Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:33, 31 August 2015

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Dukisuzuki

Blocked indefinitely (non-AE) by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Dukisuzuki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:BALKANS :

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

Edit warring, personal attacks and battleground attitude on the article on Meša Selimović

July 29 Revert with edit summary "It's very disrespectful that Bosniak ultranationalists on Wikipedia are trying to distort this man's nationality". Ethnically based personal attacks. For the record, I am neither a "Bosniak" nor an "ultranationalist"
August 15 The edit summary used by Dukisuzuki is: "I don't give a shit about your faggot talk page you fucking baby-brained retard. Maybe if you could understand the language of this author that you are so keen on fucking with, you would realize..." Hmm so let's see. "faggot". "fucking baby-brained retard". So violation of NPA and homophobic language too boot ... the obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude is almost a side issue.
August 15 This edit removes another editor's (mine) comment from the talk page and also states "I don't give a shit about your notice, posting a notice does not allow you to rewrite history."

The "notice" refers to the big notice on top of the talk page which states: "By a long-standing consensus, and a Wikipedia guideline, Selimović is defined as a "Yugoslav writer" in the lead section, as his (disputed) ethnic affiliation is not directly relevant for his notability as a writer. Please review the talk page archives for endless debates on the subject before starting a new one." I pointed this out to Dukisuzuki and this is his response.

But ok, these edits were made before Dukisuzuki received a discretionary sanctions warning yet. I gave it here [1], on August 18.

Dukisuzuki kept on edit warring on the article, kept removing my comment from the talk page, and kept reposting his "I don't give a shit..." comment:

Talk page:

Continued edit warring against multiple users AFTER Dukisuzuki was made aware of the notice on top of the talk page and AFTER they were given a discretionary sanction notification:

August 20 Edit summary: "... Idiots like NoneSuchUser..."
August 20 WP:BATTLEGROUND

I should note that Dukisuzuki has continued to engage in tendentious editing even after this report was filed, and even after they have commented here:

changing "Yugoslav" to "Serb" in the article on Death and the Dervish
changing "Serbo-Croatian" to "Serbian" in the same article.

Added on 8/21

Below Dukisuzuki says "I now understand the error of my ways". This pretty much evidences that they haven't.

Oh yeah, also, I may as well state explicitly that I am not the same person as User:No such user and have no idea who they are. These accusations of sockpuppetry by Dukisuzuki are completely unwarrented and just more evidence of their battleground attitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And more [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on August 18

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a pretty straight forward case of WP:NOTHERE.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning Dukisuzuki

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 Dukisuzuki

There is nothing tendentious about my editing as evidenced by the following quote by Mesa Selimovic: "Potičem iz muslimanske porodice iz Bosne, a po nacionalnoj pripadnosti sam Srbin. Pripadam srpskoj literaturi" -> TRANSLATION: I COME FROM A MUSLIM FAMILY FROM BOSNIA, BUT BY ETHNICITY I AM A SERB. I BELONG TO SERBIAN LITERATURE

The context of this situation must be understood in order to comprehend my insults towards Volunteer Marek. Marek wrongly edited the ethnicity of a person who explicitly stated his ethnicity in a letter to the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences because he knew that there would be politically-fuelled historiographical revisionism regarding his ethnicity after his death. His ethnicity is and was one of the key details regarding the legitimacy of major political actions, wars, the deaths of thousands of people including some of my personal relatives, and his own literary works because they discuss ethnic questions in the Balkans. This is why I reacted so passionately to Marek's ignorance and intentional censorship of my citation referencing the specific letter included in the author's autobiography "Sjecanja" where he states his ethnicity and the language in which he wrote his works. I was also frustrated by Marek's sense of entitlement to censor my contribution with no explanation seemingly simply because he spends more time on Wikipedia than I do and my contribution did not fit his political narrative.

I reacted passionately to "None Such User" because he called me a "nationalist crap", and also because he was acting the same way as Marek was; censoring all of the citations I added to the article with no explanation for his action. I would not be surprised if VolunteerMarek and NoneSuchUser were two usernames that belonged to the same person.

I now understand the error of my ways, i.e that personal insults and harsh words are not allowed when addressing other users on Wikipedia, and that I shouldn't address users directly but rather solely talk about their content. I admit now that I didn't know the importance of this site's etiquette before this incident: especially Talk page etiquette. I will refrain from using harsh words and personal insults when addressing other users from now on, even if they use harsh words against me. I will also refrain from writing over users' comments in the talk page to respond to their content - in the future I will instead make another section in the talk page to address what they have written.

Dukisuzuki (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CONTENT OF MY EDITS OF THE ARTICLE APART FROM THE PASSIONATE REMARKS DIRECTED TO VOLUNTEER MAREK/NONESUCHUSER I LEFT IN THE EDIT SUMMARY. MY EDITS ARE AND WERE CONSTRUCTIVE AND BENEFICIAL TO THE READERS OF THE ARTICLE. HERE IS THE SPECIFIC QUOTE FROM MESA SELIMOVIC HIMSELF WHICH PROVES ME RIGHT: "Potičem iz muslimanske porodice iz Bosne, a po nacionalnoj pripadnosti sam Srbin. Pripadam srpskoj literaturi" -> TRANSLATION: I COME FROM A MUSLIM FAMILY FROM BOSNIA, BUT BY ETHNICITY I AM A SERB. I BELONG TO SERBIAN LITERATURE

Statement by EvergreenFir

Given the updated language at WP:HARASS, an indef is more than warranted here.

Statement by No such user

Ahem. While I used to criticize AE for bringing rush decisions, I believe we have a clearcut case of WP:NOTHERE and an apparent consensus of administrators. Can somebody please close this? No such user (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dukisuzuki

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

Indef? I'm not sure there's much point in going through the whole DS dance. T. Canens (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with an indefinite block. The tone of his edit summaries and talk posts doesn't suggest he is here to improve the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The August 15 comment alone justifies an indefinite block. Gamaliel (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeffed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settleman

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 Settleman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA, "general 1RR restriction"

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

20 August 2015 14:00. This edit is a revert by virtue of substantially repeating this edit, which adds the paragraph that begins "According to Regavim...". Both edits are intended to convey the notion that the village did not really exist before 1986. No talk-page consensus supports doing this.
21 August 2015 7:56, straightforward deletion of text added by another editor

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I ask that the 1RR violation be dealt with on its own "merits"; the editor has participated on the talk page Talk:Susya and has therefore undoubtedly seen the prominent notice about "active arbitration remedies". There are other issues of POV-PUSHING we might consider; I think this editor is mainly interested in placing the work of Regavim (NGO) on relevant articles here, and if we don't deal with that issue now we'll likely have to do so soon. I'm also convinced that this editor lacks the constructive attitude necessary for editing in this area; one indication of this is this talk-page contribution, where the final sentence ("But they are fighting zionists so lying is not only acceptable but apparently encyclopedic") is a direct attack on the contributions of other editors -- it indicates Settleman's view that other editors believe that it is acceptable for organisations opposed to Regavim to "lie". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A recent talk page comment reinforces the impression that the editor is here with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude: "Repeating the same speech again and again doesn't make you right, just obnoxious." It also shows the extent of disagreement about this issue that persists on the talk page even now; the notion that Settleman acted per a consensus is simply false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settleman now says that I have not been active at Susya, nor at Grant Shapps which is the article related to the other AE report I filed. Both claims are untrue; Settleman should strike/retract them. (It's not up to me to demonstrate that they're false; it's up to Settleman to demonstrate that they're true.) Anyway, the real cause for concern is when someone is over-active at an article, i.e., edit-warring... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [4]

Discussion concerning Settleman

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 Settleman

Technically I guess I'm at fault but the first edit was a result of a long discussion with Kingsindian and Nishidani which I took for an agreement.

The POV-PUSHING issue it very good description of what I'm doing as I try to change this article from saying "settlers expeled Palestinians many times" to sometimes that is less simplistic and more accurate.

It is interesting a user who didn't participate in the conversation takes the time the analyze the tone I use and even gets deeply insulted. Settleman (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert: Please note additional discussion on RSN. Settleman (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I appreciate your vote. I think full protection will not be constructive. Editors are having good, even if heated, discussions on the talk page and I believe they will all agree the page had evolved in a significant way during the past month. This complaint was filed by an editor with minimal (more like non-existing) contribution who have since filed another complaint for a page on which he isn't active. This is quite a disruptive behavior that does nothing but wasting time (unless it is his official function???). Settleman (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: You know other editors can see what I said and that you're twisting my words, right? I wrote your contribution was minimal to not existing. You filed this complaint after deleting text in discussion on both the talk page and RSN. 32 hrs later you drop a line in RSN and BOOM, a complaint. Is it 'active'? Sure. Is in constructive? Not in my opinion. Settleman (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Don't recruit 'soldiers' (So, can someone undo "Settleman", please?) and you won't be blamed for declaring a war. Settleman (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

While this is a technical WP:1RR violation, and I do think Settleman has a rather obvious POV (I do too, quite his opposite one, and so does everyone in this area), I think Settleman's edits are almost all in good faith. The first edit was made after extensive discussion on the talk page, and had a rough, though not total consensus. See Talk:Susya#RHR_and_b.27tselem_as_RS and many other sections on the talk page. Whatever his real world motive might be, his edits on WP are by and large quite legitimate. This should first have been discussed on the Settleman's user talk page, and if he refused to revert, only then brought here. It is very easy to break WP:1RR in this area, even by mistake. See, for example here, where I broke it by mistake (though the editor who warned me was a sock, that is irrelevant), and here, where I only warned the editor, though he refused to revert. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert: To clarify the content issue here. The discussion on the talk page is about two kinds of sources. First, Regavim (NGO), and second Rabbis for Human Rights, B'Tselem, etc. The first edit only pertains to the Regavim source. The rough consensus was to use it with attribution, which is what Settleman did in the first diff. The point which Nomoskedasticity is talking about, pertains to the use of the other sources and is Settleman's second diff. Both are reverts, technically, the first one had a rough consensus, the second one does not. The second issue is still being discussed on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

In cases where an edit is made as a result of talk page discussions, it is clearly not in the same class as a "gotcha" for making an undiscussed revert. WP:CONSENSUS supports the use of "compromise language" discussed on a talk page in search of a consensus, and to make that concept void for the sake of someone being able to say "you addition of 'the' in the lead is a clear 1RR violation - you gonna get banned" would make a mockery of what "compromise discussions" should result in. (Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately) Collect (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

My view is similar to that of Kingsindian. Although Settleman edits with a strong POV, often at odds with mine, he doesn't fit the standard pattern of armchair activist that the Mideast area of the encyclopaedia is beset by. For a first 1RR violation I'd recommend an official warning as the appropriate response. Zero^talk 12:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Settleman has from his first edit shown classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, latest today, with this edit: "Your request above is a 'declaration of war'." He has also been involved "slow" edit-war on other articles (besides Susya):

2:01, 24 August 2015 remove material
12:01, 24 August 2015 remove same material.

