Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For for the policy regarding the letters æ or ae, see WP:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

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

Arminden

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 Arminden

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Arminden (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/Palestine-Israel articles (ARBPIA):

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

1. 17:24, February 26, 2016 Rv #1
2. 17:46, February 26, 2016 Rv #2

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The page involved, Daniel Seaman has devolved into Wikipedia:Attack page, and has far too long stood as one long WP:COATRACK in violation of basic WP:BLP (and also has basic WP:MOS issues the editor is not abiding by).

1. Arminden appears to be accusing me of being a "social media savvy cohort" of Mr. Seaman. That is absurd and a gross violation of WP:AGF and a personal attack. His response about some propaganda conspiracy seems to show he does not understand the seriousness of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies.
2. Arminden has been editing essentially exclusively in the WP:ARBPIA topic space since the user joined more than 4 years ago. I find it hard to believe that this user is not aware of or familiar with WP:ARBPIA polices or the 1-revert policy in this topic space. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
3. I only reverted once as the record shows. The attempts of a certain individual (who is an admin and should clearly know better) to somehow magically transform this into 3 reverts are false and alarming.
4. Users that come appear with amped up hostility toward me like Sepsis, Zero0000, Nishidani, and Nableezy do not come here with clean hands. We have unfortunately clashed repeatedly in the ARBPIA topic space as well as on the AE board.
5. I tend to agree with AnotherNewAccount that this may be more a matter of WP:ARBBLP than WP:ARBPIA. I was not familiar with WP:ARBBLP. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1] (had also requested that the user self-rv, to no avail[2])

Discussion concerning Arminden

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 Arminden

Sorry, I thought I'm to stay out of this until the arbiters figure it out based on the plain facts, which are out there for anyone to see.
I have no knowledge of WP abbreviations, manuals of procedures etc. I have internalised quite well the spirit of this project and am doing my best to act within that spirit. When smth. goes against logic and common sense, I'll stick to the higher values and consider WP to be a "work in progress" run by real individuals who apply their own judgement and adapt the rules to reality, not the other way 'round. I am familiar with the fact that REPEATED reverting of edits constitutes edit warring, right? What this here is all about, I can hardly follow.
I have long drawn people's attention and asked for support (here) against "editors" who come, most usually anonymously, and whitewash the article, blight it, remove all the facts which would shed less than a perfect light on Mr. Seaman. A couple of times, it was Mr. Seaman himself who, without hiding it, went about rewriting "his" page, openly, like one would amend his CV for an interview. He is also one of the initiators of a government campaign of secretly funding students in Israel and abroad who then make postings on Facebook, Twitter and so forth in favour of the current government's policies, pretending to be presenting their private opinions. While being paid (!), as shown by many sources, some mentioned in the Seaman article. This is the wider context. This approach seems to me not only of interest for those concerned about the Middle East conflict, but even more so to a "free access" and "freedom of speach" par excellance project like WP as a whole. This is what we're actually dealing with here.
To the specifics: I have hardly anything to add to Zero's assessment of the issue. If trying to keep information in, on which a whole lot of people have worked over a long period of time, and which one editor, Plot Spoiler, has single-handedly decided to remove from the internet, is considered to be counterproductive to Wikipedia, then I've got nothing to add. Plot Spoiler erases (!) a whole article, vetted by a long process of editing and counter-editing, repeatedly, but he (?!!) gets to "sue" me of bringing it back, ONCE? If this makes sense to you, then go ahead and execute Arminden in the public WP square for all it's worth. Mind that Mr. Seaman & his social media savvy cohorts have set out to do precisely this, silence those of a different opinion by training university students in, say WP editing techniques (and tricks), and then paying them to do what's normally the job of the Propaganda Ministry of any honest government. If I did fall into the trap set by them, I'll take it as a badge of honour to be registered as one who opposes such manipulations. I've lived under a much harsher authoritarian regime before, and know what it's worth to do your bit while it's still possible. And believe me or not, but I am not paranoid.
In short, I find this whole thing a mockery of any kind of justice. If there would be more on play other than some editing suspension, I'd sue that person (or rather personification of the word "chutzpe") from here to kingdom come. I would owe it to those who brought me up, and to the children I'm raising. But since it's what it is, and real life is calling, I'll leave it up to whoever has the authority to decide here - is it you, Spartaz? Have no clue how this works.
Thanks for taking the time. Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sepsis

Plot Spoiler deleted large parts of the page three times in 24 hours. Three different editors each reverted him. I have never edited the page but I would also have reverted Plot Spoiler's edits if I had been there. Does Plot Spoiler think WP:ARE exists to block editors he disagrees with while he can revert an unlimited number of times without consequence? Sepsis II (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where Number 57 gets the audacity to edit in the uninvolved administrator section, but his comments are nonsense; it's impossible for the editor restoring an article (Arminden) to revert twice unless the other editor (Plot Spoiler) pushes through their changes twice. Arminden, who has no history of conflict did make 2 reverts, Plot Spoiler, with a long history of problematic editing, made 3 reverts. Sepsis II (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

