Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:41, 9 July 2016

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

Debresser

Jerusalem is placed under the following page-level restriction: As the results of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem regarding the article's lead represent the community's consensus at a well-attended discussion, a new request for comments must be undertaken and reach consensus prior to any changes being made to the article's lead section. This restriction does not in any way prohibit filing such an RfC, only requires that one be filed prior to such changes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Debresser (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 comment/Jerusalem (I understand Im linking to an RFC here, however that RFC was mandated by ArbCom and is binding through July 9, 2016, and this topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions

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

7 June 2016 Revert in violation of binding RFC

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, on 15 March 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There was a binding RFC on claims to Jerusalem being capital of Israel and Palestine and its location that was mandated by the Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem). That RFC resulted in the material currently in the lead of the Jerusalem article and per the Arbitration Committee is binding for three years. A user added material to the lead that violated that RFC, was reverted, which was also reverted. This was prior to any talk page discussion. I reverted that final revert and opened a talk page section detailing why (here, with the user I had reverted agreeing that the material shouldnt be included. Debresser then ignores the binding RFC and re-reverts, writing in the talk page Sourced, relevant, neutrally worded. The Rfc is expiring. The Rfc avoided the issue. All in all, ample reason to keep this addition. By the way, is there anything you think is wrong with the text, apart from bureaucratic arguments? When Debresser was reverted he or she posted to that users talkpage that their revert was "hothead revert" (here). Im not quite sure why this user thinks that binding means something other than all users have to follow this, but a reminder is surely in order.

Re the idea that this is a personal issue, no, not at all. Debresser is the only one to have reverted following the explanation that the material violated a binding RFC. And when asked to revert declined to do so. And then complained when somebody reverted him or her. Debresser's comment on the talk page of that article implied that he or she felt that a binding RFC did not apply to him or her. That is what brought me here. nableezy - 00:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Debresser, I guess an edit summary that says the RFC is expiring in a month, a comment on the talk page saying the edit should stand, a comment on the talk page of the person that reverted you calling their revert hotheaded, those things dont lead to the reasonable conclusion that a. you knew that you were prohibited from making said edit due to a binding revert, b. didnt care, and c. wouldnt self-revert. Silly me, where could I have possibly gotten that idea. You know what I find disruptive? Editors thinking the rules that apply to everybody else dont apply to them. Editors who knowingly revert against a consensus (thats what an RFC determines fyi). Basically, you. nableezy - 21:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OID, I object to that edit on a number of grounds. However, the rule breaking is what is relevant on this board for a topic area that is covered under discretionary sanctions. Bright line rules only work if when somebody breaks them there isnt hand waving about well its only a technicality.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Debresser

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 Debresser

Nableezy seems to have a personal issue with me, because of the three editors who made this same edit,[2][3][4] I am the only one he is reporting. Nableezy has a huge POV in the I/P-conflict area, and we have conflicted on many articles already. He is now trying to fight his personal vendetta against me through the editors at WP:AE. I think that is fair reason to dismiss this report. Recently he engaged in an edit wat at Ancient synagogues in Palestine,[5][6][7] for which I decided not to report him. I am disappointed that he should repay me in this way.

As to the actual matter at hand, I think Talk:Jerusalem#addition_to_the_lead is where the discussion is taking place, and where I have made my arguments, and have already stated, that I will not challenge the Rfc, which stands till July 9. At the same time, I think the issue will have to be re-visited in the near future, if only to avoid edit wars, blocks and a lot of bad blood, and the proposed edit is a very good NPOV candidate, summing up the issue well and along the same lines as the Rfc.

In short, I think this report should boomerang back on Nableezy for the blatant personal motives behind this report, as well as his own recent WP:ARBPIA violations on "Ancient synagogues in Palestine".Debresser (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnson The 9 July date comes from counting 3 years after the Rfc reached a conclusion. Debresser (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy No need to say things you can't possibly know. I didn't refuse to revert. Somebody else reverted my edit even before I read your post on my talkpage. You continue with your bad faith assumptions, viewing Wikipedia as a battlefield, and me as the enemy. I find this attitude of yours disruptive. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing I know it is not advised to antagonize editors here, but I don't understand what further "backing down" is needed, after I have already stated both here and on the talkpage that I will not challenge the status quo? You did read my posts here and on the talkpage, didn't you? Debresser (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) @GoldenRing In view of the above, neither do I understand what you claim I am "doubling down on". Debresser (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing The Rfc specifically states that the consensus reached in it is binding only for a 3-year period. There is no rule on Wikipedia that an Rfc is needed to establish consensus, including to establish if there has been a change of consensus. A simple talkpage discussion, or even a bold edit that is accepted by the community, per definition can establish a new consensus. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Newyorkbrad Ha, ha. That's a good one. Debresser (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade I don't think you are correct. See my comment above to GoldenRing, that there is no rule that an Rfc must be followed by an Rfc. Any way of establishing consensus is valid. The only exception could perhaps be, if such a stipulation were made specifically in the first Rfc, as in the current example provided by The Wordsmith below. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

Ed, dates from RFC's are always taken from the closure of an RFC as that is the point at which consensus has been determined by the closer. There would be no point in a fixed for 3 years consensus being valid until the actual consensus was determined. Saying that, it would still be up in a month anyway, so suggest close with trouts for everyone. Nableezy, if you have to rely on technical rule-breaking to revert an edit, rather than addressing the substance of the edit, it tends to get peoples backs up. 'Would this edit be controversial in a months time?' should be the question you ask yourself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoldenRing

I think Timoetheus has the right of it here; RfCs do not expire as such. Consensus can change, but the right way to go about changing consensus established in an RfC is a new RfC, not gung-ho edits to the article before the time limit established by the RfC has even expired and especially not in an article as contentious as this one. I suggest User:Debresser backs down and apologises and we let this lie; if not, sanctions are probably appropriate. GoldenRing (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Consensus is always binding. It doesn't expire. I read the three-year limit in that RfC as essentially the same as a moratorium on further discussion. But however you read it, the essential point is that it hasn't expired. Of course it doesn't take an RfC to establish consensus - but when one has been held, a change made without any discussion whatsoever doesn't cut it. Since you're doubling down on this, I can't see what else to recommend but sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

Consensus-wise, where things will probably now turn ugly is that there are perceptions among some editors that consensus is established by carrying out a show of hands and that personal opinions, rather than the contents of reliable sources, establish what is factual and what is neutral. ← ZScarpia 17:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

An RFC is not consensus. Simple as that. It is a ruling that must be followed but when that ruling is sunsetted, then there is no obligation to follow that ruling. General Wiki rules and policies apply but you can't say that once there is a temporary RFC, or injunction, then any change requires a consensus or new RFC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SD

I think Debresser should be sanctioned based on this tit for tat edit:[8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Debresser