Huldra (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Georgewilliamherbert: firstly, AFAIK I have edited 2 articles with Settleman: Susya and Regavim (NGO). Susya I edited first 27 June 2014; long before "Settleman" was made as an account. The Regavim (NGO) -article I found because I regularly "stalk" Nishidani and Zero000 (Yes! I admit it!), and they had both edited the article extensively.

As for my warning "A-I alert / DS warning June 15." ; this is the first I hear about it, and there is no indication of that on my talk-page. Huldra (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Settleman

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

I don't think acting on the basis of a talk page consensus, subsequent to a single independent revert, is a 2nd revert in a reasonable sense. if that 'screally all it was I'd say not actionable. But I want to inspect the details. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingsindian - Ok, yes I see that. But the restriction is on more than 1RR, which would require that we count the first one (which though technically a revert was discussed and consensused first, correct?). I'm viewing this as a case where the first edit is a consensus change which goes to an earlier version, not a "revert" per se. 1RR (and the more general 3RR) are intended to stop disruptive edit warring; the first one is evidently by all review an OK change, the second one perhaps not but has not been fought over just talked over, correct? Basically, I am leaning towards us just calling the first one an edit, and the second one the policy-limited 1RR, and lacking further disruption we call it a day. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Huldra, you certainly are following him around a lot. Your edit he responded to was not as explicit but contained a bunch of WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. And you received a A-I alert / DS warning June 15. Are you sure you want to keep pushing these buttons?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - (for others) The log date was June 18 not 15, my mistake, but some tech error happened between thr log and page history. Separate discussions snd email to Arbcom unrelated to Settleman. See my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favor closing this with no block of User:Settleman but would recommend two weeks of full protection for the Susya article. The protection could be lifted once consensus is found on the talk page for the disputed matters. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a strong warning is sufficient, blocking would be overkill and perhaps harmful in this circumstance. As for full protection, I'm neutral. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect

Consensus is that this request is not actionable. T. Canens (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Collect

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 2600:1000:B025:1B16:3EF:73E8:77D7:9C35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Collect (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/Collect_and_others#Collect_topic-banned_.28option_2.29 :

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

22 Aug 2015 Collect contributes to a deletion discussion regarding a photograph of Gary Hart, an American political figure. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace.
22 Aug 2015 Further contribution to the deletion discussion.
23 Aug 2015 Discusses the issue at WP:BLPN.
23 Aug 2015 Discusses the issue at the Village Pump.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13 July 2015 Collect was blocked for a week for violating his topic ban.

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.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Gary Hart is a former US senator, two-time presidential candidate, and at present is the United States Special Envoy for Northern Ireland appointed by President Obama. The photograph under discussion was a major contributor to Hart's withdrawal from the 1988 presidential race. Gary Hart is unquestionably a US political figure.

Also, yes, I'm an ip. No, I don't have an account. I'd appreciate it if my request can be evaluated on its merits. Collect is conducting breaching experiments to test the limits of his ban.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

Discussion concerning Collect

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 Collect

Again asking for an investigation of this "anonymous" IP. No way is this a "new user" AFAICT. Not only is the issue of copyright ownership of a photo unrelated to "US politics" rationally construed, Gary Hart is not a current political figure at all, nor are any of my comments remotely construable as being political. I was accused of "crying 'harassment'" in the prior case - but I suggest this is a blatant case which should be dealt with promptly before this becomes a weekly show of stalking. Collect (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The issue of copyright ownership has absolutely nothing to do with any political issues whatsoever, nor did I make any comments on any pages other than those directly associated with the subject of deletion of an image for reasons of copyright. I suggest, moreover, that the IP who avers he is "not a registered editor" is absolutely engaged in stalking here, and failure to act concerning such stalking is unwise for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I specifically made zero comments about Hart whatsoever -- thus I made no comments "about" him. As for the belief that any page which mentions a political figure en passant is thus a "political page" - that is an insane position to take and implies I can never even post on UT Jimbo because someone may mention a political figure on that page. Deletion discussions have as a rule not been considered "political discussions" in the past, and to make all deletion discussions potentially political is unsupportable by any logic at all. Next I will be banned from RfA discussions because someone may mention a former politician in such a discussion? Or mention a "political article" somewhere in a lengthy discussion on reliable sources that I can not comment on reliable sources? I suggest copyright is about the least political topic imaginable anywhere, and that you should be more concerned with the blatant stalker than anything else. Collect (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyddlestix - I made no edits to any article or article talk page here - I noted copyright at a deletion discussion and on a proper Wikipedia discussion board, but zero edits on any political article or article discussion page. Just to be clear again I made no comments about Hart on any page whatsoever. Collect (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyddlestix Iterating - I did not make any comments whatsoever about the article. Period. Not once. The issue I dealt with is simple - does Rice have a clear copyright to a photo. That only. I did not mention anything whatsoever remotely connected to Hart or to his article other that the single quote from Cramer showing that Rice voluntarily gave the photo to another person. Is this sufficiently clear? (I never mentioned the article, never discussed the photo's use in any article, nor any rationale for fair use etc. - only the claim of copyright which was wrong.) Collect (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyddlestix I never even dealt with what was in the photo - if it were a photo of Mount Vernon my position on copyright would have exactly been the same - and you should note with candour that I never mentioned the nature of the photo in any post - dealing strictly with it on the basis of the claims for deletion which hinged on it being copyright by Rice. I also did state that the Miami Herald is generally considered a "reliable source" (having 20 Pulitzer Prizes) despite political arguments raised by the person seeking deletion of the photo. Collect (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

Second AE from an IP against Collect in a week... seems suspiciously like WP:STALK/WP:HOUND... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jbhunley

(edit conflict) It is pretty chicken shit to be reporting these little infractions anonymously but this one is without question a violation of his topic ban the terms of which read "Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption." (Emp. mine) There is no excuse for Collect to be making the reported edits. A topic ban means stay away from the topic not see how close one can get to the fringes and not get sanctioned. The topic ban is not relating to current US political figures but all US political figures - as it is worded this means all the way back to George Washington, kind of silly but it is what it is. Jbh ^Talk 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert: That is a reasonable stance to take and I would agree with it if we were talking about people who have not been part of the American political process or debate for many decades. Twelve years is still very recent in US politics. I do agree that the edits were really not political but that in not what the topic ban is about. The applicable wording is any page relating ... to US political figures ... in any namespace meaning ArbCom felt there was potential for disruption in that area. We are not, or should not, be debating whether disruption occurred or was likely to occur but whether the topic ban, as written, was broken. Bans are given out for a reason - in this case that the editor is likely to become disruptive within the area of US politics - continued testing of the boundries should be discouraged it will eventually lead to a repeat of the issues the ban was put in place to avoid. Jbh ^Talk 21:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I failed to make it clear above. I do not think Collect should be sanctioned here but he should be advised that this was a de facto violation of his ban even if unintentional. Collect is a valuable editor and has much to contribute. I do not, however, see how not acknowledging technical violations, once reported - however reported, is of long term benefit to the project.

I do not know how issues of IP harassment are typically handled but, in my opinion, Collect should provide a CheckUser with a list of potential editors via email and have them crosscheck with these addresses. While this not be typical procedure it probably should be and in any case it might be able to nip this in the bud before it becomes a bigger issue. Jbh ^Talk 22:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Glrx

"Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace." The figure is of an ancient political figure, and Collect is clearly banned from Gary Hart's page or making an edit about Gary Hart. However, the file for deletion discussion is not a discussion about politics or political figures: it's about copyright, and Collect's edits were focussed on copyright issues. He mentions Rice but in the context of her owning the copyright; mention of Hart seems to be inside a quotation. Collect doesn't even come down as a keep or delete: Collect disputed arguments about Rice holding the copyright; Collect was silent on fair use. Collect may be testing boundaries, and he may want embarrassing photos of Hart published, but I would not ding him on this one. FWIW, I think the photo fails fair use, but Collect is adding valuable clarity to the debate. Glrx (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

I'm sorry to say that, at least in my eyes, this has to be counted as being at least marginally political. I can see arguments that "diplomacy" and "politics" are unrelated, but I think that has to be counted as a bit of a stretch. Diplomats engage in government related work, and government generally qualifies as politics, broadly construed. Also, with at least one individual from roughly the same era, Biden, apparently actively considering running for president again, I don't think the argument that he has been grandfathered out of "politics" is well-based. He could well endorse one or another candidate in the race, as a formal candidate, and that would certainly be in the area of "politics." Having said all that, the nature of the existing sanction, to "politics," is itself problematic, as the definition of the term is itself open to question. Maybe particularly in this case, considering that the edit in question is from a discussion in which there seems to be some question of copyright violation. Maybe, at best, a statement from the AE enforcers about whether this is or is not within the scope of "politics," and, maybe, if so determined, a very short block, might be called for. BLP violations, in general, are not considered within the bounds of sanctions, and although I haven't gone into all the details of this case I would have to assume copyright violations might be similar to BLP in being outside the scope of regular sanctions. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyddlestix

This reporting-as-an-ip nonsense is incredibly petty and lame, and I think Collect is quite right to call for an SPI here. If the IP can be tied to another editor then that editor should obviously face some serious sanction.