So within 24 hours the following happened: Plot spoiler made an edit, Safiel reverted it, Plot Spoiler made an edit, Nishidani and Arminden both partially reverted it, Plot Spoiler reverted Arminden...and according to the admins here the three editors who wanted to follow BRD by restoring the article would each deserve a block if they were to again restore after Plot Spoiler's last edit. So the admins here are saying it takes at least 4 editors to oppose Plot Spoiler or else Plot Spoiler gets full control of any article he touches. How do I get admins to treat me like that? Sepsis II (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

Here is what happened on that page, all within one 24-hour period:

• Feb 25 18:21 Plot Spoiler blanks the whole page and adds an SD tag
• Feb 25 18:48 Safiel reverts blanking and tagging
• Feb 26 14:17 Over 6 consecutive edits, Plot Spoiler deletes about 55% of the page
• Feb 26 16:13 Over 11 consecutive edits, Nishidani selectively restores much of what Plot Spoiler deleted
• Feb 26 17:24 Arminden adds material, most of which seems to be new (or newly rewritten, I'm not sure, anyway most was not present in the version Plot Spoiler initially blanked)
• Feb 26 17:38 Plot Spoiler reverts Arminden
• Feb 26 17:46 Arminden reverts Plot Spoiler

If the 17:24 edit was a revert (about which I'm not sure), Arminden violated 1RR.

The boomerang against Plot Spoiler is much clearer: 3 reverts in 24 hours. As well as that, Plot Spoiler is far too experienced to not know that the Speedy Delete process is not intended for getting rid of long-standing articles that you don't like. In my opinion, that first edit is actionable by itself.

Arminden is very knowledgeable about Middle East archaeology and his edits there have been an invaluable contribution to the encyclopedia. Why he made an exception to his usual practice for this article, I don't know. I can't think of anything positive to write about Plot Spoiler. Zero^talk 01:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain:, @Number 57:, Plot Spoiler's 6 consecutive edits deleted text that had been inserted less than 24 hours before. How on earth can that not be a revert? What is a revert if that isn't? I'm totally flabbergasted. Zero^talk 01:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

• On 18:09, 26 February 2016‎, Arminden asked me how to go about finding someone to act as arbiter between him/her and Plot Spoiler. I can’t recall editing anywhere with Arminden, and in any case as my contributions record show, I was offline last evening, and didn’t notice the request until today. My absence, in a sense, failed his request for imput that might have avoided this brouhaha. I gave him some generic advice this morning, preferring not to drop a note here. However, I gather both from his note to me and exchanges on his talk page, that Arminden is not too familiar with this kind of procedure, so I will note the following.

• Plot Spoiler asserted Arminden had broken 1R (as he himself had aassuredly done, see the evidence above, hence WP:Boomerang is relevant) and, as is proper, notified him that he would give him a few hours to revert.(18:27, 26 February 2016)
• Arminden replied within just over 20 minutes evidently asking Plot Spoiler to be clearer about his 1R claim, and promising to respond.(18:48, 26 February 2016‎)‎
• Rather than take this as a good faith request, Plot Spoiler immediately formed an AE complaint (within 12 minutes) 19:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC) and notified Arminden within 15 minutes (19:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC))

I think the whole diff record of reverts should be examined impartially, and, if IR infractions are evidenced (I won't evaluate Arminden's since I am notoriously bad at the finer distinctions of IR), the appropriate sanctions be applied. It would be appropriate to examine who knows exactly what these rules require in editors walking into the I/P minefield. Ignorance is no excuse, but long experience in the area, which Plot Spoiler has, leading to the kind of blanking and edit-warring against other editors shouldn't exempt him from scrutiny. This place should not lend itself to tactical abuse, as appears to be the case with Plot Spoiler's failure to observe 2 hours self-restraint period he promised for Arminden to allow the latter understand the nature of his own claim, and respond.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Liz. I don't see anything problematical in the controversies section. I've crosschecked all of those remarks and they are in the Israeli mainstream reportage, in books and the foreign press, and Seaman was fired because of this kind of remark, for which he was notorious. I don't know of many I/P BLP pages which don't minutely register comments by subjects which have stirred anger or controversy. What is unusual of the Seaman page is that he was employed to promote and manipulate images, was active on that page, which just repeated his CV from Facebook, and efforts are being made to keep it cleansed of the usual full record.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Number 57. In six minutes, you changed your judgement that Plot Spoiler's edits were an obvious violation of 1R, to stating that On the other hand, I can't see how the 1RR accusation against Plot Spoiler stacks up. They tagged the page for deletion. This was reverted. They then deleted sections of the article they felt were inappropriate over a series of several edits, which I don't think can really be counted as reverts. They then reverted Arminden's edit – this was, IMO, their only revert.