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

The original Arbcom motion was passed on December 27, 2012. It provided that the ban on changing the lead of Jerusalem 'will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion'. To me, that implies December 27, 2015, so the freeze on changing the lead has already expired. The RfC closers stated that 'this decision is binding for three years' on 9 July, 2013 but I don't see that the closers were given authority to change the date specified in Arbcom's own motion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ed makes an interesting point. I do not recall any discussion about it, but then when we passed the appointments motion I don't think any of us expected the process to take half a year to conclude.
That said, in my view, even after the three-year period ends, the conclusions reached in the RFC remain consensus until and unless the existence of a different consensus is demonstrated, and until then edits that are substantially contrary to those conclusions remain sanctionable under DS for failure to "comply with all applicable policies and guidelines" and "follow editorial and behavioural best practice" (see WP:AC/DS#guide.expect). T. Canens (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we accept T. Canens' view, we should place a new banner on the talk page of Jerusalem. We should tell editors they are risking a block if they change the lead away from the 2013 RfC version before such time as a different consensus is demonstrated. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that extending the freeze at Jerusalem is an option that is within our power, under discretionary sanctions. See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms where the committee is still considering a parallel issue regarding GMO. See the comments by User:Salvio giuliano and User:Drmies in that ARCA, though not everyone agrees with them. Why not keep this Jerusalem-related AE open until the ARCA finishes, and see if we want to propose something for Jerusalem. We could make a DS stating that the wording of the Jerusalem lead is still frozen until a new RfC is held. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reopened the thread, because that request for clarification has been dealt with. As I said there, as far as I'm concerned, a restriction along the lines of that one would be a cromulent use of DS. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is an admin who wants to give us wording for a new discretionary sanction reinstating the freeze, I suggest this be closed with warnings to User:Debresser and User:Plot Spoiler. They changed wording that was agreed upon in a large RfC in 2013 without providing evidence of a new general consensus in favor of their version. I doubt that anyone is looking forward to a new edit war on the lead of Jerusalem. Given data we currently have, it appears that Debresser and Plot Spoiler are risking admin action if they continue, which might consist of blocks or a page ban. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to reinstate or extend the freeze, which is best read as a moratorium on new discussions; I do not currently see a need to prevent new RFCs on this topic. However, it is elementary that a consensus reached after an extensive and well-attended discussion requires a discussion of similar caliber to undo. Editors who ignore the existing consensus do so at their own peril. T. Canens (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I perceive nothing sanctionable here, but I also would remind editors that "next year in Jerusalem" does not mean "next year more arguing about Jerusalem". Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree broadly with T. Canens. If the wording was agreed upon after a broad and well-attended RfC, a new RfC of similar scope would be needed to propose changes to it, other than minor edits that do not substantially change its meaning or content. I'd suggest closing with a warning that seeking new consensus would be required prior to any such change. I don't, however, want to see an extension of any moratorium on such discussions, as it is an evolving situation, and it's entirely possible that events have necessitated changes or additions, or rendered some of the current information obsolete or inaccurate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Since some editors seem to indicate that they do not intend to follow the RfC results or do not believe a new RfC is required for changes now, absent any significant objections, I'll be closing this with a page-level restriction that any significant changes to the lead would require a new RfC. For these purposes, "significant" would mean any change that adds or removes information from the lead or substantially changes the meaning of any part of it, but would exclude minor copyedits that do not substantially change the meaning of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @EdJohnston: Yeah, you've got a point, especially with as potentially as explosive as this area is, you could get arguments over even a seemingly innocuous change. If someone just fixes a typo or something, and someone actually brought that here as a complaint, I think they'd get told pretty sternly to quit wasting our time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it interests anyone, we're currently holding an RFC on GMOs based on the Jerusalem model, and the DS I logged to enforce it is as follows: "A moderated RfC is being held at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms to determine how to phrase the safety of GM foods across all relevant articles. Whatever consensus is decided shall not be modified or overturned without an equivalent RfC. Additionally, the RFC is under further restrictions listed on that page and in the editnotice, including WP:0RR." The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I support User:Seraphimblade's idea of a page-level restriction at Jerusalem ruling out changes to the lead without a new RfC. I am unsure whether it will be easy to distinguish major from minor changes, so my preference would be to ban all changes, not just changes deemed to be significant. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wuerzele

Closed without action for now. Any participant may reopen this at such time that User:Wuerzele returns to active editing if they still have concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Wuerzele

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wuerzele (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#Wuerzele_topic_banned

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions

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

[9] Violates topic ban editing at Monsanto legal cases and returning to battleground behavior.
[10] Casting asperisions

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic banned by ArbCom: "Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."[11]
[12] Previously blocked for edit warring and general combativeness towards editors.

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

Wuerzele was previously topic banned for extremely combative behavior, constantly sniping at editors, etc. while edit warring[13] The discretionary sanctions and the topic bans handed out by ArbCom specifically say all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural chemicals, etc. broadly construed including the companies that produce them. The discretionary sanctions were specifically reworded by ArbCom[14] to include the companies themselves to prevent prevent a case like this where topic banned editors still try to hang around related pages and continue additional behavior problems.

In addition to the diff itself being in the topic ban page, the edit summary shows a return to the very sniping behavior that resulted in their ArbCom topic ban, "Undid revision 726362373 by Kingofaces43 (talk) who appears not to read the newspaper? common knowledge, decent coverage". It's that kind of sniping directly at editors that Wuerzele has shown they are incapable of stopping that resulted in their ban, so I would like an admin to weigh in on how to further deal with their behavior. This response was to me removing the content from a previous editor for poor sourcing.[15] The lawsuit in particular involved a branch of Monsanto that's using climate modeling, etc. to recommend pesticide, fertilizer, etc. applications for farmers, which puts this content squarely in the realm of the topic ban without even needing to consider broadly construed.

Wuerzele has also now engaged in apsersions: "No, I consider this retaliatory, because I exposed your relentlessly controlling, always pro-industry and negative editing behavior."[16] This was the exact attitude this ArbCom principle was meant to put a stop to and why Wuerzele was topic banned. That this is still continuing after their sanctions is a problem, especially since my edit removed content that actually favored the company (they were the one filing the complaint this time), which runs completely contrary to the hounding narrative Wuerzele is still trying to pursue against me.

At this point, a one-way interaction ban from me seems logical to diffuse this continued behavior. The only times I ever interact with Wuerzele now is responding to when they engage in this behavior when they still pursue my edits. There shouldn't be a need for a two-way interaction ban since I generally try to avoid Wuerzele and haven't had anything with respect to Wuerzele that would warrant the two-way ban since the ArbCom case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, the WSJ source doesn't cover much detail, but other sources[17][18] regularly discuss things like seed choice, pesticide application, etc. as the core products of the decision making platform this company markets. There's really no way to say this doesn't relate to the topic ban in a broadly construed manner.

The larger problem though is the continuation of sniping on multiple counts I mentioned above. Arbs specifically expanded the DS to company pages saying that they didn't need to expand the topic bans as DS would take care of editors that immediately jump into behavior that resulted in their bans again while testing the edge of their ban.[19] (read the arb opinions on topic bans) That's exactly what's happening here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[20]