That said; I'm sorry, but Hart is a former Senator and a political appointee of the Obama administration. If he's not a "political figure," then I'm a purple gorilla. And Collect's topic ban prohibits "making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace." For Collect to ~~edit the talk page of this article or have anything to do with any disputes related to it~~ make comments about Hart, or related to his article is a crystal clear violation of his topic ban. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect:, you're quite right about the talk page, my bad. I've struck that bit. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: I can see your point, but in my mind wading into a debate over a photo of someone is pretty clearly an edit "about" the person in the photograph. Hopefully you can see how/why someone might reasonably hold that position. Anyways, it's for the admins here to judge, not me. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I also request that a Checkuser look into the filing IP, in relation to existing or past accounts. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by another editor

Result concerning Collect

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

Hart has not been in politics per se for decades, though he remains politically affiliated (current work is diplomatic in nature). I think this is further from the explicit ban area than the July incident which was ruled a breaching experiment against the topic ban. It's not cleanly away from the area, but also far further removed. That said... The particular thing being edited about seems related to the prior political career. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Jbhunley - At some point it stops being politics and becomes history. The case that Hart remains tangentally political is valid, but his last discussions of office were 12 years ago. This photo was regarding something 28 years old. I believe that those are historical. Discussing Pres Carter's cancer would be a hypothetical clearly historical action. But other uninvolved admins need to weigh in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The OP should be sanctioned for abuse of process. Collect has not violated the topic ban. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hart is a political figure, but Collect's discussion was restricted to copyright issues. It would be absurd to sanction Collect for these comments. This strikes me as a frivolous request. Gamaliel (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Gamaliel. This complaint also strikes me as being made in bad faith. The filer is clearly someone trying to evade scrutiny while attempting to seek action against another Wikipedian. Poor form, use your regular account to complain about others if it is not already blocked. Chillum 22:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No action warranted. Let's close this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin

Declined as stale (the reported violations date from some six weeks ago). AR informally warned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Arthur Rubin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Arthur Rubin (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/Tea_Party_movement#Discretionary_sanctions 5 September 2013
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Arthur_Rubin_topic-banned 5 September 2013
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#August_2014_.28Arthur_Rubin.29 Arthur Rubin amendment 23 August 2014

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

Disruption of an Request for Comment process through deletion of RfC notices and RfC notice updates for Tea party movement-related RfCs notices prior to the expiration of the RfC discussion period.

24 July 2015 deletion of an RfC notice regarding a Tea party movement article (Americans for Prosperity) from noticeboard WP:RSN with edit summary "Spam"
27 July 2015 removal via OneClickArchiver of an RfC notice regarding a Tea party movement article from the talk page of a closely related Tea party movement article (Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers, which is listed at Americans for Prosperity#See also)
31 July 2015 deletion of an update to an RfC notice, providing a close date, regarding a Tea party movement article from noticeboard WP:NPOV
31 July 2015 deletion of an update to an RfC notice, providing a close date, regarding a Tea party movement article from noticeboard WP:ORN
31 July 2015 removal via OneClickArchiver of an RfC notice regarding a Tea party movement article from noticeboard WP:RSN

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

5 September 2013 Topic ban as party to Tea Party Movement case
14 December 2013 blocked for violation of Tea Party movement topic ban at Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers
block log
23 August 2014 Amendment request; TBan lifted; indefinite 1RR imposed, with appeal available August 2015

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 Tea Party Movement Final Decision.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see 14 December 2013 and the block log.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 14 December 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 23 August 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

WP:RFC specifically authorizes RfC notices to one or more noticeboards and the talk pages of closely-related articles. WP:Discussion_notices#Best practices states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and identifies "setting a time for the discussion to end" as a best practice. An administrator of our project failing to model best practices, as expected of all editors in an area of general and discretionary sanctions, emboldens other editors and is seriously frustrating the goals of the Tea Party movement and American Politics final decisions in fostering an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. The reported user's amended remedy has proven ineffective. Respectfully request review of the reported behavior, re-evaluation of the amended remedy, and consideration of a re-instatement of the topic ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Arbitration enforcement request notice

Discussion concerning Arthur Rubin

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 Arthur Rubin

Hugh already brought this matter up. I can't help it that it got archived without a response from an uninvolved admin. I haven't kept track of Hugh's topic ban, but if it hasn't expired, this is in violation.

As for the edits in question, as far as I can recall, nobody but Hugh ever commented the the edits of his that I reverted weren't spam; technically, making announcements on unrelated pages might not be a violation of WP:CANVASS, but it is still improper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

WP:RFC does state that announcements of an RfC may be made in various locations, and update announcements may be appropriate, but I'm almost sure that noone has ever posted an RfC notice on all such locations (except WikiProject Conservatism, but including the talk page of an unrelated article and a noticeboard unrelated to this RfC, although one in which the article had been mentioned). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Hugh should have mentioned his topic ban, and it clearly would have applied to this complaint. I think, though, I need to request permission to redact parts of my statement which have been shown to be inaccurate. I need permission because Fyddlestix replied to them, and it would make those parts of his comment look misguided. (I was going to ping GeorgeWilliamHerbert about the topic ban when I got home; I have not figured out how to paste diffs on my smartphone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this seems to have been closed, I don't feel a need to comment in detail as to the merits of my actions or the complainant's actions. However, I do recognize that my edits were in the Tea Party area, and may very well have been in violation of the general (Tea Party) 1RR as well as my slightly different 1RR. The complainant's actions related to RfC announcements were clearly in violation of 1RR, and would have been in violation of his AfP topic ban if done earlier. I do need to be more careful about reverting "obvious" attempts to disrupt an RfC; I would have liked a clean discussion of that RfC, which was still vaguely possible until the spamming occurred, but it could have waited, as it had to do anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The complainant's further edits are generally in violation of his new topic ban, relating to American politics, except there was ambiguity as to whether that only applied to article-space. I believe it's been clarified now. In general, topic bans on X include bans on discussing other editors' actions relating to X, even if not "broadly construed". Here, though, the ban was originally written as "articles related to American politics".

I would prefer not to go into the details of any improprieties of the original complainant which prompted my actions, unless deemed necessary, as he is now (I believe) clearly banned from doing anything similar. However, it is quite clear that opening this report without stating that it was delayed because he would have been in violation of his topic ban to start it earlier was withholding clearly relevant information. That the facts were brought up shortly thereafter (but not by him) is not really a point in his favor; it's not really a point against him, either, because he was blocked shortly thereafter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fyddlestix

I'm not gonna comment on whether or not Arthur needs sanctioning here, but I will say that the drama between Hugh, Arthur, and a few other editors (Springee springs to mind) seems to be getting out of control - I really think that admin action is needed to fix this, or it's going to just drag on and on.

See Hugh's previous report of Arthur here [6], the multiple ANI complaints against Hugh (only 1 of which led to any action)[7][8][9], Hugh's own noticeboard complaints [10][11][12][13] and the current report of Hugh at 3RR by Springee [14] - note especially the allegation there that Hugh is being followed from article to article by a few other editors, including Arthur (as I've commented there, I think there's actually some evidence of this).

All that just over this summer, all involving more or less the same small circle of editors, and focusing on a small number of articles like Americans for Prosperity, which was paralyzed for a month by this complete disaster of an RFC. It's a mess; these editors are clearly not even trying to get along, and some of them are clearly "out to get" each other at this point. It needs addressing. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin:, Hugh did already make a complaint against you here (it's here), but that was about an entirely different issue (namely, NPOV tagging/tag removal). You're incorrect to suggest that nobody ever suggested the posts weren't spam, see the several people defending them when his edits were raised at ANI. As for Hugh's topic ban, it is here. It applied only to "anything related" to Americans for Prosperity, and included "any noticeboard discussions about the RFC, any further debates about the closing, whatever." It was a 2 week ban, imposed August 8, so basically 14 days ago. (@Georgewilliamherbert:, there's your answer, it looks as though Hugh thought he was topic banned from raising this until today.) Fyddlestix (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Your statement here is wildly inaccurate. Your own edits to the article here were a complete whitewash, utterly inconsistent with what the vast majority of reliable sources say about Americans for Prosperity. While I don't agree with all his edits and certainly don't agree with his editing style, Hugh was responding to a very real, very blatant POV problem on that article - which you and Arthur both helped to create. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: You know you're supposed to comment in your own section, right? As for your diff there, funny how the very next discussion started on the talk page was a detailed rundown of how completely and utterly out of step with reliable sources your "NPOV" version of the page was. So the incorrect part of your statement below is the assertion that Hugh was POV pushing - even if he was, this is a rather severe case of the pot calling the kettle black. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HughD