My impression was that both broke 1R, Arminden once, Plot Spoiler more than once, and Plot Spoiler then rushed to complain here, which looks like the pot-calling-the-kettle-black. Whatever, both cases should be examined together, Otherwise, AE would seem to be used for tactical advantage by one party in an edit dispute. By the way, your reconstruction is flawed. Plot Spoiler did not start by 'tag(ging) the page for deletion'. He blanked it, which is about as preemptively destructive move, for an established article, one can ever get, while adding the edit summary that it should be 'speedily deleted' before anyone has time even to consider the issue.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've never understood how 1R is interpreted. Is this first edit not an example of an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part? After all, it wiped out a totally 'clean' bio section that had not a skerrick of criticism, together with a controversy section which was sourced to (a) Haaretz (4 times), (b) Jerusalem Post (twice), (c)Walla! (once), (d) The Guardian (once), for example. The reason given is WP:G10, which doesn't explain the blanking of the 'good part', ignores the advice to revert to a 'neutral' version (say this ) and ignores the advice at Wikipedia:Page blanking, since it had 'useful content'. It ignored Wikipedia:PUBLICFIGURE, since the material was reliably sourced to mainstream press reports, and, as a google check (see my reparatory edits) showed, could instantly be cross-verified in books and mainstream newspapers. Plot Spoiler is a very experienced editor, and that edit is incomprehensible from anyone with a good grasp of policy. I can't find any evidence in the version he erased of libelous material and it does revert (undo) stable material, both neutral (Seaman's CV) and 'controversial' (what the mainstream press reports).Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler. For a long time I've tried not to comment on A/1 and AE cases, because, when one does, it is automatically taken as evidence of an intrinsic lack of neutrality, and if others do also, as ganging up. But the problem here is rule evidence, and I want that 1R rule clarified. From the outset I thought Arminden broke it, you too. But as anyone reading my page knows, I always, when warned I might be breaking the rule, I ask experts to look at the diffs, and if I am told I broke it, then I undertake to revert. My editing principle re 1R is simple. If I change the text of the page, and someone else then intervenes, I don't alter anything on the page for 24 hours (I usually just add more information in the meantime). By that criterion you too broke 1R. Shit happens, but it is (a) highly improper to give someone 2 hours to revert, and when asked to clarify the revert principle, within minutes go back on your word and report the person (b) if you too broke 1R as some think, then you are bringing a complain over rule violation after yourself breaking the same rule. Speaking for myself, I can't understand why the interpretation of 1R is proving, even among experienced admins, to be something over which they disagree. To ask that this be clarified is not a personal attack. And, ps. you have given zero evidence that the Daniel Seaman 'Controversies' section was defamatory or libelous. Such sections are standard here (Dov Lior, Norman Finkelstein, Alan Dershowitz,Steven Salaita,Juan Cole,Daniel Pipes,Richard A. Falk,Avigdor Lieberman,John Dugard etc.etc note defenders of Israel's policies and critics alike cop the same treatment). Virtually any public figure in the I/P area is subject to intense scrutiny, accusations, and controversies, and your blanking made an exception of the rule for Daniel Seaman, giving him an exemption, when he has a documented notoriety in the mainstream press for rash statements. If your criterion is correct there are several hundred pages that require urgent blanking.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AnotherNewAccount

Arminden is an excellent editor, but he does seem to have a total bee-in-his-bonnet over this individual. The History clearly shows him reverting IPs, rightly or wrongly, with some pretty ranty and incollegiate edit summaries over a long period of time. Too numerous to list them all, but here is a few: [3][4], these two verge on WP:OWN: [5][6]

He is also the author of much of the "problematic" negative material, see here: [7][8]; E.M.Gregory subsequently drive-by tagged the page for POV: [9].

I see this as a more of an ARBBLP issue, rather than an ARBPIA violation, and in all honesty, Plot Spoiler has a point when he notes severe NPOV and BLP issues here. I can only recommend that Arminden be banned from editing this particular article if he cannot do so with due neutrality; he's otherwise an superb editor in every way. The article itself should also probably be referred to the neutral point of view noticeboard.