Discussion concerning Wuerzele

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 Wuerzele

Statement by Tryptofish

Just before I found this AE, I had seen the edit in question and reverted it. This is really a no-brainer: the page is about Monsanto, and it absolutely is within the scope of the topic ban. It's a pity, because Wuerzele has been doing a good job of obeying the sanctions until now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About being within scope, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions specifically includes "the companies that produce them". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Yeah, I see what you mean and you are technically correct. (At this point, Tryptofish mumbles under breath about ArbCom dropping the ball about GMOs yet again.) The way I see it, I really do not care whether there is a block or a warning. As I said above, until this flare-up, I've been impressed with Wuerzele's adherence to the rules while remaining otherwise a good contributor. Looking back at the Arbs' statements in their vote not to expand the topic bans even while they were expanding the DS, I note that a couple of them said explicitly that it would be reasonable to apply DS to companies if the need arises for topic-banned editors, so that would justify a firm and final warning here, instead of a block. I also note with a bit of irony that the justification they gave was that the topic-banned editors hadn't tested this boundary yet. And, as someone who watched the whole case very closely, I feel that I am correct in saying that the change in the DS language was never meant as an expansion of the scope, but rather, as a clarification. Thus, companies really were included all along in the "broadly construed" part of the topic ban language, and maybe that should not allow for a get-out-of-jail free card. So that is an argument for an AE block. I guess it comes down to what Wuerzele could reasonably be expected to have understood from what the Committee articulated. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, you make some very good points about civility and decorum. But I hope that the result of this AE will not take the form of saying "go ahead and edit through the loophole, but you are warned to be civil when you do so". If there is a warning, as opposed to a block based on "broadly construed" (and "broadly construed" really does need to mean something), I hope that it will be a warning that, in addition to civility, there should be no "company" edits going forward. Going forward, the inclusion of companies in the scope is clearly the Committee's intent. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not close this without a warning about civility and an instruction that companies are henceforth out of bounds. The fact that an editor has been inactive recently does not preclude a return shortly after this AE thread gets closed and archived. It would be a pity to have to come back here again because things had remained unclear. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the scope is that the companies are those that deal in GMOs and related agricultural products, and not other companies. There was an earlier AE (about Jytdog), about an edit to the Bayer company page (the company makes some GMO-related products among many other unrelated things) that did not relate directly to GMOs. The consensus then was that it is within "the letter of the law" to make such edits if they are entirely unrelated to GMOs, but that, given "broadly construed", it's a bad idea to get close to the edge. I think that would be the best advice. I strongly recommend that this AE be closed with such a warning, because you really should not want an unclear guidance to bring us back here again. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed: I don't think there would be a problem with a company that makes chemicals that are all non-agricultural. But if you allow companies, what happens with an edit to Monsanto? It's not that hard to tell the difference: base it on whether or not the page has at least a section about agricultural products. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wuerzele

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

Though Wuerzele is not banned by the Committee from making edits about Monsanto, if the change he has made at Monsanto legal cases cocerns genetically-modified seed then it is a violation. Not seeing any words to the contrary in the WSJ article, it's reasonable to assume that the scheme for stealing Monsanto's data would be part of a plan to use the information to grow genetically-modified seed elsewhere. This is a narrow enough issue that this request might need only a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Please see the linked page. In January 2016 the committee broadened the DS to include the companies but decided not to change the topic bans of those already sanctioned in the decision, including Wuerzele. They are still allowed to edit about the companies. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming there was no violation of the topic-ban, an edit summary like this one is uncivil and inappropriate. (The edit summary also reflects a misunderstanding of the edit Wuerzele was reverting; Kingofaces43 had questioned the notability or importance of Monsanto v. Chen, not whether the case exists or has been reported anywhere.) If Wuerzele plans to continue editing these articles to the extent permitted by (depending on one's viewpoint) either a limitation of or a loophole in the remedies, he should do so with civility and decorum. Subject to any explanation Wuerzele may provide, I would support a warning on this basis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wuerzele: Please post a response to this request, addressing both the scope and civility issues, the next time you edit. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wuerzele still hasn't returned to editing and there seems to be a desire to close this report. Certainly a civility-related warning is in order. The tougher question is whether the scope of the topic-ban should be extended to "company" related edits (even not directly related to GMOs), as Tryptofish has suggested and as appears to have some merit. I'm reluctant to expand a topic-ban in the absence of the affected editor—but it's probably in that editor's interest for him to stay away from the broader area anyway, as the disputed edits here illustrate. So perhaps the right result is to close this with the warning coupled with an expansion of the topic-ban as suggested, but allowing Wuerzele the right to reopen the discussion on this board if he wants to argue against such expansion when he returns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure we have the authority to expand to non-GMO companies. I can't see an interpretation of GMO companies "broadly construed" that stretches that far, though you obviously have more insight into what the Committee probably intended. It seems to me that if we were to extend it to all companies, not related to GMOs, that would need approval as a Community ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't believe that in the decision, the Committee focused specifically on whether the restriction would be broad enough to cover an edit that was about a company that is active in the GMO field but where the specific edit did not deal with GMOs. At least I know that I did not think about that one way or the other (or if I did I don't remember it). That said, "relating to ... broadly construed" is flexible language and is typically intended as such. What do other admins think? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, I think I see now. You meant a ban on edits concerning GMO-related companies where the edit itself was not GMO-related. I think that is well within the scope. To me it sounded like you were proposing a ban on edits concerning corporations in general. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there's problematic editing here, it seems to me that the simplest solution would just be to extend the ban to the full covered area, including companies. Even if the Committee didn't do that at the time, the extension could be made as a discretionary sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since 22 June, Wuerzele has made no further edits that raise concerns. I would close this with no action, but don't object if any admin wants to log their own warning to Wuerzele. The other two editors that were sanctioned by the committee in WP:ARBGMO, but not banned from editing about GMO companies, were User:SageRad and User:Jytdog. SageRad has made no edits since May, and Jytdog is indisposed due to another problem. So if there is indeed a multi-editor loophole about GMO companies that wants closing, it isn't causing much trouble at the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other admins are considering if the ban should be extended. We could then apply a new restriction saying that Wuerzele is restricted from all the topics that are covered by the discretionary sanction remedy. User:Seraphimblade most likely said the same thing above. It's unclear if he supports the change himself. My personal view is that the widened ban is not yet needed. In addition, User:Wuerzele has made edits relating to chemical companies in the past. (For example, he created Dragon Aromatics in 2015. Nothing to do with perfume, it is a heavy-duty industrial company like an oil refinery). These companies, or at least the edits, may be unrelated to GMOs. The widened ban risks excluding him from edits to many chemical companies. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was throwing it out there as a general option, not necessarily supporting it. There's some borderline stuff, but I don't think extending it is required at this time. I would note to Wuerzele, though, that it would be wise to tread very lightly in these areas if at all. It's very close to the edge of the topic ban, and it would be easy indeed to put a toe over the line. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing without action for now. Any participant may reopen this request at such time that Wuerzele returns to active editing if they still have concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaabbb11

Closing as the filing party filed this request in violation of a topic ban. If an editor who is not topic banned from the area wishes to request enforcement, they are welcome to do so. Filing party blocked 48 hours for topic ban violation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Aaabbb11

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PCPP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Aaabbb11 (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/Falun_Gong_2 :

(Disclaimer: I am current under a topic ban from 2011 over the FLG articles as documented here [21]. I have not edited WP in the years since, and currently I have no intention to edit the FLG articles or appeal the ban. I am writing this per WP:BANEX, where it refers to another user's conduct. I would be happy if an admin can clarify or notify me otherwise.)

Aaabb11 is a single purpose account, whose sole major edits relates to editing the Falun Gong series of articles, often pushing a pro-FLG POV. As indicated by his edit counter, his most edited articles include Persecution of Falun Gong, Epoch Times, Kilgour-Matas report etc. [22].

Aaabbb11's edit patterns are counterproductive, disruptive, and indicated has a serious problem with WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NPOV, often pushing blatant POVs which even other non-involved editors question. His basic habits is to push the views of Gutmann, Kilgour/Matas et al on organ harvesting into basic China or communism related articles.

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

1) POV pushing on the China page: [23]. In spite of others questioning the amount of undue weight, Aaabbb11 has continued to edit war on the page, pushing Kilgour-Matas, and "genocide" allegations, and push personal attacks against users who reverted him.