@Georgewilliamherbert: An administrator recently recommended stepping back from Americans for Prosperity for two weeks, and I took the advice. After reflection, there was still something that needed to be done. The behavior of an administrator of our project is a very real impediment to fostering civility in the area of the Tea Party movement final decision, please help. I was not sure if an AE filing would be a violation, but I was very sure some would argue it was, as demonstrated by the reported user's initial response to this filing, now deleted, please see 23:11, 23 August 2015. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Hugh (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: This filing is reporting disruptive editing, by an administrator of our project, who is currently under editor sanctions, in an area under general and discretionary sanctions. This filing makes no reference to content and is not a content dispute. Other editors are influenced by the behavior of the reported administrator in deciding how far they can push within the bounds of our Arbitration Committee's directives to us to be "especially mindful" of policy and behavioral guidelines and to "follow editorial and behavioural best practice". This is a very real problem. Please help. Thank you for your careful consideration of this request. Hugh (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: What do you mean "inevitable"? What do you mean "explosion"? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:, @Newyorkbrad: May I respectfully ask, what is the statute of limitations on reports of multiple deletions of RfC notices by an administrator of our project while under editor sanctions in an area under general and discretionary sanctions, approximately? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:06, 7 August 2015 Ricky81682 wrote on my talk page "Take two weeks off in full from this issue." Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: This is not a misleading AE report. It is not a report regarding an article, it is a report on behavior, the behavior of an edit-restricted administrator. I never wrote anything misleading in this report or anywhere else. I did not report my ban here because I did not know it was relevant. I was not prompted by the filing form to summarize my recent history. I did not explain the delay in this filing in the initial statement above because I did not know there was a delay that needed explaining. I did not know of the statute of limitations. There was no intent to conceal. 17:33, 23 August 2015 George asked why the delay, and 23:11, 23 August 2015 the reported user answered, Hugh was banned, before I could answer (subsequently deleted by the reported user). 23:47, 23 August 2015 another editor jumped in, confirming the answer, Hugh was banned, with a diff. By the time I saw the question, I had nothing to add to the answers. 09:44, 24 August 2015 I quipped "I was asked to step back" after the ban was clearly and prominently in the record, knowing no one would take me literally. No one did. No one was deceived. There was no intent to deceive. There was no deception. My history is a click away from the first line of this filing. The only way I could have possibly in my wildest dreams succeeded in a plot to conceal the ban would have been if I had figured out some way to disable that link and also prevent the reported user from bringing it up, which he did in the first line of his statement, now deleted, not struck through, by the reported user. I respectfully request we please maintain focus on the behavior of an administrator of our project who deleted multiple RfC notices regarding an area in which he is under discretionary sanctions, and the effect such an administrator has on the editors around him, a real problem for our project. Hugh (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: I am not pretending anything. I never argued against the RfC close, I asked questions of the closing administrator to try and understand the close. I did not post an RfC notice at 26 different places, I posted it at three noticeboards and two closely related talk pages. Hugh (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: "Collapsing my own section as it is not at all relevant to the conduct of User:Arthur Rubin" Really? Just dropping by to discredit the reporting user Rick? Your work here is done. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Respectfully, my read of the reported administrator's amended remedy of 24 August 2014 is that it is indefinite. The earliest date available for appeal is specified as one year from the date of the amendment, that is, 24 August 2015. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This report was filed seeking review of an ongoing problem of behavior in our project, and with the understanding that the reported administrator’s amended remedy of 24 August 2014, which relaxed his topic ban of 5 September 2013, was contingent on compliance with the remedy and on compliance with general and discretionary sanctions, including exemplary behavior, and subject to review in the light of behavior. In his statement in the Original Discussion of the amendment, the reported administrator pleaded for a relaxation of his topic ban in the area of the Tea party movement, in part seeking resolution of a contradiction he perceived in his position as an administrator, and as ArbCom topic banned, stating "I'm allowed to revert banned editors at TPm pages, but I'm not allowed to talk about it." The reported administrator requested a relaxation of his topic ban specifically in order to correct technical errors he encountered in his patrols of articles in the area of the Tea Party movement and to engage in argument on talk pages in the area of the Tea Party movement. Respectfully, I have to believe deleting RfC notices from noticeboards was not the type of edits our arbitration committee had in mind when his edit restriction was relaxed 24 August 2014. Thank you for your careful consideration of this report. Hugh (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reported administrator was an involved administrator in the RfC to which he deleted conformant RfC notices and updates, posting multiple comments in opposition to the launching of the RfC as well as in oppostion to inclusion of the content proposed by the RfC. Hugh (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reported administrator wrote above: "making announcements on unrelated pages ... is ... improper." No RfC notices were posted to unrelated pages. No deletions of RfC notices from unrelated pages are reported here. The RfC was posted at noticeboards and the talk pages of related articles, as clearly, specifically authorized by WP:RFC. In any case, there is no basis in policy or guideline for deleting entirely, objectively conformant RfC notices and updates. Hugh (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by non-party onel5969

@Ricky81682: If you think that's not encouraging, take a look at the Americans for Prosperity since Hugh's topic ban has expired, where he has gone directly back to POV pushing on the page, now that other editors have grown tired of his wall of comments on numerous pages. Another editor has even removed the POV tag from the page, even though the POV is even more slanted now. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyddlestix: Actually, my edits were an attempt to bring the article to an agreed-upon consensus. At the time those edits were made, HughD was the only editor, of several involved, to have a dissenting view. Perhaps you missed that? Take a look at the talk page on the day I began my edits (June 24). Hugh's was the only dissenting voice, here's a link for your convenience. And what is incorrect about my statement below? He was blocked for 2 weeks; after the block is lifted he almost immediately begins his POV pushing editing. It's not rocket science, it's pretty blatant. But, you go your way, I'll go mine. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Jusdafax

Per Dennis Brown, below, you have an admin in violation of ArbCom sanctions. Looks clear cut to me: corrective action needs to be taken. Jus da fax 18:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Arthur Rubin

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

Why... Are these being made three weeks later?... ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that I am the only one sick of the constant dramas around Hugh's editing. This request is a rather obvious abuse of process in an attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Is a sanction in order for this? For example a six month ban from use of Wikipedia process against other editors with whom Hugh is in dispute? Hugh: in response to your point, insert "long stale" and see how that reads back to you. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: It was inevitable, I think. Unfortunately the teabaggers are adept at long-term WP:CPUSH and winding up other editors to the point of explosion. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline as stale, which is not to say it would have been a violation if it weren't stale, but Arthur Rubin could usefully be mindful of the concerns expressed going forward. I hear JzG's point about potentially sanctioning the filing part, but at this point I'm not inclined to pursue that either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing my own section as it is not at all relevant to the conduct of User:Arthur Rubin. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take serious objection to one comment by HughD. There was no admin "recommended[ing] stepping back from Americans for Prosperity for two weeks," and HughD following good advice. I explicitly imposed a topic ban on HughD from the article for two weeks due to a large amount of disruption which resulted in more arguing by HughD at ANI about the ban itself and then a re-iterated comment that any argument about the topic ban would result in a block. I'm staying largely uninvolved but that's not encouraging. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert:, @JzG:, @Newyorkbrad: To provide background, HughD was topic banned specific from that article, the RFCs, ANI and everything related to it (JzG may recall the idiocy that was the close of the draft RFC versus the close of the "real" RFC). I'm glad HughD didn't try to take the position there was an exemption for AE but that may explain why this is stale. However, in retrospect, based on other conduct to support a new user User:Kochtruth (since usernamed banned and told to pick another name), I have topic banned HughD for one year broadly from the entire Tea Party movement area. If editors will file misleading AE reports including misstating that they themselves have been topic-banned from the article they want to report on, I see zero reason to allow them to edit in the area. I limited it to the Tea Party movement at the moment as the climate change issues seem to be a subset of these and the broader post-1940s US elections one seems excessive. No opinion on Artur Rubin but we may need another filer then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HughD, I'm telling you to drop it and take a night's rest. You had cross-posted notices to 26 places for your "real" RFC (and not your "draft" RFC) and after JzG closed it and you wanted to continue arguing with JzG, I topic banned you from one article to get that nonsense under control. I could not make myself more explicit. That topic ban shut down the entire ANI discussion and ended all of it. You don't get to turn around afterwards and act like you just chose to take a break while attacking the behavior of others there. It's clear you said that because if you said "I didn't file it right away because I was topic banned from the article after creating two RFCs and cross-posting it to 26 different places and arguing with JzG here], you'd look bad. And does that affect Arthur Rubin's conduct? No and so I'm done. We don't get to wait around until you go over the top again to be issued another topic ban that you can again pretend never happened. Well at least for one year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what Newyorkbrad says, however, I think it is clear that Arthur overstepped here, and I hesitate to do nothing considering the sheer number of edits that are arguably related to the Tea Party RFC. I prefer seeing this within two weeks, and quicker to dismiss after 4 weeks, but this is in the grey area. Also, I note the ban is due to expire, but that doesn't really matter as it is in full effect on day 363 the same as it is on day one. If I set aside all concerns about HughD, forget that Arthur is an admin, put away all the drama about the Tea Party (and I would ask my colleagues to refrain from calling people "teabaggers"), I'm still left with a violation of an Arb topic ban. Arthur should have (and I assume he did) know that his actions were in violation of the topic ban, as they were specifically targeted at a Tea Party RFC, not some random topic, nor was it a single edit. I'm hard pressed to just ignore that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for at least an acknowledgement of some kind from Arthur Rubin on whether or not he feels his actions violated his topic ban, and if it did, why it was important to do so, and what he planned moving forward. I'm not completely sold on sanctions, but this looks too much like sweeping it under the rug if we ignore the very reason we are here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin, I think the main thing here is that we insure the community that you aren't granted special privileges by virtue of the bit, and if anything, you are held to a higher standard. The fact that you have any kind of restriction in an area tells me you have a degree of involvement or at least a history of problematic editing. As such, you should get outside help with the problem rather than acting proactively. It isn't a matter of wrong and right as much as the appearance it gives to the greater community, and in this case, I feel you came up short. With some trepidation, I'm willing to defer to Newyorkbrad's judgement and conclusion, but it should be clear that in the future, you need to tread more carefully in areas where you have Arb restrictions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please I would like to better understand "stale." Is there someplace I can read more about it? Please I would like to better understand the conditions under which deleting RfC notices from noticeboards is acceptable. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect

No action now. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Collect and others has been opened to determine what happens in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Collect

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Collect (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: Collect and others, "Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period."

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

23 August 2015, 17:55 Straightforward deletion, removing material added in this edit (with subsequent minor amendments by other editors)
24 August 2015, 12:54 Straightforward deletion after the material was restored following the first deletion, well within a 24-hour period

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See block log...