Administrators should take note that Arminden edits the topic with extremely and perhaps naively good faith. He is in fact probably the only editor in the entire topic area for whom it has been impossible to fathom which "side" he favours. This is both rare and valuable. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

@Number 57:: I'm not sure how you come up with PS only having made one revert. Any blanking of an article or section is by definition a revert. A revert is any edit that reverses, in part or in whole, another editors edits. Blanking reverses another editor(s) edits in the most basic sense. The blanking of the article by itself is the first revert, each additional edit that blanked a section is also a revert. PS did not simply "tag the page for deletion". This is the first revert, this is the second revert, and this is the third. nableezy - 18:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler, Im not sure how my hands are unclean here, as far as I know Ive never edited the article in question. I do however have a problem with a user edit-warring and making a report against the user they are edit-warring with (ie what "clean hands" actually refers to). Im kind of at a loss how anybody can say the initial blanking and the section blankings that followed were not reverts, but I dont care enough to really get into it. nableezy - 19:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Arminden

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

• Waiting to hear from Armiden but I'd usually like to see evidence of a pattern or behaviour rather than a single incidence before sanctions come into the frame. If there are BLP concerns than the usual form is for the disputed claims to be removed and then a consensus formed on what, if anything, goes back. In a case where the claims are sourced and an A10 has been turned down, I wonder what the threshold should be for that to kick in. I'm wondering how far BLP concerns might protect you from sanctions when edit warring is going on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• Looking at the edit history of the article, it doesn't appear that this edit of Armiden's is a revert. There are several editors with one revert who have reverted Plot Spoiler and it is disappointing to see this request at AE rather than see the dispute taken to the article talk page which has had no activity since July 2015. I agree that with Spartaz that if the concerns are BLP-related, the material is removed and then a consensus needs to be formed and, right now, Plot Spoiler, the numbers are against you so you should present a persuasive argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• @Liz: Arminden's first edit is a partial revert. Comparing Plot Spoilers' combination of edits with Arminden's first edit, Arminden has readded verbatim several parts of text that Plot Spoiler removed, specifically
  • "In August 2013, Seaman was suspended from his government position as Director of Interactive Media because of offensive comments he made about Japanese commemorating the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Palestinians commemorating the Nakba"
  • "This notwithstanding, there were numerous complaints about his treatment of journalists unsympathetic to Israeli policies (see Controversies below)."
  • The "Comments against Japanese nuclear victim commemorations" and "Anti-Palestinian online postings" have been readded exactly as removed.
  • Two bullet points in the "Media and book coverage section" have been readded exactly as removed by Plot Spoiler
• As a result, I think this is a 1RR violation. On the other hand, I can't see how the 1RR accusation against Plot Spoiler stacks up. They tagged the page for deletion. This was reverted. They then deleted sections of the article they felt were inappropriate over a series of several edits, which I don't think can really be counted as reverts. They then reverted Arminden's edit – this was, IMO, their only revert. Number 57 13:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nishidani: I took the statements of other editors on Plot Spoiler's supposed reverts at face value, but then realised that the accusations didn't really stack up. Number 57 14:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• I interpret this situation as a 1RR violation by Arminden, and propose a one-week block. It's quite a stretch to assert that Plot Spoiler violated 1RR. I concur with Number 57's assessment of that part of the conflict. I'm willing to allow additional latitude there in any case, as a BLP. --Laser brain (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to close without action. This seems a little technical and I think a warning will suffice but happy to give way to a consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• Admins differ on whether 1RR was broken by one or both editors. I join Spartaz and propose this be closed with no action. The events at the Daniel Seaman article look like an edit war in which both sides bear some responsibility. There is not enough here to clearly justify a block of either party. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Darkfrog24