Problematic article edits - pushing a distinct POV: [24][25][26][27]

Personal attacks, called two editors, including one long term editor on the China articles, as Chinese trolls, and called for them to investigated [28][29]

2) Soapboxing with the Gao Rongrong page [30]. The page, as noted by three different editors at AFC, has questionable notability [31][32][33]. Nevertheless, the article was created by Aaabbb11 on June 16, yet even per the article itself, the sources mostly date from 2005, and even the Daily Mail article from 2012 only gave a two pictures and sentences. Note his rationale for creation of the article, which has little to do with WP policies and guidelines, but to "embarrass the PRC government", "highlight the stupidity of the torturers", promote the FLG mouthpiece Epoch Times as "having strong focus on human rights", and interestingly, directly admitting that there is a lack of coverage of of Gao Rongrong's case, all highlighting an issue of competence.

Aaabbb11 also previously inserted the the disputed image of the deceased woman, plus FLG soapboxing, onto the page about the electroshock weapon and cattle prod, [34][35] and not to mention scrolling down his own talk page.

3) POV pushing on the Anti-communism page: [36].

Problematic article edits - continued attempts to push WP:UNDUE, plus misusing an image of a deceased FLG practitioner [37][38][39][40]

Note that his last edit on the article against is littered with WP:UNDUE, adding images that has little to do with anti-communism, more with FLG itself.[41]

4) Deletion of sourced material on the Epoch Times page: [42]

Problematic article edits - deletion of sourced material referring to the paper as anti-CCP, pro-FLG [43][44][45][46]

5) Attempts to change the article Persecution of Falun Gong to genocide, a position which is not supported by reliable sources. [47]. He also resorts to further soapboxing [48].

6) Personal attacks, soapboxing etc.

[49] Referred to STSC as "denying the Chinese people from accessing true information"
[50] Later he called STSC a "propaganda victim" and WP would be better off without him.
[51][52] Referred to Zanhe and 小梨花 as single purpose accounts who should be investigated

7) Notifications from other editors over behavior:

[53] Notified by Benlisquare over disrputive editing
[54][55] Notified by Benlisquare and Simonm223 over disruptive behavior at the China article
[56][57][58] Notified by STSC over disruptive editing and the improper use of dead woman's image

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[59] Previous block for edit-warring at the FLG main article space, over a wililink to the term "cult".

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

[60] Notified by JimRenge over discretionary sanctions on FLG.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Overall, Aaabbb11's edits are are littered with promotion and POV pushing for FLG, and his edits on the FLG related articles and Gutmann, Kilgour, Matas, et al. are filled with clear advocacy. Content disputes aside, Aaabbb11's editing patterns and behavior indicates that he's a clear single purpose account who is here to push views not consistent with scholarly studies on the subject. I request

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[61]

Discussion concerning Aaabbb11

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 Aaabbb11

Current editors such as Zujine and TheBlueCanoe should be asked for their opinion. None of the 3 people making statements against me is a current editor of Falun Gong pages, so I don't think their opinion counts as much as current editors such as Zujine and TheBlueCanoe who are extremely knowledgeable, experienced and respected in my opinion.

I'd also like to point out that I gave up editing the China page some time ago. I change what I'm doing as I learn more and get bored with what I'm doing. I made mistakes in the past but I learn from them. I don't enjoy the conflict that happens on some wikipedia articles. Some people find the truth very hard to accept but it should be on wikipedia as much as possible. The truth is shocking sometimes. I'd like to forget about some of the things I know. 00:41, 29 June 2016‎

The statements against me on 28 June by PPCP, Simon233 and STSC were made in less than 2 hours. It looks like collusion happening to me. Its probably time Happymonsoonday1 and Marvin 2009 were canvased for their opinions. They are current editors and have been editing longer than me. Aaabbb11 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little background about me. About 10 months ago I drove a road car on a racing track for the first time. It changed my life forever. I now own 2 lightweight track only racecars (Juno SSE and Ralt RT35) and have driven a total of 6 cars on 2 racetracks. I don't spend much time thinking about wikipedia now, mainly racecars. So the number of edits I make has probably dropped a lot. I find articles about race cars interesting. I don't watch TV. If I want to know something I google it and read the wiki article. Aaabbb11 (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by simonm223

For what it's worth, tendentious and probably paid full-time editors with substantial and persistent biases, like Aaabbb11 are the reason I don't edit wikipedia anymore. And frankly, I'm not likely to come back to Wikipedia if Aaabbb11 is gone, because the problem is systemic and persistent. But if any of you care about Wikipedia being anything other than a propaganda vehicle for whichever person has the most time and energy to burn fighting pointless battles you'll ban this user from ever editing anything even peripherally related to the Falun Gong or China. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by STSC

Aaabbb11's had indiscriminately inserted the image of Gao Rongrong in many articles (610 Office, Cattle prod, Electroshock weapon, Freedom of religion in China, Human rights in China, Anti-communism). When I complained about the inappropriate image inclusion [62], Aaabbb11 then deliberately posted 19 pieces of that image all over his/her talk page[63]. Just this disgraceful and disrespectful behaviour alone deserves a complete site ban. STSC (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

I've looked at the diffs and see no basis for complaint. The filer is topic banned from this area and has no connection to the issue at hand that would activate BANEX. STSC needs to stop dropping people hostile templates like he owns the place. Simonm223 should tell us more about how he was canvassed, since he doesn't edit anymore. Close this with no action. Rhoark (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

User:Rhoark is correct. Both PCPP and STSC have been indefinitely banned from the Falun Gong topic area, and nothing in WP:BANEX justifies their filing or commenting on this complaint.

Unless we want to set a precedent that would allow banned users to clog up the arbitration process to pursue ideological vendettas, it seems that this complaint needs to be thrown out. If any active users want to file a complaint against Aaabbb11, then they're welcome to do that—I won't protest.TheBlueCanoe 21:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Aaabbb11

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

I'm certainly seeing an aggressive pattern in the edits and actions undertaken by Aaabbb11, which is cause for concern. I think a topic ban from Falun Gong might be in order, but will hear what Aaabbb11 has to say if they'd like to explain what's going on here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can now see Aaabbb11's response above. The page at Talk:Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China does not show User:Aaabbb11 patiently working toward a neutral version. As I stated when closing the June 2015 WP:AN3 complaint about this editor, it wouldn't take much more bad behavior to justify a topic ban. The time has come, and I think a topic ban is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into Aaabbb11's conduct yet, but as a matter of proper process I'd side with those who have said we shouln't be rewarding the evident breach of the prior topic bans evident in the filing by PCPP and STSC, so my suggestion would be to speedily close this complaint, unless there are legitimate editors who wish to re-file it, or unless you have found something in his behaviour so glaring that you think spontaneous admin action even in the absence of a third-party complaint is called for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monochrome Monitor

Monochrome Monitor agrees to a voluntary restriction and mentorship by Irondome. Given this, no further action is required at this time. Monochrome Monitor is warned that further disruption or failure to abide by the voluntary agreement is likely to result in a full topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Monochrome Monitor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Monochrome Monitor (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#General 1RR restriction

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

Zionism:

20:54, 2 July 2016 Revert of [64]
21:30, 2 July 2016 revert of [65]

Baruch Goldstein:

15:55, 30 June 2016‎ Straight-forward removal of material, definitionally a revert
02:04, 1 July 2016‎ revert of [66]

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see User_talk:Monochrome_Monitor#Arbitration_reminder
Edit-notice at Zionism and Baruch Goldstein

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Following a topic ban on Khazars Monochrome Monitor seemingly immediately continued with the same behavior that caused that ban, namely edit-warring and imposing his or her will through reverts. Additionally, the user has violated WP:BLP here (calling a living person a real-life loon[y]). Asked to remove that, the user declined.