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

Having been banned from US politics, Collect appears to be heading towards the same sort of trouble with UK politics. Be that as it may, there's an obvious violation of 1RR here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brustopher: Collect's sanction offers the following exception: "This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism." It does not include an exception for BLP violations. The reason for this is that Collect has repeatedly and routinely abused the notion of BLP exceptions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brustopher, if you'd like to modify the sanction, there's a process for proposing that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect is now touting his "BLP defender" credentials. Let's revisit what the Arbcomm decision said: "Collect's article edits are indicative of incorporating a non-neutral point of view, including added poorly sourced negative materials to certain biographies of living persons". We've been here before: the project is not well-served by having Collect edit-war on BLPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Report now includes the edit that corresponds to Collect's first revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [15]

Discussion concerning Collect

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 Collect

Again. The question here is clearly whether a source that states "Extracts of the get-rich-quick scheme created by the Conservative Party chairman, Grant Shapps, were revealed for the first time last night since it disappeared from the internet." (The Independent) and "To be clear, we have no evidence that this amounted to a pyramid scheme. It just sounds like one." (The Guardian) should be given a section title of Alleged pyramid scheme since neither source makes that allegation, and a "pyramid scheme" is a criminal offence in the UK. Per WP:BLPCRIME, allegations of a criminal act require strong sourcing, and neither source makes the allegation. I consider "neither source making an allegation" meets the criterion of "unsourced or poorly sourced" accusation of criminal acts. I posted the concern immediately at the proper noticeboard, as is required. [16]. My two BLP edits on the article were at 12:54 24 August and at 17:53 on 23 August, with posts to the OP at [17] 23:20 23 August, indicating the BLP issue, and [18] 23:22 on 23 August. One might recall I have had a number of AE "suits filed" in the past three days, and I suggest that the BLP issue here is real and substantive - involving making an unsubstantiated claim that a person promoted a "pyramid scheme" when neither source made such an allegation. Collect (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request RevDel of the attack 'The reason for this is that Collect has repeatedly and routinely abused the notion of BLP exceptions noting that the OP has routinely and repeatedly made that accusation at WP:ANEW and the findings there have generally found that BLP issues did exist. [19] where the finding was the material was likely BLP violative but I had not specified WP:BLP in each summary; [20] where the issue was whether calling a person or group "homophobe" in Wikipedia's voice was proper - later decisions have made clear that calling anyone a "homophobe" is a contentious claim, and is opinion, and so on. I tend to, in fact, be pretty good at treating BLP as a serious matter - no matter who is involved (vide Jeremy Corbyn etc. ) FWIW, the OP seems to follow me a great deal (sigh) Collect (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for reminding folks that I went to Europe this year (Hermitage etc.) and was absolutely unable to provide full rebuttals at all to the "evidence" in that case, and that I was barred from providing evidence later. Amazingly enough, when one is unable to actually answer charges, and is forbidden to rebut them when one becomes able to do so, it is a teensy bit easier for "decisions" which assume that the lack of rebuttal meant the charges were not contested. But I am sure everyone appreciates your claims that I am a BLP villain of the first water <g>. But what the ... does this have to do with your assertion here that saying someone is alleged to commit a crime when the sources do not say that? Collect (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JBH - I noted from the get-go that I was going to be away for a substantial period unless you happened to miss all of that. and asked I be given until July to prepare full responses. (reasons include the extended trip and a minor problem called melanoma for which my wife lost about 800 cc of her arm) Recall -- I had presented no evidence against anyone, so my first section was addressing what had been the charges - - while I was unable to even log in, other "evidence" was presented which there was no way in hell I could rebut because I was not around to do so. Had I been given until July, I would have rebutted the thin evidence presented just as I had rebutted all the initial charges (that I called an editor anti-Semitic was one which rankled a lot!). So now that you assert that my trip to Russia was "bull" I know your position all too well (sigh). So I suppose you feel it is ok to label a person an "alleged criminal" - noting that I did indeed go to BLP/N with the issue? Really? Alleging that someone committed a felony is a big deal. Period. Now I would be impolite left to my own here - but I shall avoid that temptation -- and wish your wife the same health my wife will hopefully have. Collect (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request JBHunley be IBanned from mentioning me in any namespace. He has made specific false claims about me. [21] is clear that I would be unable to do much at all until 15 June 2015. [22] ditto. If those posts were not clear to anyone with eyes at all, then I damn well should give in to the infernal harassment which I have mentioned in probably too many places. To be clear - jbh is not the record holder.

Evidence provided of "harassment" (I have over two hundred other diffs if you need them) (editor is easily inferred)

[23] *I'd also invite Collect to provide a diff for the assertion that someone has called him "anti-Semitic" -- that's a serious accusation, and if it's true then there should be a sanction which was odd as I have never on any post said anyone called me "anti-Semitic" at all.

[24] We now have the proposer opposing his own RfC -- so to avoid any further ridiculousness... hatting an open RfC - and I find no rule saying a person posing a question must have a specific answer to the question. [25] since you have a well-entrenched habit of trying to put words into the mouths of other editors, I've decided not to worry about it when you do that to me. Have fun

Consider the likelihood of two editors just accidentally editing the same page within the timeframe indicated: (FWIW - the time difference is generally between my edit and the subsequent edit of my stalker as in some cases it was not a blatant response to my edit or were in different matter on a noticeboard etc.)

Min time between edits

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 25 seconds
Breitbart (website) 56 seconds
Talk:Pamela Geller 59 seconds
Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot 1 minutes
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 1 minutes
Campaign for "santorum" neologism 1 minutes
Talk:Outrage (2009 film) 1 minutes
Talk:Michael Grimm (politician) 1 minutes
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons 1 minutes
Marco Rubio 2 minutes
Talk:Marco Rubio 2 minutes [26] "never heard of talkingpointsmemo" on 21 Nov 2012 ... when he posted in a discussion about sources in 2010 which included it in a list)
Talk:Alex Jones (radio host) 2 minutes
Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines 2 minutes (super example)
James Delingpole 2 minutes (blatant)
Talk:Chip Rogers 3 minutes
Talk:Robert Kagan 3 minutes
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard 3 minutes
Michael Grimm (politician) 3 minutes
Talk:Rick Santorum 3 minutes

19 pages all with a maximum of 3 minutes between editor interactions with my edit being first - what are the odds? Especially considering some comments therein. -- if this is not prima facie evidence of my edits being specifically stalked, I do not know what would be evidence. Collect (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it does not look like your interactions is because it is the interactions with the OP here - it would be improper for me to address your edits, but reasonable here to show a handful of his edits. I would have a heart attack if you two were the same person <g>. Collect (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish - I had no intention or relitigating anything - but disliked having a person call me a liar where I show the diffs that I said I would not be able to complete evidence in the allowed timeframe. I know I should have told my wife not to have a life-threatening cancer, but I did not think that would be effective, even if we used homeopathic remedies. As a result, I did not have a reasonable opportunity to rebut multiple sets of "evidence" and noted that some wished most of what I did give to be removed as being over the evidence limit <g>. Amazingly enough, cancer is more important than Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to anyone offended - one might get a teeny bit curt with back to back to back accusations, followed by added accusations of lying about asking for added time in the past, and the like. I would kindly ask others to walk in my moccasins, as the adage goes, to see why I might be curt here. Thank you all. Collect (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Rebuttal to the "evidence" provided was what I wished to have until 15 June for -- the evidence I provided showed that my essays were not evil, that I never called an editor an "anti-Semite" etc. Any other claim here is an order of magnitude worse than "bosh and twaddle" at this point. And even that small amount of material was objected to by the same people who are bringing me to noticeboards every other day - and I am damn tired of it. I am on a Wikibreak in order to regain patience and while on that clear Wikibreak I get an unsigned alert that yet another action is being pursued against me. I ask each of you - how would you react? And I fear I regard some of the aspersions cast at me to be willful prevarications of the first water. Collect (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC) (back on Wikibreak - but if another damned complaint is made while I am on Wikibreak, I shall be a teensy bit disappointed in the character of such editors as the "IPs" of the virgin birth on Wikipedia, who have still not be examined by anyone at all as far as I can tell.[reply]

Statement by Brustopher

The information reverted is a completely vacuous accusation of a crime which only has a single paragraph of a news article dedicated to it, in which it is written "To be clear, we have no evidence that this amounted to a pyramid scheme." Obvious BLP exception. Brustopher (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: Well he's not abusing them right now, and WP:IAR exists for a reason. If anything the more serious issue here is you reverting back very weakly sourced allegations of criminal activity into a BLP, from sources that technically don't even allege a crime. Brustopher (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity, what I'd like is for us to approach the situation reasonably. If what Collect did improved the encyclopedia who cares if it's breaking a rule? Brustopher (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

You admins who frequent this page more than me probably know this better, but I am getting the impression, oh, I don't know, that maybe, just maybe mind you, Collect is getting a little more attention than most editors in general get around here, this being at the time of this writing the 3rd section of a total of 7 on the page about Collect. I would be the first to acknowledge that if someone is topic banned from an area of content, it would probably be a good idea to avoid that content, even in terms of BLP, copyright, and other issues. The fact that there are so many complaints might indicate that maybe Collect might benefit from a polite warning that maybe he would be well advised to less obviously dance along the dividing line between sanctionable and unsanctionable here, and, maybe, if there is any sort of (gasp) organized or disorganized "let's get Collect" movement here, maybe in anticipation of the increasingly covered US election races, maybe a bit of warning to others about too dogged pursuit of him might not be a bad idea either. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I think that much of what John Carter said directly above me is very sensible, and I largely agree. However, it seems to me that the sanction in question makes an exception, explicitly, only for unambiguous vandalism. The content that was reverted was not unambiguous vandalism. This is a content dispute with BLP concerns, but it is not a case of vandalism. It does raise BLP issues, and there was nothing wrong with Collect drawing attention to those concerns without actually making repeat reverts. There are multiple editors who could have actually performed the reversions in this case. The BLP issues do not meet the definition of unambiguous vandalism, particularly in the context of ArbCom's findings in the case, regarding the use of BLP as a justification for edits. I think that this AE filing, unlike the two very recent filings by an IP, does show an attempt by Collect to test limits. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of stating the obvious, it would be a good idea for editors to focus on the filed claim here, and not engage in a general discussion that re-litigates the ArbCom case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins: I think that Floquenbeam's question to Georgewilliamherbert and Newyorkbrad is the right question. The case in point is not a "kicks puppies" issue, but rather a genuine content dispute with BLP playing a role in deciding how to resolve it. The decision at ArbCom was explicit about finding that Collect had misused BLP claims, and the sanction was deliberately created so as not to give exceptions for BLP enforcement. It seems to me that the just-closed final decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement is pretty clear in that, although it encourages administrator discretion at AE, it discourages administrators from having "the effect of interfering with the enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision." I think that ArbCom was quite clear in saying that "I was doing it because of BLP" would not be an acceptable excuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jbhunley

Not directly pertinent to this particular event but whenever his sanction is brought up seriously Collect claims he was prevented from presenting evidence at ArbCom. That is absolute bull. He spent the entire evidence phase repeatedly stating that he would not present any evidence