Darkfrog24 is blocked indefinately until they either understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it. Spartaz Humbug! 23:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Darkfrog24 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Darkfrog24 (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 Topic ban from the Manual of Style and manual of style related topics [10], placed under the DS authority given by WP:ARBATC. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it After asking (yet again) for clarification of their topic ban on my talk page and I replied. Their response has been to extensively justify why they are right to fight about quotation styles, discussing sources relating to quotation styles, and commenting about the motives of others. e.g. "The overwhelming majority of sources from both sides of the puddle agree that American style is part of American English and British style is part of British English. They're not low-quality sources either (though most of those concur)", "You see my position on quotation marks in the article space because the sources support it.", "I'm not the one pushing POV in the article space; I'm the one who's been stopping it. You may notice who the other person in these two disputes is.", "It looks like you're copying SMcCandlish verbatim on these issues, [...] he's repeatedly taken it as a personal insult that I don't agree with him, to the point of ranting at me for using the terms "British" and "American" in my own, signed talk page posts." All contained in [11] Pinging SMcCandlish so they are aware they have been mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any previous topic ban extended and replaced with the current one (by me) after the previous one was breached in spirit and possibly in letter (4 February) Blocked for 1 week for violating this topic ban (14 February) If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months (see above), and has repeatedly requested extensive clarification regarding their topic ban (see their talk page) Additional comments by editor filing complaint I've been trying to respond to their persistent requests for clarification of the topic ban in good faith, but at this point I'm starting to see it as a tactic to try and continue participating in the topic area. After initially skim reading their response, I noted that it read very much like a violation of their topic ban, but their response was to say that they carefully remained with both the spirit and letter of the rules [12]. I disagree on both points, but I consider myself sufficiently involved at this point that I am not going to act unilaterally. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [13] Discussion concerning Darkfrog24 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 Darkfrog24 1. I am explicitly allowed to ask the enforcing administrator questions about the topic ban. Thryduulf is one of the enforcing administrators. 2. Here's what happened: The complaints made against me were over 10,000 words long and contained dozens of different alleged offenses, ranging from arguable to ridiculous to provably false. I'd always figured that the admins considered some of them merited but not others, but no one ever explicitly stated which ones. Earlier this week, it occurred to me that I didn't know exactly what I did that inspired the admins to issue and then expand the topic ban, so I asked.[14] I did so so that I could spend the next eleven months putting my efforts where they would address the underlying problem, whether that was a new talk page MO, new editing style, etc. Thryduulf took the time to answer. To my surprise, the first item on his list was something that I hadn't done,[15] the claim that I'd made a "bogus" ENGVAR case. I immediately provided proof that I had not in fact invented the ENGVAR issue and that a related accusation, campaigning in the article space, was also therefore false.[16] I provided this information solely within the context of discussing the ban, not to "justify why I'm right" but to prove that some of the accusations made against me were false: "If I'm going to be topic-banned, it should be for things that actually happened. There are a few factual clarifications that you need to see." "If one of the problems here is that you think the ENGVAR issue is my own invention, we can clear that up easily." My take: If any part of a topic ban's scope, duration or time until appeal is even partially attributable to something that is provably untrue, then talking to an enforcing admin about it is not only allowable but actively good. If this is an issue for some other time or forum, then redirect me. I'm not going to pretend that being topic banned has been easy. A great deal seems counterintuitive. All I can say about my previous violations is that they were unintentional and I've followed every rule that I found out about. As for questions, there are two ways to find out what's expected of me: 1) ask and 2) watch this page for months to see what's interpreted as a violation. I've done the first and am doing the second. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Per Liz: In fairness, I did ask to write a full-length response, four times, to no answer. At the time, I didn't know that I didn't need permission to break the 500-word rule. To someone who hasn't seen it before, it looks quite serious. I also asked the admins to state which parts of the accusation they thought were merited. I didn't get that information until today. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC) LB: You have repeatedly said that the fact that I don't understand why this ban was issued is a problem. I agree. What solution, other than asking questions, do you suggest? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Coffee: I am looking at my own behavior, but I found out yesterday that I was looking at the wrong actions. I'm willing to undergo self-reflection but not to waste my efforts on things that either weren't bothering anyone or that I didn't do at all. As for asking questions, you guys do seem to hate that. You also seem to feel that my lack of understanding of this matter is a problem, so I'm not sure why you aren't happy that I'm asking questions and interested in other people's point of view. That's the solution. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Before any final decision is made, I'd like to quote WP:BANEX: Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Both finding out exactly why I was banned and providing relevant factual corrections are legitimate concerns, and if a talk page discussion with the enforcing editor isn't the appropriate forum, then direct me elsewhere. If Thryduulf is tired of answering my questions, that's his or her prerogative, but I do need the answers from somewhere. I can only learn about Thryduulf's thought process from Thryduulf, but for anything else, I could ask anyone who knows the answer. From the beginning, I have viewed making the best of this topic ban as an active project worthy of my time and energy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Darkfrog24 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Darkfrog24, the time to discuss your topic ban, who you believed was lying in the discussion or who had it in for you or the circumstances surrounding the imposition of the topic ban have passed. You have asked a lot of questions of a lot of people regarding the boundaries of your topic ban, what it does or does not include, how you might do things differently when you no longer had a topic ban and this has only led to your narrow topic ban (regarding quotation marks) to being broadened to now include the Manual of Style and manual of style related topics. It is your persistence and refusal to drop the issue that led a narrow topic ban to now be quite a large one. You have been given a lot of latitude as admins have tried to clarify your topic ban for you and it is now time to accept the ban, live with it, edit and discuss other areas of the project or you will likely be facing blocks of increasing duration. In fewer words, if you feel compelled to ask whether an edit is covered by your topic ban, assume that it is and don't make it. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC) This is a very serious and tiresome problem, even after a topic ban, an expansion of the ban, and a block. The still-visible exchange on my Talk page illustrates that Darkfrog continues to claim to be mystified by the topic ban and to fixate on the behavior of other editors. I eventually just stopped responding because she cannot or will not accept reasoning and explanations. As I noted there and as Thryduulf mentions above, the matter has been comprehensively explained to Darkfrog several times, well past any level of explanation I've seen for any block or ban, and nothing much is sinking in. I've come to the conclusion after my last conversation with her and after reading this last exchange with Thryduulf that Darkfrog enjoys litigating issues until the people around her are exhausted, or until she gets someone to say something that she can latch on to and continue the litigation. I'm recommending a two-week block for the continued topic ban violation (using Thryduulf's talk page to continue litigating the LQ issue) and a request that Darkfrog's discussion of the topic ban cease immediately, unless to concisely ask for an opinion on whether an intended edit will violate the ban. As Liz noted, we shouldn't be seeing even that. --Laser brain (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC) A one-year block of Darkfrog24 seems needed. It looks like they are never going to understand the problem with their edits no matter how many times it is explained. (Topic bans work for those who understand them and are wiling to follow them; otherwise blocks may be required). Darkfrog24 was previously blocked on 14 February for one week due to failure to adhere to the ban. It seems that the block did not persuade them to back away from the brink, and they are still there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC) I agree with Ed above, a one year block seems like the only real solution to this problem. When someone is either incapable or refuses to WP:GETTHEPOINT of why they were banned, the only reasonable course of action to protect the site is to impose a block. There simply isn't anything that I'm seeing that would tell me that this editor being allowed to continue editing, at this time, would be a net positive to the project. (Note: As a further sign of their complete lack of clue regarding topic bans, Darkfrog24 has now migrated their continued behavior of constantly looking at others instead of themself to state "As to why you were banned, you'd have to ask the admins for their reasoning (but let me warn you: they hate that)" regarding another editor's topic ban.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC) This feels like performance art to me. The latest comment here is the final straw - words to the effect that they still dont understand and want to keep asking questions. AGF and ADMIN ACC only go so farSpartaz Humbug! 22:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Belated comment for the record: That ping didn't work for whatever reason, and I was completely unaware any of this was happening. But I would not have had much to say other than I'm disappointed it came to this; I took pains to try to discourage a block being the result, ever since this matter came to a head in Jan. I'm not even offended that DF24 continues to blame and accuse me; people get angry.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sir Joseph