Im not planning on spending a whole lot of time on this request, however I feel compelled to note one thing. MM's response below shows what I think to be the main problem with this user editing in contentious topic areas. The need to personalize every single dispute. On his or her talk page I asked the user to self-revert on another article. His or her response there was that reverts should not be used wantonly, as mine had been. It was as if whoever has an editing conflict with the user must have some sort of personal grudge in which MM must win. I dont think Ive ever said two words about the president of Turkey, but my request that the user abide by a core Wikipedia policy turns into how low [I] descend just to f*ck [MM] over, suddenly caring about not offending a man who says turkey doesn't need to apologize for the armenian genocide. Its this repeated seeking out an escalation of conflict thats the core problem. One revert on one article begets a 20 article editing binge of removing categories. I dont know how to solve that problem, but time editing in less contentious topics where he or she can get a better handle on the consensual editing model of this place I think would be to his or her benefit. nableezy - 03:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the last note; the disingenuous I didnt know about the edit 3 weeks ago is just that, disingeneous. MM has been involved with talk page discussion that has been centered precisely around whether or not to use establish or re-restablish (here). How exactly can he or she feign ignorance of the dispute? The user repeatedly uses reverts to impose his or her favored version on an article, and this is just the latest example of that. Other recent examples include Dahiya doctrine. Really any article where MM is found contains the same pattern. The user decides whats best, makes that edit, and reverts anybody who disagrees. And then says those reverting him or her are doing so "wantonly" and can be ignored. nableezy - 18:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Monochrome Monitor

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 Monochrome Monitor

Already covered on my talk page, thanks.

This article is under WP:1RR due to ARBPIA. It my be in your interest to undo your last edit. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Thank you for telling me but the date says it's a new day. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 02:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The definition of a WP:1RR violation is two reverts within a 24-hour period. It doesn't matter whether the reverts are on the same day. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks then!--Monochrome_Monitor 03:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks like I already undid it ooops.Jonney2000 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That ^^^ I did not realize that I violated 1RR, edjohnston was very nice and warned me, so I said I would self-revert. But Jonney already did. You're saying because someone reverted it before I could revert myself, it's a 1RR violation?

[67] That is called a revert. I used my 1 revert for the day on it. I reverted nish's edit which I thought made unfair changes not mentioned on the talk page and misinterpreted a source. But that doesn't matter. This [68] is not a revert. You are telling me that because someone typed three characters weeks ago, and I deleted those three characters by writing what I had already proposed on the talk page, that's a revert, despite all the edits in between. That is completely insane. You're being vindictive and mean.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say he was a "loony". I mentioned loonies with a hyperlink about him next to it. I'm really amazed how low you descend just to f*ck me over, suddenly caring about not offending a man who says turkey doesn't need to apologize for the armenian genocide, because they "committed no crime".^[1]--Monochrome_Monitor 00:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More crap

[Reply to Malik Shabazz] I discussed it with you, and you didn't make a compelling case at all. You did what you are doing now. Complaining about something you don't understand, pretending I removed categories that I actually added. I don't understand what is ideologically driven about changing "terrorism" to "war crimes" based on the date Israel was established and the jewish paramilitaries came together to become the IDF. State = war crimes. Non-state = terrorism. This is the definition wikipedia itself uses! It's not arbitrary at all,. Thus massacres committed by israel as a state I added "war crime", and massacres of the PLO during the lebanese civil war I added "terrorism". I have been ENTIRELY consistent except in one case- suicide bombings being labeled a war crime, they were in that category and I wasn't sure what to call it considering it has been called both, and its possible to have it be both in the case of state-sponsored terrorism. I'm trying to have a debate- you didn't debate me. You are being reactionary. You don't understand my edits. So, ask me about them. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The entire spectrum of Zionist opinion believed, and still believes, that Eretz Yisrael extends to the east of the river jordan..." That's a gross generalization. The bible can say whatever it likes, it can say that the land of israel is from the nile to the euphrates- but that doesn't mean Jews believe it. Jordan has banned observant Jews from entering the country because they are afraid Jews will plant artifacts into the ground and claim the land as israeli.^[2] That's how quickly this enters conspiracy theory territory.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC) You think that edit is inspired by "extreme ideology"? It is anti-extreme ideology.Only extreme religious zionists include parts of jordan into israel. Not "the entire spectrum". Hell, on one side of the spectrum of "zionists" they don't even think jerusalem is part of Israel.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section you linked to- "please tell me...." I was asking you to tell me how the palestinian exodus is a war crime under the rome statue or terrorism. You never explained. But when I make the edits, I'm being an extremist, even if you never tell me what's wrong with them. You have to give me a bit more to work with. I've been TRYING to branch out, that's why I made the lede in zionism more nuetral today (for which I was reported) and that's why I started to populated the category "Israeli war crimes". --Monochrome_Monitor 03:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On "eretz israel" and how zionists interpret it. We are led to believe from our source that all zionists consider eretz israel to include parts of jordan. Here's a dictionary definition: [69]

1. the Holy Land; Israel
2. the concept, favoured by some extreme Zionists, of a Jewish state the territory of which matched the largest expanse of biblical Israel

Those are two different definitions....she's distorting the phrase. And, I think that's not just a regular untruth, but a dangerous one that leads to prejudice. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing...

[Reply to Nish] I did not call falk an antisemite. I said "he has antisemitic views". He thinks Israel was involved in 9/11. I believe that's an antisemitic view, don't you? They are not the same thing. An antisemite is one who hates Jews. An antisemitic view is a view characterized by antisemitism. Falk does not hate Jews. However he has some antisemitic views- saying "he's a respected scholar and here are his medals" is silly. The controversy is described in detail on his wikipedia page. And I stand by my statement about Atzmon. Regardless of your qualms about my editing practices, I DID NOT BREAK 1RR THIS TIME. Making an edit that "un-did" a three week old edit I didn't know existed is not a revert. And I know about state-sponsored terrorism. Israel has sponsored "terrorists". But that's difference from state terrorism, which is a more dubious concept. The IDF is not "sponsored" by Israel. It is Israel. Hence, saying a massacre by the IDF is terrorism is accusing Israel of state terrorism. It's a lot more reasonable to just call it a "war crime".--Monochrome_Monitor 17:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the Armenian genocide, what I consider crazy about his views is his belief that no crime was committed. In contrast Israelis (except one azerbajani jerk) know that a crime was committed, a genocide was committed, but they don't call it that because they don't want to upset Turkey. What do I call them? Hypocritical moral cowards.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the reliable sources I removed, one I removed by accident which was a reliable source, for that I bear responsibility. The one I meant to remove (and did remove) was 972, which I don't consider a reliable source.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick of being dragged to AAE for diplomatic disputes... but I guess I have made people afraid to talk to me. Have I broken any rules? No. That being said, I have let my own emotions spiral out of control on some talk pages. I have gotten into conflicts with editors that could have been avoided if I discussed my thoughts first and not after the fact, when they had already formed their own conceptions about my intentions. But I stated my intentions clearly up above, and I'd like to be judged on that, rather than how other people feel about me.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hopefully the last section [reply to nableezy]

Of course I know about the dispute, the dispute is why I made it, as a compromise. I changed the wording of the first sentence to my proposal on the talk page. But every change of wording that has some overlap with a change undone in the past cannot be considered a "revert" of someone else's edits made some time in the past. My first edit was an edit, my second was a revert. By your logic YOU violated 1RR by restoring content removed two years ago. This is a revert of this. This is a revert of this--Monochrome_Monitor 18:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not