In response to the Case notification he wrote. "Please note that I shall proffer no evidence on any arbitration case." [27]
Ammended to "Please note that I shall proffer no additional evidence on any arbitration case. This page, in itself, is all the evidence I shall provide." [28]
"...kindly note that I shall not provide any statement nor evidence not present on this user talk page. " [29] (Which he did. See his talk page)
Again he makes it pretty clear that he was not going to participate in the Evidence Phase but was going to defend himself on his talk page "If you (ArbCom) wish to copy the entire pertinent material from this page and consider it "evidence" kindly do so, but do not expect me to suddenly change course and do so for you. "

There is more, it was kind of a theme. There is even an entire section in the case on Collect's non-participation. He did however, later, present 3650 words of evidence. He bases his entire schtick of "not being able to defend himself" on the fact that ArbCom did not grant him a 2 month extension which he asked for in the final hours before the close of the evidence phase. He then used the refusal of this request to try to short circuit the ArbCom process (edit summary: proffer if I do not get until 1 July to answer all the "charges" made). However he spins it now he spent the entire evidence phase taking a 'principled stand', then near the close went over the evidence limit by ~75% and now complains that ArbCom did not give him an additional two months! Since this was a planned trip one would think he would have brought it up at the beginning of the case. Of course this way there is an injustice to claim to offset the sanctions. Jbh ^Talk 21:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: I watched/participated in the events leading up to your case pretty closely and I do not recall you making any attempt to say you would be away and unable to participate before the time of the diff I linked. If you can show a diff of where you brought this to the attention of ArbCom and the other participants I will apologize and retract. Anyone who wants to read the history can and they will see you had enough time to carry on about the case on your talk page and to write a 3600 word response. As I said at the time I might have been inclined to support your request if you had made a good faith effort to address the evidence throughout the evidence phase. As the diffs show, you did not.
As to the BLP, what you are missing is that you are not the arbiter of BLP nor OR nor SYNTH nor anything at all except your opinion. We had a protracted case where this problem was addressed. No matter the BLP violation you can not violate your restrictions. That is the whole point of a bloody ban - it defines certain actions which you no longer may do. Jbh ^Talk 23:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The ArbCom case was created 23 March 2015 and the evidence phase closed 6 April 2015. You seem to have been pretty active throughout that time [30]. Jbh ^Talk 23:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Collect: You do not get an IBAN just because you do not like what I have to say or because I point out areas where your claims are not fully congruent witth objective reality. Why do you not post an actual link to the editor interaction tool like this. It does not show what you have copy pasted nor have I edited most of the pages you mention at all. I strongly suggest you strike your false claims and apologize. Jbh ^Talk 23:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~You still must make it clear your accusations of harassment above have nothing to do with me.~~ The editor you dis not name is Nomoskedasticity, the diffs seem to be of his edits maybe the interaction times are as well but you imply otherwise. You asked for an IBAN with me based on a comment I made here which your diff shows was true then you load it up with a bunch of claims having nothing to do with me while making it look as if they do. That behavior appears very deceptive to me. If you want an IBAN present some real evidence. Jbh ^Talk 00:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However this goes, sanction - not - whatever, the end result will be some sort of drama if Collect manages to pull out a BLP exception to his restriction. Much of the conflict that was addressed in the case had to do with his ideas of "obvious" being at odds with many others view ie the very definition of not obvious. I fear wiggle room will become squirm room will become elbow room will become ArbCom drama fest. I do understand your positions, anyone should be able to revert obvious vandalism and BLP violations. However the whole reason we have restrictions and bans is that some editors have shown that their views of certain policies are not in line with the community's frequently enough that they cause disruption and therefore should be restricted from doing what "everyone can do". In this case Collect has shown he can assess "obvious vandalism" but, in enough cases to be disruptive, not "obvious BLP violations" hence the wording of his 1RR (Excepting obvious vandalism) restriction.

That said I think it would be right, as an exception, to not sanction Collect on this report but it needs to be made clear that if he violates 1RR again claiming BLP he will be sanctioned. Jbh ^Talk 01:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why people are discussing the EW policy 1RR(3RR) here, that is not what the case sanction is. The sanction reads "3) Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.". That seems pretty clear. Jbh ^Talk 13:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Fyddlestix)

Oh dear, we seem to have gone off the rails a bit here. There's no need for rev dels or IBANs that I can see, Collect and JBH are quite capable of getting along - when they're not discussing the ArbCom case - and have worked cooperatively together in the past.

Collect, if you feel that nomo is harassing you you should probably raise the matter at ANI. One thing, though: have you considered the possibility that both you and nomo just watch BLPN really closely, and end up editing the same articles a lot because of that? I know that's often why you and I cross paths, and both you and nomo tend to be quite active there.

I note that Collect has announced that he's taking a wikibreak. Given that, the unusual situation of him having had 3 reports made against him on this page in a very short amount of time, his apology for (understandably) being a little bit testy, and just the general weirdness of this situation (with the IP reports), I personally think this would be a good time for us to cut Collect a break, and for everyone to just move on. It may be that Collect needs to be more careful with reverts and his topic ban - but the hassle of being reported here three times (twice anonymously) seems like more than enough of a reminder of that. Hopefully he will take a bit more care not to violate the restrictions ArbCom placed on him on his return, and I certainly hope that he won't face further anonymous complaints. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no one cares what I think - but FWIW I've changed my mind on this. I'm convinced by Floquenbeam and JBH's arguments that if we give Collect an inch here, he's likely to take a mile in the future. Using his own personal, often over-zealous interpretation of BLP to remove content he doesn't like is a long-standing issue with Collect, and one of the main reasons he ended up at ArbCom. Plus, I think Floquenbeam is right to worry that giving Collect a pass here will just give him an excuse to flaunt/ignore/undermine ArbCom's decision in the future. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Settleman

I'm new around here but it seems like Nomoskedasticity is more busy requests against other editors then editing. He wasted my time and now he wastes Collect's. It should be a policy that an editor cannot file these requests unless he has taken meaningful part of the conversation. Settleman (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Glrx

An easy part is the purpose here is not to relitigate but rather to enforce. The arbitration discussion did raise the issue of Collect improperly invoking BLP to serve a POV, and a finding had Collect removing reliably sourced material from a BLP. The remedy was 1RR. The remedy was followed by "This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism." The problem is 1RR already has implied exceptions for both vandalism and BLP. I don't read the remedy as excluding the BLP exception. If it intended that, it should excluded the exceptions rather than confirm them. (Sorry for wikilawyering here.)

BLP is, of course, a riskier play; it is safer to post a notice than to revert.

The reverted content gives me trouble. Let me accept that the content is reliably sourced by the Guardian. The content does waffle about a pyramid scheme, but it does describe something that could be a pyramid or a clever way to avoid some legal definition of one. For example, the story does not say the first buyer must share his profits with the original seller. Our article reflects that doubt; the allegation is not in WP's voice. The Guardian does not say the cost is $497 claimed in our article (where did that price come from? why are the prices in dollars?); the Guardian does say it promised making $20,000 in 20 days. Consequently, even if the product avoids the pyramid scheme label, it smells of fraud. The Guardian ties the creation of the product directly to Shapps even though Shapps has now transferred his share of the company to his wife.

I'd like more sources, but the controversy also seems to be part of the Grant Shapps#Pseudonym and second job denials section due to the pen name "Michael Green" (who also authored the $20,000 in 20 days guide). We come back to the Guardian, but there's another source, Buzzfeed (I'm not impressed), and a third source has video of Shapps making a statement that was later retracted. There are some other twists and turns about threatened lawsuits, but I don't have the patience to go through them.

It's thinly sourced, but I think the content survives and should not have been reverted twice.

Given the thinness, I'm reluctant to advocate a block, but Collect should have been more circumspect. I'll second John Carter. Glrx (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

1RR restrictions, like 3RR, are established and governed by WP:EW. which is policy. WP:EW states that 1RR is analogous to 3RR, and does not indicate any operative differences between the two aside from the number of reverts involved. WP:EW sets out seven exceptions to revert limits, including reversion of obvious vandalism. Other exceptions include the removal of copyright violations, reverts of one's own edits, and reverts in one's own userspace. Under the theory set out by editors urging that Collect be sanctioned, the failure of Arbcom to mention these exceptions means that they would also not be permissible for an editor under 1RR. This is obviously not a tenable position. If Arbcom intends that the full range of exemptions not be available to a sanctioned editor, it needs to say so directly. Alternatively, the community could amend WP:EW to specify differences between 1RR and 3RR exemptions. But neither would apply retroactively to Collect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Collect