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

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

Appealing user

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Bernie Sanders Topic Ban - One Week

Administrator imposing the sanction

Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[17]

Statement by Sir Joseph

On the talk page there are a few editors who are stubbornly refusing to allow "Relgion:Jewish" in the infobox of Bernie Sander's article even though it is thoroughly sourced through reliable sources and self soured as well. A few editors then came up with a new policy that says that it has to come from Bernie's own mouth, as per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Religion. Firstly, that is not a infobox policy, that is a categorization policy, but even so, the page says right on the top: "guideline,... best treated with common sense...and occasional exceptions..." When a Senator has a press kit on the SENATE.GOV's website we may treat that as his own words. That being said, I still found an article that had Sanders, IN HIS OWN WORDS, say, "I am proud to be Jewish." So I added that to the article as per the talk page. Since the entire talk page consensus was that Bernie's Jewishness could only be included only if he said it himself, here's an article that said it himself and I thought we can put this stupid matter to rest. Those editors opposing the inclusion of the Jewish reference, blindly ignoring all the evidence of his Jewishness, are requiring Bernie saying he is Jewish in his own words. So I found an article that said he is Jewish and proud of it. That is all Wikipedia should be doing. What these editors want to do is now determine level of observance and that is not what the infobox or what Wikipedia is all about. We don't do it for other religions and we shouldn't start doing it for Jews.

@Darkfrog24Don't just read the RFC thread, you need to read the whole page. The conduct is at the whole page.

@Number_57It is my understanding that during an RFC the page should be how it was before the RFC. The page had Religion:Jewish before the RFC and that is why Malik_Shabazz started the RFC because he had enough of those editors removing the fact that Bernie is Jewish. Bus_stop is one of the other users who has tried and probably given up trying to deal with these editors. I have read the entire talk page. I have dealt with the editors and the claim that Bernie needs to say it out of his own mouth is incorrect, but I have still satisfied that claim. The RFC has nothing to do with this. The RFC has devolved into three or four separate discussions that will never close because some editors feel it is their duty to judge Jewishness levels.