Simon, you gave up on me a long time ago. You didn't respond to any of my comments on your talk page. Your emails have grown colder and eventually you ceased to respond to those too. Mere months ago you made glowing comments about my work on wikipedia. Most of my bans and offenses were before then. My edits have not changed- I've always made bold edits first and substantiated them later. The only difference is that when my bold edits are reverted, I expect the reverter to at least make the effort to address my concerns, and if they don't I continue to press for them. That's it. As for the Khazars, there was no "fiasco". I violated 3RR, that's it. If you want to make that into a cause for never speaking to me again, be my guest. At least have the decency to follow through with it and don't pitch in to my public humiliation after weeks of shunning me. As for Bolter, bless him, but the comparisons are ridiculous. When you took him under your wing you asked me to talk to him and give him advice, because I was your success story. I made the edit to Zionism against my usual POV as a compromise, this compromise was seen as an opportunity to make a radical change to the wording, which I reverted. And I get f*cked over it. I have been extremely careful in adhering to 1RR, and I did adhere to it. That's all I have to say.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a little reality check here Georgia. Do you remember how we first met? It was when you accused Nishidani of being an anti semite. I came to his defence. None of us had interacted before that. I saw good in you despite, and have since tried to help you, as has Nish. How many times have I made a damn fool of myself defending you on the boards now? This will be four. I do not regret any of them. What you percieve as coldness is a response to a disrespectful attack on Nish, a true scholar and gentleman, and your problematic edits on Khazars and the increasingly volatile edits you had made in other article areas. The attack on Nish hurt me. Please do not keep going on about my favourable comments about your behaviours a few months ago. They were referring to a different Georgia, not the person I and the community are presently seeing. But I forgive, and you overplay my percieved coldness to you a great deal. Anyone looking at My, Nish's or your talk pages can see the constant pleas by myself and others to distance your perception of self to the subjects you were editing. I am your ideal mentor, because I know how you tick, and where you are coming from. I will continue to play that role if needed. I must be mad, but hey, nutters make the world go round. The community needs an answer. I need an answer. Do you accept the mentoring terms or not? Your "public humiliation" is entirely self-inflicted. I have had many SIW's myself. Take responsibilty for your actions my friend, and be the real mensch I know is deep within you. Message ends.

Lastly

Before sanctioning me, which you seem ready to do, can you at least establish that I actually broke 1RR? Because the first example as I noted was discussed on my talk page and should not be opportunistically used against me, and the second example I still don't think was a violation- the first edit was an edit, the second was a revert.

I am learning, and that's why I have been trying not to break 1RR, and I believe I haven't. I've really been trying, and I want people to see that I'm editing in good faith, that's why I've been making these edits against my own POV. It would be unfair if after all of my genuine trespasses, I only get punished when I'm trying to atone for them. My POV in this area is not nuetral, but it's not extreme at all- I empathize strongly with "the other side". The people who get topic banned in ARPIA are some serious extremists, and there are many, many editors whose edits are far more controversial then mine, but they don't get into trouble because they get along better with other users. I alienated my greatest friend here, and that's entirely my fault. He's very non-confrontational and I thrive in the heat of debate, and I can cross the line of rhetoric into invective.

But when I say he "gave up me", I mean he's stopped talking to me. I don't mean he's been advising me for ages and suddenly stopped. I've been mostly independent, and that was working for a while. As he once said (a little over three months ago),

I am proud to have given you a measure of guidance, when things did seem critical. But you are still here and developing intellectually and emotionally and doing good work for the encyclopedia. Your honesty and directness will see you through.

I'm still direct and still honest. I believe what changed is that I started to conflict with Nish, whom Simon respects very much.

It's hard to ignore the damning comments, but please try and look at this from my perspective. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I said I would be fine taking a voluntary break (with sanction if I break it), 6 months freaks me out, I'll be a completely different person by then. But my most productive work, or at least the work with the highest ratio of production to hair-pulling, was interrupted by my reentry into the ARPIA fray (I can never remember that initialism)- and on the bright side I would like to return to it and this could be considered an intervention rather than an incarceration. A ban on Jew-related articles I think is excessive, considering the only area I've had conflict in in that domain is one I'm already banned from. Also, I don't think it matters at this point, but I would really like to know if I broke 1RR, for future editing.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) If I wasn't clear enough, yes, I accept Simon's ultimate ultimatum. Also, did that edit I'm referring to count as a revert? --Monochrome_Monitor 01:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Please sanction Monochrome Monitor, who has repeatedly proven that she cannot edit with an NPOV. She is one of the most transparently ideologically driven editors I can recall from nearly ten years of editing, and she gets worse, instead of better, the longer she is here.

Today, for example, she removed a sentence from Land of Israel because she didn't like it, writing "now that's just wrong". It didn't matter that the sentence is supported by a reliable source written by a reputable historian, given in-text attribution, and easily verifiable.

Yesterday, she removed the categories related to war crimes and terrorism from Israeli articles and categories and added them to Palestinian articles and categories. When I called her on it, she initially made some noise about state actors and non-state actors. But she can't have it both ways—exempt Israel because it is a state, treat Palestine as a state when it suits her ideological drive, and deny it is a state when that suits her. (Here are a few diffs: [70][71][72][73]. See Monochrome Monitor's contribution history for dozens more. See User talk:Malik Shabazz#Please tell me... for the discussion.)

Monochrome Monitor is also allergic to discussion. Despite the entreaties of her mentor, and others (including me), she refuses to start discussions about (for example) where categories about terrorism and war crimes are appropriate.

Please. Enough is enough. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

The evidence is a small sample of a persistent wrongheadedness over numerous pages. I have an informal undertaking with MM's mentor to be patient. I lost that patience on just one page, Khazars, and requested she be suspended for a month from just that page. She was suspended for six, which I though somewhat excessive, and told her so. She was upset, but we smoothed things over.

Two days later MM removed an impeccably sourced quote with the following edit summary (rm from quote what doesn't show up in the page, not part of the cite. doesn't seem like formatting either ) and complained when I reverted her. I called this what it was, fraudulent removal of verifiable information with a specious edit summary. She came clean, admitting she'd guessed only from a snippet, but questioned, on what grounds I know not, that I can be trusted to get things right. 3 days later she again removed Rs sourcing from Baruch Goldstein with an absolutely incomprehensible edit summary, and edit warred on it, and Jonney rightly corrected her.

Her reply to Malik is that he is ‘Complaining about something you don't understand’ because ‘State = war crimes. Non-state = terrorism. This is the definition wikipedia itself uses! It's not arbitrary at all.’

She got this from? Well, a wikipedia article, i.e. Definitions of terrorism.

Wikipedia articles aren’t authoritative. We have, in contradiction to that article Iran and state-sponsored terrorism, for example. Malik was quite correct to complain of a rampage over cats. A moment’s notice, rather that causing just one more lengthy thread to debate MM’s subjective judgements, would have sufficed to show that the concept of state terrorism is widely debated and accepted in the relevant scholarship. I.e. here, here, ‘This foremost distinction between State and sub-State (or individual) terrorism is now a generally acceptable component of the debate on terrorism.' or here. She read a conclusion on a wiki article, drew an opinion from it, ignored any quality check in readily available reliable academic sources, and barged over several articles to alter them.

The BLP violation may be piddling, but her mentors, people of loyalty, integrity and high intelligence, unlike myself, gave her the same advice as Nableezy and I did, and she refused to budge. The result, endless negotiationsa and hours wasted on researching the trivia that inform her judgements to show her how superficially sourced her information was for rushing to brand people antisemites. Despite those gentle remonstrations, she still has left unstruck those accusations against living public figures,Richard Falk and Gilad Atzmon, two Jews, are antisemites, and Erdogan is a loonie.