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

This is, on the face of it, a straightforward 1RR violation, but the article in question is a WP:BLP and the material is contentious to say the least. I would recommend that Collect is given a shot across the bows and counselled to take it to Talk. I don't think a block will achieve much, this is not an incident where it is worth using the nuclear option. I am inclined to assume good faith, in the knowledge that I may be in a minority in doing so - I agree entirely that it would be legitimate to sanction based ont his edit, I just don't think it's a particularly good idea given the content in question. Just as long as Collect does not repeat the edit ever - this should now be left to someone else. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad and Floquenbeam both make excellent points. I guess the consensus will be no block (which I think is correct), but I guess also that we should clarify to Collect that the 1RR has no exceptions other than obvious vandalism, and that even there he should err on the side of caution and hand it off to WP:ANI or some other suitable venue. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear 1RR violation; the question is whether BLP violations are intended to be exempt the way clear vandalism is. Considering the wording of the ArbCom remedy, and the fact that Collect's interpretation of BLP was a key issue in the case, that's a clear "no". If Collect wants a BLP exemption to the 1RR restriction, he'll need to request it at WP:ARCA. The question then becomes, is it reasonable to expect Collect to know that BLP is not an exemption to his 1RR restriction? If it was solely up to me, I'd say yes, and block for two weeks (since there's already been a one-week block for a previous violation of his restrictions). But I'm willing to defer to Guy and issue a clear warning instead. If Collect violates 1RR for anything other than obvious vandalism in the future, he'll be blocked for two weeks. If it was boundary-seeking, he found it. If not, then now he knows. If a consensus of other admins develops that this is blockable now, I explicitly don't oppose a block, I'm just inclined to defer to an admin who's already commented. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Floquenbeam that the 1RR has no BLP exception (expressio unius est exclusio alterius). I'm inclined to block. T. Canens (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unimpressed with Collect's conduct in the past, as obviously have ArbCom, but in this instance I don't think there's a case to answer. I don't see a 1RR violation—I can't find an edit that the first diff was reverting, and AE has previously decided that simply removing content is not evidence of a revert in and of itself. Secondly, Collect seems to have behaved entirely reasonably, and above the minimum standard of conduct—his removal was reverted; he reverted the revert with a detailed edit summary and then immediately took the matter to the talk page. It also helps that Collect appears to have honest and well-founded BLP concerns rather than this being a trivial content dispute. I note that the disputed material has been restored but has been partially rewritten in a way that should largely assuage Collect's concerns. I'm not impressed with the filer's conduct in knee-jerk reverting and then filing an AE request instead of engaging on the talk page. I'd suggest this be closed with no action and a recommendation to all parties to move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the sequences, though the BLP violation nature was discussed back and forth, I have a hard time concluding it was anything but a good faith belief that it was a BLP problem, not any boundary testing. There was certainly something BLP-edge in the content, which ever side of policy it landed on. I am sympathetic to suspicions that there's boundary testing, but in this instance the one removal, one revert back to removal with good edit summary and simultaneous taking to the talk page is exactly what we want any editor to do on a BLP issue. If Arbcom wants us to be stricter they can ammend with motion or somesuch. If Collect starts doing more obvious boundary tests or abusive editing again that's a different story and we can clearly act upon those. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Georgewilliamherbert. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgewilliamherbert and Newyorkbrad:, it sounds like you're saying that since he really thought it was a BLP violation, it therefore couldn't be boundary testing, and therefore no block should be imposed. I'm happy to defer on the no-block decision, but it's important to clarify this for next time. To be clear: Collect does not have an exemption on his 1RR restriction for BLP violations; ArbCom limited it to obvious vandalism, specifically (I'm fairly sure) because his judgement regarding BLP was one of the issues in the case. Whether he's doing what we would normally want another editor to do is immaterial; normal editors are not subject to ArbCom-imposed 1RR restrictions. I believe it's also immaterial whether he thought it was a BLP violation or not, but it sounds like you're disagreeing. Are you saying that we should overlook it this time, but similar edits in the future should be sanctioned? Or are you saying that if he does this same type of edit again - two reverts on a BLP-related issue - you would again say it isn't boundary-testing, and therefore not blockable again? Please clarify or expand; I don't think it's in anyone's interests that it is unclear what is going to happen if he violates 1RR on BLP grounds again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone puts "[BLP subject] kicks puppies" into an article, I'm not going to support blocking any editor for removing it. If it's a less obvious BLP violation, I can see why they might be different, and I'll defer to the consensus here. But we will all look like dummies if bad BLP content stays in an article for a long time, and someone is able to legitimately claim "I would have removed or fixed that but I wasn't allowed to." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam: Arbcom didn't say "1RR" it said "1RR except for obvious vandalism", which starts to resemble the usual "3RR except obvious vandalism" which is then separately accounted as "3RR except obvious vandalism (or, clarified elsewhere, BLP violations)". Which to me makes the sanction look a lot like it was intended to mean "take 2RR off 3RR and proceed normally, with all that entails".

Look, if you want "1RR no exceptions" we can do that. We can block editors who remove obvious vandalism, obvious BLP issues, horrid personal attacks a second time after they have been sanctioned etc. AE is entirely capable of being as hardass as Arbcom insists it be. But, I don't support that, except in extreme cases.

Collect is an ongoing PITA on some levels and got case'd and sanctioned over it. But, we've had three cases that EITHER are people trying to hold him to the strictest level of the Arbcom sanction and hitting AE apathy, or are people trying to catch him out using sanctions that were borderline too grey and strict to work, and hitting AE trying to be reasonable. We're getting sanction requests over good edits. Which may look slightly longingly towards testing boundaries, but were still good edits.

If you think he's boundary testing, you're an admin, boundarize him. I don't agree, and the three recent filings were all fundamentally about good edits, and I won't over this stuff. If you want the enforcement to be stricter then Arbcom can quickly whip up a motion to make the sanction clearer or stricter, we'll abide by it, as long as it's enforcable.

"1RR except obvious vandalism" can be "1RR except obvious vandalism or BLP issues", or the other way "1RR except obvious vandalism, no exception for BLP issues", or even "1RR with no exceptions". Or 0RR.

AE has been exceptionally hardass on people in the past and was ill-liked as a result, resulting in unfortunate outcomes. I don't want that. I also don't want people ignoring or cheating on legitimate needed Arbcom restrictions and getting away with it. They were behaving badly and the findings were needed. Even a good edit can cross a clearly established restriction line, and I would react then (and have, and do, and will).

I don't want Collect misbehaving any more than you do. Actual misbehavior that was short of the restrictions and I'd be looking a lot harder.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both responses are disappointing; NYB's because it has almost nothing to do with the case at hand, and GWH's because it's playing games with the English language. I suppose the result is that eventually Collect is going to get blocked for a long period by an admin who interprets the ArbCom remedy as it is written, and then he will indignantly refer to your comments to explain why it was OK. I've no problem not being a "hardass" now, but I think you're setting him up for failure in the future, by explicitly encouraging him to violate a pretty clear ArbCom restriction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam:: My response admittedly was discussing a general case rather than just this specific edit. @Collect:: Floquenbeam's concern is something you need to think about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Floquenbeam has the best bead on the situation, it needs to be made clear that BLP really isn't an exception to his restrictions. Of course, he can revert a bad BLP issue in the future and maybe he will get blocked and maybe not, but we need to use the most literal interpretation here and now, if only for his sake. Moving forward, he should consider BLP edits to be NOT an exception granted in his sanction, unless this is clarified by Arb. So, per Guy, I'm for giving the benefit of the doubt, no block, clear warning for future edits. I would also encourage to get clarification, so BLP violations can perhaps be included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of notes:

Collect can currently revert what he considers a BLP violation; he is not on a 0RR restriction. He cannot re-revert if someone reverts him. He can report it to the appropriate noticeboard.
Someone has already started an ARCA request about this, so ArbCom will have a chance to revise this restriction.
This has run its course. Closing as "No action now, WP:ARCA thread opened to determine what happens in the future."

--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lidaz

No longer relevant since CU has indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Lidaz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lidaz (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: Eastern Europe (discretionary sanctions)

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

29 Aug: blanket revert of multiple edits, baseless accusation of "vandalism"; reintroduction of heavily ungrammatical English; reintroduction of factual claim that was conclusively shown in talkpage discussion to be false (cf talkpage [31])
29 Aug same accusation of vandalism, blatant failure of AGF, evident inability to communicate appropriately in English
[32] previous rv of same factually false claim not verified by cited source
28 Aug ditto
17 Aug unexplained blanket rv of constructive edit by anon, reintroducing the same heavily ungrammatical language
16 Jul more introduction of heavily ungrammatical material

Update: Lidaz has now made 4 additional reverts of the same material since this case was filed, calling another two experienced outside editors "vandals" and "members of a conspiracy" [33][34][35][36]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: n.a.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): standard alert, given today (before latest batch of disruptive edits)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Evidently a tendentious agenda account whose command of English is quite inadequate for participating appropriately here. Single-purpose account, has been active on the Yulia Tymoshenko article and related topics since October last year, always in the same tendentious manner. Latest talkpage thread (Talk:Yulia Tymoshenko#Allegations of torture) displays complete failure to get the points other users are making. With this lack of English skills and this battleground mentality, this editor will always remain a net negative for the project. Would have indef-blocked him myself, as an (up to now) completely uninvolved admin happening to come across the edit-war, but then my first reaction on seeing the mangled article was that I tried to fix some of it myself, so I probably no longer count as uninvolved.

Note that the editor he was initially edit-warring against, ‎Againstdisinformation (talk · contribs), is quite likely a sock of some sorts and probably quite as tendentious (see multiple current WP:ANI threads relating to him), but in this particular instance he appears to have the better grasp of the sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, somebody should also look into the similarities between Lidaz (talk · contribs), Jan777 (talk · contribs) and Paulvh5 (talk · contribs), who all edit the same small set of articles, all write the same poor English, all revert to the same versions, and all have the same style in communicating with other editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Socking now reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lidaz. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [37]

Discussion concerning Lidaz

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 Lidaz

Statement by Againstdisinformation

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I commend you for correcting the falsities in the article but I protest in the strongest possible terms your unsubstantiated allegation that I am "quite likely a sock of some sorts and probably quite as tendentious". This is mere speculation on your part. I have assigned myself the Quixotic task of tracking inaccuracies and disinformation in Wikipedia, knowing perfectly well that this would get me into trouble, as is illustrated by your unfounded accusations here as well as previous clashes with biased editors to which you are referring. Please do not discourage me from accomplishing a task which, while useful for Wikipedia, is very demanding and not at all rewarding for me.Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lidaz

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

Note: I was planning to play this super-safe in terms of "involvedness" policy and leave this case to others, despite my complete lack of involvement in this situation until yesterday, because I had made two edits to restore one of the pages edit-warred over to a slightly less chaotic stage as a first reaction on stumbling across the ongoing edit-war. However, seeing as this report has drawn no action in over 20 hours, and the user in question has continued on a rampage of edit-warring, both with his main account and a sock, I've now pulled the emergency break and stepped in myself, indef-blocking both accounts. Call it IAR or call it a claim that my edit [38] was "minor or obvious and doesn't speak to bias" – anybody is welcome to review my blocks and modify them at their discretion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: CU confirmation of socking is now also in, all three accounts confirmed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot due to CU. I think that this clearly falls into "what other admin would do" of WP:INVOLVED, and the level of involvement was minimal anyway, so I don't see a need to review FutPef's actions in a more formal way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein

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

Request concerning MarkBernstein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Masem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

16:39, 2015 August 28 Out of the blue, Mark starts mentioneing My Little Pony, which is an area I am involved in too. While this is not direct evidence of anything wrongdoing yet, it comes up again, and its inclusion out of the blue seems purposely targeting me. That said, I let this slide beyond asking to not continue personal attacks.
19:22, 2015 August 29 Mark starts using this (to me) passive-aggressive "M____" thing to name me without naming me, reacting to when I referenced a comment he had made as "Mark" simply as common WP shorthand ([39]), but which Mark took as "he persists in using my first name as if we were great pals", which is huge assumption of bad faith), and claiming that I want to expose all these accusations ("And once again we're talking about how the ~~nasty liberal~~ press is all bias, naming specific publications but without the least indication of what ethical lapses M_____ dreams they committed."), when I was trying to point out that there have been some claims mentioned and reiterated that we cannot include those claims in WP (see [40] and [41].
20:17, 2015 August 30 More use of the "M____" thing as well as undermining my editorial abilities, despite my asking him to stop issuing personal attacks [42] and [43].
23:09, 2015 August 30 More use of the "M____" thing, as well as continuing to try to undermine my character by pointing out what I've written on WP on My Little Pony stuff.
01:54, 2015 August 31 in reply to a comment I made regarding that there does exist two sides in the GG controversy. Besides continuing this "M____" thing, the edit summary he gives is "That it is necessary to explain this to adults -- much less adults who purport to be competent to edit an encyclopedia, beggars belief", which is a full on personal attack.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

These all were prior to the completion of the GG ArbCom case but while community sanctions were active.