• My edits were sourced, verifiable and what was requested. I commented on the talk page. Even now, I commented on the talk page to ask what policy the other editors are supposedly quoting and I am not getting a response. They can't make up a policy and then use that against me. There is no policy on Wikipedia that requires a Jew to verbally say "I am Jewish."
  • Furthermore, we must also use WP:COMMON as our underlying common rule, which is of course at the top of WP:BLPCAT which Guy Macon fails to mention. The claim that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish is the one that is dangerous and is a BLP violation. Having 1) Ethnicity:Jewish in the infobox instead of Religion:Jewish in the infobox is a terrible thing for a few reasons. Firstly it undermines the reputation of Wikipedia. It is also a bit antisemitic in that it puts Jews on a different playing field than other people. Whether editors want to or not that is the perception. All the other politicians do not have to worry about their religious observances but if you're Jewish then you need to measure it up or you might not get to be labeled Jewish enough by the Wikipedia editors. That is damaging. The entire world (COMMON) knows that Sanders is Jewish. The fact that his Relgion:Jewish is on his Senate.gov website should be enough. Then the HP is enough. I've had enough. Read the entire talk page, not just the RFC section to see what some editors will go to just to make sure he's not Jewish. It is indeed troubling.
• Just for the record, Bishonen is not uninvolved. And I find it funny you accuse me of rehashing, look at Guy Macon's constant reposting the same tiring arguments. When I post Sanders is Jewish, I am posting the verifiable truth. Let me ask you a simple question: Is Sanders Jewish?
• I used the word troubling, Gamaliel used the word offensive when he wrote "It is inappropriate and offensive for us to judge how Jewish he has to be before he gets to be Jewish" I certainly don't think my ban should be extended for voicing a concern that 1 out of 535 Members of Congress has such strict scrutiny for his religion. Perhaps if you were Jewish you would understand that when you focus with such a microscope it's not such a good idea. But that is not what we are here for. We are here to identify. We are not to judge level of observance.
• Here: [18] we have what I am talking about. We have an editor misconstruing a source, making up policy and then bulling an editor and basically owning the page. This is what Guy Macon and this editor have been doing for the past few days. Guy Macon below claims I violated my Tban but as pointed out on my talk page, I was not aware that an article tban includes a talk page. And I am under no obligation to listen to a request by Guy Macon, even though he is stalking me (as per his own edits to my talk page where he stated as such.)
• To Laser Brain, you said I called editors terrorists, I've never heard of you before, which of course doesn't mean anything, but why don't you read up on the case before you comment about that, and besides, past behavior (warranted or not) is not supposed to be taken into account. I encourage you to follow Wiki policy.
• Guy Macon, talking about dropping the stick, you need to give it up already. If you're worried about things following you around, worry about your spelling errors on your resume, not Wikipedia edits. Why do you have the need to stalk my editing and erroneously claim all I edit is "Jews, Jews, and more Jews?" That does sound rather ominous, doesn't it? I'm not sure if you notice, but edit histories have a "older 50" button, you can press it if you wish. I don't just edit "Jews, Jews, and more Jews" and I'd advise you to drop it real quick. (I never mentioned any names and I never said people were anti-semitic, the discussion is somewhat bordering on it perhaps at least to my perception, just like gamergate might be sexist to some perception. How do you think your comment of "Jews, Jews, Jew" looks? I suggest you strike that, since I didn't mention names, I mentioned comments.

Statement by Coffee

I have nothing to add to what I've already stated at my talk page, the article's talk page, and in the sanction at Sir Joseph's talk page. (Unless this is somehow unclear to other uninvolved admins... which I doubt.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As he is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK, I've updated the ban to state page instead of article (as requested by Bishonen at my talk page). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

Sir Joseph is in violation of his topic ban.

• (16:58, 29 February 2016) Topic Ban: [19]
• (19:11, 29 February 2016) Violation #1: [20]
• (19:19, 29 February 2016) I Remove post made in violation of topic ban [21]
• (19:22, 29 February 2016) Sir Joseph reverts removal. [22]
• (19:23, 29 February 2016) Sir Joseph warned on his talk page [23]
• (19:33, 29 February 2016) I explain that per WP:TBAN talk pages are included, ask Sir Joseph to self-revert. [24]
• (19:34, 29 February 2016) Violation #2: [25]

Sir Joseph has made six edits on other pages since my request that he self-revert[26][27][28][29][30][31] and has been informed of the ban on talk page comments by several people, yet has not self-reverted. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Sir Joseph's various and sundry accusations towards me, my only interest in Bernie Sanders is to bring it into compliance with the consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. As my extensive edit history clearly shows, I have no particular interest in religion articles or political articles. Contrast this with Sir Joseph's edit history, which is pretty much Jews, Jews, and more Jews. I don't particularly like being called antisemetic for attempting to implement the consensus from those RfCs. I choose to edit using my real name and that's the sort of false accusation that tends to follow you around.

I would also like to comment on Sir Joseph's unsupported assertion "The claim that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish is the one that is dangerous and is a BLP violation." That comment is indicative of the problem that the other editors on the Sander's page are facing. Leaving aside for a moment that it is a bald-faced lie -- not one single editor has ever claimed that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish and Sir Joseph knows it -- it also shows a determination to Right Great Wrongs by hijacking a discussion that should be about removing his topic ban and turning it into a discussion about Bernie Sanders being a Jew.