(ps.) Erdogan doesn’t recognize the obvious, i.e. the Armenian genocide. True. But if he is a loonie for that, then what do we make of authoritative Israeli figures who repeat that israel has no intention of recognizing the Armenian genocide.

I am strongly opposed to harsh measures generally, and if she merits a sanction it should be broadly on this topic area, but for no more than a month. She just has to get it into her head that endless drama, repeating the same behavior, and attritional attitudes that exhaust everyone's time and patience, including that of her mentors, will, the next time round, lead to less lenience. A last warning (of several) in shortNishidani (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call falk an antisemite. I said "he has antisemitic views".

Let me translate. I did not call X a racist. I said:"X has racist views".Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I underwrite everything Simon (Irondome) has noted and recommended. Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just seconding Simon once more (we have by the way no off-line exchanges on this), though, it's a subjective judgement on my part, a 2 weeks break is way too low., for the simple reason that the trouble this time round recurred very quickly after the Khazar topic ban. Something of the original proposal, 2-3 months, is fair. MM does need mentorship - otherwise she risks being a loose cannon, and, whatever the decision, she needs a period of reflection. Simon has done outstanding work in introducing a moderate voice in this once toxically impossible area. Taking on difficult mentorship is also something of a sacrifice, A willingness, on her return, to take up his offer would be a show of faith in the collegial way a good many of us have tried to establish here. Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Irondome

This statement may exceed 500 words. I would ask the reviewing administrator to indulge me. I will keep it as short as possible.

I am no longer MM's mentor. That arrangement ceased after the Khazar fiasco. I am no longer MM's mentor because one cannot mentor a fellow editor who refuses to be mentored. I am now merely an impotent observer, watching the gradual self-destruction of what I originally percieved to be a very capable young female editor with considerable potential. My final offer in terms of mentoring are documented in the Khazar AE. That offer still stands. My perception was that they were accepted out of a desperate attempt to continue editing in that topic. Not once have you, MM, asked my advice on a planned edit, or even on what topics you are editing. This is in stark contrast to Bolter21, whom with I also have an arrangement, (although Bolter arguably no longer needs assistance, after a very brief initial issue when he first joined.) Yet he continues to ask for advice and is a credit to the new generation of young colleague who are capable, and are serious about the project. What pains me is MM's attitude to other, well respected editors. Colleagues like Nishidani, Malik, and Nableezy, who I hugely respect and who have forgotten more than I will ever know in these topic areas and in many others, MM treats with an unfortunate, often rude tone. Differing POVs are no barrier to mutual respect, affection and even friendship. MM at this point is combative to a disturbing extent. I have noted a deterioration in your behaviour MM, and that the intervals between board visits are becoming shorter. MM and Gilad Atzmon are two sides of the same coin. Both are struggling, through radically different pathways, to make sense of their Judiasm and the enormous impact that the Jewish experience can have on the individual. It can be hard work being a Jew, as I well know. But it does not excuse bad behaviour, whatever your place in the wildly diverse spectrum of the Jewish intellectual and ethical experience. I will make one last attempt to reach out to you MM, based on my previous offer. I would ask you to voluntarily take a two month break from all IP or Jewish related topics. When you return, maybe we can talk, and resume our arrangement based on the terms laid on in the Khazar AE. With regard to this AE, all you have do is say, "You know what, my editing has been sometimes over-hasty of late. Im sorry to anyone I have irritated, and I apologise to the community. Let me make a clean start, let me reflect on my editing style. I take full responsibility, so give me one break here". It ain't hard G. This has not been a pleasant posting to make, trust me on that colleagues.

Clarification to non involved admins comments below I would like it to be clear that I have not withdrawn my mentorship. I am afraid I was being over-rhetorical in my opening sentences. MM states that she began acting independently of it a few months ago. There is a direct linkage to her increased issues and this independence IMO. I made a proposal at the khazar board visit for stricter mentoring conditions She did agree to it. If she formally agrees to the somewhat strict proposal I made I believe this would go a long way towards restoring the community's confidence in her. I await MM's formal acceptance here. I believe this would be a strong restraining influence on MM, and would help her get back on the rails. I am quite willing to take up the additional responsibility and restriction this would impose on my own editing time. I would ask the reviewing admin and non involved admin colleagues to take this into account. Original proposal follows:

You take an immediate 2 month wikibreak from IP and articles related to Jewish-related topics. When returning, you submit all areas you are working on to me, on an ongoing basis. All edits apart from grammar, etc, are to be submitted to me before making them for approval. It may take a couple of days, but if you edit without my consent I will recommend an indef topic ban. It may take a few days for me to get back to you. Tough. You are going to learn patience. Certain behavioural issues will be discussed off wiki. That's all I have to say. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly request that this be the main control mechanism that MM adheres to from now on, for a period of 2 months initially. If any edits of a controversial character infringing the above be made, then a 6 month IP and Jewish-related topic ban be immediately imposed upon notification of any such infringement to Administration. Monochrome Monitor I need you to accept this, urgently. Simon.

@Monochrome Monitor Do you accept the terms of mentorship laid out here? Just Yes or No G. Irondome (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Monochrome Monitor

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

The comments and diffs above speak for themselves. It is rather apparent that MM needs to be sanctioned; I'm of the mind that a complete topic ban is in order. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something needs to be done, but MM does seem to take some degree of responsibility when they said "I have let my own emotions spiral out of control on some talk pages. I have gotten into conflicts with editors that could have been avoided if I discussed my thoughts first and not after the fact, when they had already formed their own conceptions about my intentions." Given that statement, a total topic ban might not be necessary. I'm thinking a more surgical sanction, such as requiring MM to discuss potential changes in this topic area on the talkpage and gain consensus first. Any thoughts from the editors above? Would that adequately resolve the issues at hand? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MM has a checkered history with controversial topics, including ARBPIA. She has been given a break numerous times but the problems continue. (She does not seem to be on a learning curve). As you can see above, ~~her mentor has given up on her~~ User:Irondome is no longer serving as her mentor because she stopped following his advice. So I think the best course here is a complete ban from ARBPIA (as proposed by User:Coffee) with the right of appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but from her comments she does seem to be learning, just slowly. A topic ban is such a blunt instrument. If people think that's the best way to go then I'll implement it myself, but with the caveat that if she can show me she can work productively in another area for a few months then she can appeal directly to me (as is allowed by DS policy) and I'll lift or modify it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind seeing that, maybe some work in a less charged area could help to cool things down. But I think at this time, a topic ban is necessary to prevent disruption, especially with the failed mentorship. If that's not true a few months down the road, we can always take another look at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the acceptance of Irondome's proposal by MM, I'd be in favor of going forward with that for now. That being said, I would like Monochrome Monitor to understand very clearly that any further disruption, especially during that period of time, is almost certain to lead to a "hard" topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a response to Simon's terms of mentorship; otherwise I support The Wordsmith's idea. I hate to issue a TB unless the user is a complete basket case with wanton disregard for the community. --Laser brain (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ranze

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: Ranze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ranze (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 1 May 2015 Gamergate topic ban:; I am imposing for an indefinite period the standard Gamergate topic ban, which prohibits you from editing "All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed."

