He also likes to add Anti-Zionist categories to various orthodox figures. He wants the 'Israeli' citron to be referred to as the 'Palestinian' citron. In my opinion, this request could be closed with no action if Chesdovi will agree to stop this behavior. Another possibility is to modify his topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi your section comes in at a shade under 1200 words. Please trim it or I'll remove it entirely. Also you need to get rid of the image gallery. Its extremely disruptuive killing my phone on this page and adds no value except to suggest that you don't edit with any concern about the impact of your actions against fellow editors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi Thank you for removing the gallery but somehow between that and hatting your comments you seem to have added another 80 words making your statement reach 1283 words. Trim means trim not hat. Please do so. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, do the words in the extended section automatically show up on your phone? Chesdovi (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The limit is 500. Irrespective of the impact on my phone it is too long but since you asked the hat means that not only does the phone download the content it also has to run the script to hat it - so the hat makes it worse. Is there a reason why you insist on maintaining a contribution that is so far over the word count when you have been told to reduce it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, if the limit 500 for the whole statement, I will by all means trim it. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Chesdovi (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, is the limit for the "defendant" also 500? It seems odd that I am expected to respond to all my "prosecutors" in the same space they have each to accuse me. I have only managed 760 words. Chesdovi (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2016 (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] Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011)" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.

[a]

[b]

[1]

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