In my opinion, the best interests of the encyclopedia would be served by an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to Jews of Judaism, broadly construed, with the standard offer that if Sir Joseph shows that he can edit constructively in other areas for six months there is a high probability that a request that the topic ban be lifted will be granted. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Can we talk about the elephant in the room? Guy Macon is a troll whose disruptive editing started this conflict—when he removed Senator Sanders's religion from the infobox—and he has edit-warred to keep it out, violating 3RR in the process. I don't know who appointed Guy Macon King of the Jews, but it's time for somebody to step up and put an end to his original research that he, and only he, is qualified to determine who is sufficiently Jewish to be be identified as a Jew in their infobox.

I'm sorry that it's come to this, but WP:OR/N is horribly broken:

PUT AN END TO THIS BULLSHIT OR I WILL NOTIFY THE PRESS THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS ONE STANDARD FOR BIOGRAPHIES OF CHRISTIANS AND ANOTHER FOR BIOGRAPHIES OF JEWS. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sir Joseph

Statement by Darkfrog24

At first this looks like just a content dispute, but according to Coffee's official notice, Sir J was sanctioned for failing to get consensus before adding disputed content.[32] And Sir J seems to be saying "Even though I didn't wait for the other editors to say 'okay' on the talk page, I did find exactly what they asked for, so I shouldn't be topic-banned." Is that correct? As for content, I've been in a similar situation and it is very frustrating, but editors don't always say what it is that they really want (or they don't list all their reasons). What worked in my case was that a neutral party came in, figured out what the additional issue was, and then we ran a clearly worded RfC that addressed that issue directly. In that case, the other editors were asking for reliable sources, but the additional issue was the subjective editorial decision of whether the content improved the article. I didn't understand why no matter how many sources I found they still weren't happy. Once we were able to deal with these matters separately, things proceeded in a quick and civilized fashion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC) EDIT: Okay, I went through the RfC thread and I don't see any clear version of "Just find us a reliable source that says X and we're fine with the addition." Rather, the discussion focuses on ethnic vs. religious Judaism, on participation and on whether Sanders' Jewish status is notable. Maybe Sir J found what one or two of the many participants said they wanted, and props for the legwork, but that's not enough to reasonably assume that most of the participants would be satisfied. (Also, Spacklick seems to be addressing the editorial issue directly.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Sir Joseph

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

• The topic ban seems reasonable to me. The page has an obvious edit notice that quite clearly states "You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring." You were fully aware that the RfC on the talk page has not yet been closed one way or the other, so it was clearly inappropriate to make the edit and even more inappropriate to edit war over it (for the record, I gave an opinion on the RfC but have otherwise had no involvement in the article, so no idea whether that makes me "involved" or not). Number 57 18:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban. I see Sir Joseph has claimed, in his appeal to Coffee, that he didn't know his edit was contentious.[33] To someone who has spent an hour today reading the RfC on Talk:Bernie Sanders, as I have, that is an absurd claim, and I find it difficult to assume it was made in good faith. Compare also the diffs Coffee supplied in his reply here. It looks to me like a topic ban is the only way to stop Sir Joseph from trying to get his opinion into the article by sheer weight of edit warring on the article + repetitiousness on the talkpage. Have a read of WP:REHASH, Sir Joseph. (And incidentally of WP:CANVASS to, regarding this message.) I'm frankly not sure a week is enough. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

Adding: Sir Joseph's broad hints in his most recent post that his opponents are motivated by antisemitism ("antisemitic", "troubling")[34] are completely unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

• Support existing ban and extension to six months. I concur that there's no way Sir Joseph didn't know this was a contentious edit. I am also very troubled by his statement above about antisemitism—I note that he has been blocked in the past for calling other editors terrorists. --Laser brain (talk) 19:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• I have blocked Sir Joseph for edit warring to reunsert a topic ban vio. clearly they cannot control their editing, which eans we need the topic ban. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Now unblocked as I hadn't realised the sanction had been updated and the talk page edit predated that. Still support refusing the appeal. Endorse ban extending to talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Markus2685

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 Markus2685

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Markus2685 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 :

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

• Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Markus2685

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

• [35]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Something weird is going on at AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khojaly massacre memorials and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khojaly Massacre recognition. 6 new accounts popped up in a quick succession to make similar comments and votes. Looks like an attempt at votestacking by using sock accounts. I have a reason to suspect that it is the nominator himself, and checkuser results seem to indicate that it could be so. But an admin needs to make the judgment call, and since it is an arbitration covered area, the discretionary sanctions may apply. Grandmaster 19:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[36]

Discussion concerning Markus2685

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.

Result concerning Markus2685

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

• Waiting for comment by Markus2685 Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• Since there are AfDs involved, the closing admin should be able to make appropriate judgments on the weight to give to the delete opinions from brand-new accounts. The evidence from the sock case will also be helpful to that admin. There is certainly a chance that the articles themselves are promoting one side of the dispute. The Khojaly massacre was real, but consideration might be given to merging the content of these two articles into Khojaly massacre#Commemoration. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)