Discussion related to (not sure about resulting in) this sanction was a 2 week overall block I received by @EdJohnston: earlier the same day

special:diff/660255380 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive171#Ranze

This was for allegedly violating a topic ban I received from Gamaliel on April 4:

special:diff/654927319

The cited reasons were redirecting Milo Y to Milo Yiannopoulous (presumably because he wrote some articles about Gamergate, as if that's all he does...) and special:diff/659243811 where I admittedly did include information about the Calgary Expo expelling a group of women who had gamergate related information. The reason I thought that was acceptable was because this was in no way connected to Zoe Quinn, which was the original concern of this whole GG topic ban thing. According to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate there are no general Gamergate sanctions anymore they are superceded by specific ArbCom sanctions. @HJ Mitchell: classified these as "obsolete" on 17 November 2015. It was demoted to historical status on 29 January 2015. So basically, when Gamaliel placed these sanctions on my in 2015 on April 4 / May 1, I did not take them seriously at the time because I was under the impression that Gamergate sanctions did not exist and he was trying to apply an undated policy. In the message left to me, Gamliel claimed that "This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision" linking to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final_decision. The link given was not very specific and I was looking at the wrong section, got confused, and didn't get the further feedback I requested to explain the justification. I mostly just shrugged it off and strove not to edit the topic, go watch a bunch of TV, renew my love for pro wrestling, etc. I'd like to know if such broad restrictions are still justified. I've left the Zoe Quinn article alone and that was the crux of what led up to this. Should I have such harsh and broad sanctions when I've stayed away and not reintroduced the pseudonym? For those interested in what preceded the April 4 intervention by Gamaliel I believe that is covered beginning at Talk:Zoë_Quinn/Archive_2#Gamergate_Harassment_sub-section_under_Career. It's coming back now... what had happened was on the talk page, I used template:cite tweet and the number of a tweet made by an account verified by reliable sources to belong to her. I introduced the tweet for discussion for its use as a potential source in the article, regarding the comments the tweet made about a prior career. Given that what I posted has been redacted, I can't refresh my memory on the specific phrasing, though I expect admins have access to the redacted diffs to do so. My thoughts on the potential inclusion of the restraining order (a primary source legal document) was that secondary sources (maybe also Breitbart) had brought up this restraining order. WP:BLPPRIMARY does allow for the referencing of primary sources if they support details established as notable by secondary sources so I didn't understand the problem with doing this. I would very much like to make amends for anything I did wrong, if I did, but my requests for explanations about the specifics of it never got answered in detail enough for me to understand it, so I would like the opportunity to have this better explained to me so I can understand the rules I broke, apologize for doing so, and in knowing better the specifics, better avoid doing so in the future. Ranze (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by Ranze

Best-case scenario I would like the sanction lifted altogether. Next-best, I would like it to be modified to only apply to Gamergate only, as in (a) but not (b) because "any gender-related dispute" is so vague that people can try to make anything relating to people seem like it falls under that.

I pinged Gamaliel but then realized on checking page the user is listed as retired so I would require a different administrator to modify or remove it.

Since it's been 14 months since this was put in place my memories on what led up to it aren't the clearest. As best I can recall I had brought up on Zoe Quinn's talk page a Breitbart article which I wanted to include as a reference which mentioned a modeling pseudonym, and this was construed as some kind of attack on her.

Statement by Gamaliel

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ranze

Result of the appeal by Ranze

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

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

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

[3] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/dec/18/armenian-genocide-apology-turkish-rebuttal

[4] [1]

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 465: / Line 465: @@
 * I would like to see a response to Simon's terms of mentorship; otherwise I support The Wordsmith's idea. I hate to issue a TB unless the user is a complete basket case with wanton disregard for the community. --[[User:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">'''Laser brain'''</font>]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]] 00:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 {{hab}}
+==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ranze==
+<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>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]]).''</small>
+; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Ranze}} – [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze|talk]]) 06:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
+; Sanction being appealed : [[Special:Diff/660280525|1 May 2015 Gamergate topic ban]]:
+:I am imposing for an indefinite period the standard Gamergate topic ban, which prohibits you from editing "All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed."
+Discussion related to (not sure about resulting in) this sanction was a 2 week overall block I received by {{ping|EdJohnston}} earlier the same day
+:[[special:diff/660255380]] and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive171#Ranze]]
+This was for allegedly violating a topic ban I received from Gamaliel on April 4:
+:[[special:diff/654927319]]
+The cited reasons were redirecting [[Milo Y]] to [[Milo Yiannopoulous]] (presumably because he wrote some articles about Gamergate, as if that's all he does...) and [[special:diff/659243811]] where I admittedly did include information about the Calgary Expo expelling a group of women who had gamergate related information.
+The reason I thought that was acceptable was because this was in no way connected to Zoe Quinn, which was the original concern of this whole GG topic ban thing.
+According to [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate]] there are no general Gamergate sanctions anymore they are superceded by specific ArbCom sanctions. {{ping|HJ Mitchell}} classified these as "obsolete" on 17 November 2015. It was demoted to historical status on 29 January 2015. So basically, when Gamaliel placed these sanctions on my in 2015 on April 4 / May 1, I did not take them seriously at the time because I was under the impression that Gamergate sanctions did not exist and he was trying to apply an undated policy.
+In the message left to me, Gamliel claimed that "This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision" linking to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final_decision]]. The link given was not very specific and I was looking at the wrong section, got confused, and didn't get the further feedback I requested to explain the justification. I mostly just shrugged it off and strove not to edit the topic, go watch a bunch of TV, renew my love for pro wrestling, etc.
+I'd like to know if such broad restrictions are still justified. I've left the Zoe Quinn article alone and that was the crux of what led up to this. Should I have such harsh and broad sanctions when I've stayed away and not reintroduced the pseudonym?
+For those interested in what preceded the April 4 intervention by Gamaliel I believe that is covered beginning at [[Talk:Zoë_Quinn/Archive_2#Gamergate_Harassment_sub-section_under_Career]].
+It's coming back now... what had happened was on the talk page, I used [[template:cite tweet]] and the number of a tweet made by an account verified by reliable sources to belong to her. I introduced the tweet for discussion for its use as a potential source in the article, regarding the comments the tweet made about a prior career.
+Given that what I posted has been redacted, I can't refresh my memory on the specific phrasing, though I expect admins have access to the redacted diffs to do so.
+My thoughts on the potential inclusion of the restraining order (a primary source legal document) was that secondary sources (maybe also Breitbart) had brought up this restraining order. [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]] does allow for the referencing of primary sources if they support details established as notable by secondary sources so I didn't understand the problem with doing this.
+I would very much like to make amends for anything I did wrong, if I did, but my requests for explanations about the specifics of it never got answered in detail enough for me to understand it, so I would like the opportunity to have this better explained to me so I can understand the rules I broke, apologize for doing so, and in knowing better the specifics, better avoid doing so in the future. [[User:Ranze|Ranze]] ([[User talk:Ranze|talk]]) 06:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
+; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Gamaliel}}
+; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''
+===Statement by Ranze===
+Best-case scenario I would like the sanction lifted altogether. Next-best, I would like it to be modified to only apply to Gamergate only, as in (a) but not (b) because "any gender-related dispute" is so vague that people can try to make anything relating to people seem like it falls under that.
+I pinged Gamaliel but then realized on checking page the user is listed as retired so I would require a different administrator to modify or remove it.
+Since it's been 14 months since this was put in place my memories on what led up to it aren't the clearest. As best I can recall I had brought up on Zoe Quinn's talk page a Breitbart article which I wanted to include as a reference which mentioned a modeling pseudonym, and this was construed as some kind of attack on her.
+===Statement by Gamaliel===
+===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
+===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
+===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ranze ===
+===Result of the appeal by Ranze===
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
+<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
+*

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