17:39, 2014 November 28 by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Blocked for "disruptive rhetoric and behavior incompatible with collaborative editing."
00:08, 4 January 2015 by east718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for "violating your topic ban with these edits"
17:00, 2015 January 24 by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for another topic ban violation related to GG.

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 the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have been trying to remain as civil as possible on the GG situation and focusing only on the content (perhaps to where some might call my actions tenacious, which I will not dispute but only because I strongly feel the article fails core WP policies, needs more eyes to help, and the same battleground/ownership attitudes that lead to the first ArbCom case are coming around again; Other editors also agree there are NPOV issues with this article). However, I have been on the long-term end of MarkBernstein's attacks, who has engaged in personal attacks and battleground behavior prior (see above blocks) and through now. The above diffs identify just the most recent episode, and while the first few diffs I would have shrugged off, the last diff is clearly a sign that Mark is not here to work collaboratively but instead make sure the article maintains a very specific narrative, assuming bad faith against any editor that does not subscribe to that. I recognize that Mark is being criticized offsite by GG supporters for his views, and in good faith I can see how that might contribute towards his attitude to fight even harder to make sure they don't get their way on the article. But that said, the Lightbreather case emphasized the need to maintain civility to other editors regardless of the external conditions.

I had filed a previous AE complaint here [44] on the same issue of NPA (July), but it was closed due to a technicality and I chose not to pursue it based on the advice of others. However, I will stand that the diffs provided are similar to this behavior and generally part of a long-term problem with this editor. I note that after that closed AE, as Mark had asked during his statement, I did engage with him on his talk page to try to make peace in good faith and try to come to an understanding on the GG page (This is the conclusion of that thread) but he showed no sign of working collaboratively.

I recognize that some might be seeing this as a means to remove an opponent from a discussion and that there's a chance BOOMERANG applies, but I will point out that there are other editors that share the general concerns Mark has and take his stance on the current article's narrative that are much more open to consensus development, even if there are clashes of ideals (which is never a bad thing); these discussions go along fine without any editor breaking decorum. This complaint is specifically due to Mark's personal behavior and not to remove these opposing views from the discussion. I also recognize that some of the things Mark has criticized on my behavior are related to BLP, but I believe that I was very careful to stay within BLPTALK's limits (another editor even asked me about one case), but I recognize that that might be reviewed.

@Gamaliel and @Dennis Brown: I am willing (and have actually tried to in the past) to voluntarily step back into the spirit of limited posting that Brustopher's suggestion #1 covers, or at least having some type of TE warning dropped on that GG talk page or my talk page, and I'll back off; however, it is very hard not to reply when editors twist your stance around to make it sound in bad faith, as Mark did above with my bringing up accusations from other sources (which he attributed to accusations I was making direct when I was actually trying to agree with him), or with how both Johnuniq and Aquillion have both misrepresented how I'm asking for NPOV to be upheld by reporting contentious claims made in RSes as claims and not fact (and not that I am saying that we cannot use these RSes or suspend NPOV/RS), or referring back to the RFC that I started back in October 2014 that concluded that it was acceptable to augment our coverage (not replacing) with outside RSes to help provide neutral coverage of the topic. I've been long on the end of having my stance and editorial aspects questioned and twisted around on this topic, and that is probably why I have been wordy and tenacious to make sure my position is clear. I'll voluntarily takes steps to be terse/less involved from now on and avoid unnecessary/reiteration of my own comments, but there are several other issues involved that relate to the same battleground attitudes that the first case identified, of which Mark's behavior here is a prime example. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown I am not against a voluntary 3 month topic ban if that is believed for the best. As I note, I will immediately step back on the talk page, regardless. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumuzid: I have let many many NPA statements of various degrees against me by MarkBernstein simply go without calling them out over the last 8-some months, and otherwise ignored them for the most part. However, in this specific instance when I asked him to stop with the NPAs, specifically reiterating the text of NPA about "not to comment on the contributor", he persisted. He continues to persist by his statement below "Masem has been planning this for months on end", which is absolutely not true. He is assuming I am working in bad faith simply for wanting to create an appropriately neutral article on a difficult topic to cover neutrally. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: You never asked directly to stop calling you "Mark" (as noted it was simply shorthand that is common for WP talk pages to use instead of long names). but I will stop that now regardless, and my apologies if that was offensive. And I didn't decline to help stop harassment on WP on the long talk page, I pointed out that there are several sea changes that would have to come from both WMF (in regard to the open nature of the wiki) and the Internet in general to stop it completely. I did say that I will stop the obvious harassment/BLP violations but recognizing that there are various degrees to what are violations that a single all-or-nothing approach cannot work (all the more apparent based on the recent KWW case), so characterizing my attitude there as "He repeatedly declined" is not correct, my offer of how I will stop harassment/BLP issues is just not the answer you seem to want. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein

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

Statement by MarkBernstein

Masem insists on calling me by my first name, despite requests that he not. Perhaps WP:CIVILITY encompasses demeaning or condescending familiarity. If it does, then my parallel use is surely permitted; if not, I apologize for following the example of an administrator and will not do it again.

With respect to diff 5, a recent article in The Guardian quoted Zoe Quinn’s characterization of The Zoepost as abusive. Such reasoning is hardly incomprehensible: her ex-lover discussed intimate details of their life to exact revenge. Anita Sarkeesian -- an expert in the area -- characterized it as domestic violence. An expert interviewed by one of the world’s great papers is free to express that view, and that view is not difficult to understand or justify within the discourse of contemporary feminist critique. Masem repeatedly affects to misunderstand her to be alluding to physically violent prior conduct not in evidence; clearly, the only evidence Sarkeesian uses or requires is the published text itself. Masem may disagree with her conclusion, but Sarkeesian is the expert whose opinion was sought.

Masem has been planning this for months on end, but surely what we have is a gossamer pretext.

Have I insulted Masem? I have said that he misuses the term “begging the question;" I think you will agree. I have said that he appears to misunderstand the term “new journalism;” if you are familiar with the work of Tom Wolfe, Hunter Thompson, Joan Didion and crew, I think you will agree. Gently have I tried to point out instances where his errors of grammar or usage make his meaning unclear; if that's inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, I humbly apologize.

Meanwhile, the Gamergate boards this morning are filled with speculation that @Gamaliel: and I are gay lovers, calling me a “cunt” (again, among other things), and discussing ways to get more Gamergate supporters to dig up more dirt to throw here. Some have already answered the call. If you think those posts are not coordinated with and part of this action, you are making a mistake.)

I have for months explored every channel to reach a lasting settlement, including a long, long dialogue with Masem on my talk page in which I literally begged him to help end this disaster on any terms. He repeatedly declined. I have written letters, published articles, engaged on talk pages and policy discussions, seeking a lasting resolution consistent with policy and morality.

Few of you have lent much assistance.

What sort of Wikipedians do you want? Yes: you want more Wikipedians, but not just more: you want better Wikipedians. As one admin said not long ago, I’m widely (or wildly?) unpopular in these parts, but my sentences generally mean what they say, and say what I mean. I use facts with reasonable care, and I have never used Wikipedia to spread rumors about the sex lives of female software developers or to encourage those who do.

That Wikipedia has failed to express gratitude and thanks to its defenders is, in my view, neither considerate nor expedient. That I am termed here a harasser and a bully for trying to find a peaceful and lasting resolution, at exorbitant personal cost, is unconscionable. If some of you think my contributions to Wikipedia in this matter unproductive, the wider world appears to disagree. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: says that I did not ask him not to call me “Mark”. I did -- repeatedly -- but I don't have time and inclination to sort through fifty pages of archives to find the diffs for you. One occasion, though, was in verse at ARCA [45], a contribution that received a fair amount of attention. Find the diff yourselves if you want it; dollars to donuts, Masem contributed to that discussion and I am confident he is aware of it.

“Christian” names, to my ear, can sound rather familiar,

And I don’t recall that we’ve been introduced.

Adversaries adopt (in America) address

That’s more formal. I think Dr. Bernstein is fine.

I did attend Swarthmore: if perchance you’re a Friend

Or don’t like to use titles, my names, please, in full.

Of course, if he were genuinely unaware of this, he would have acknowledged that yesterday when I raised the point. Instead, he filed an AE complaint about my raising the point, and now affects bewildered contrition.

With respect to his tendentious reading of my effort to reach a lasting solution, he is again mistaken. I did not ask for world peace or an end to all harassment (thought either would be welcome!), I asked that he use such influence as he possesses to dissuade Gamergate from their continued attacks on Wikipedia and Wikipedians -- attacks like the wild speculations this morning that Gamaliel and I are involved in a homosexual relationship -- or that he propose terms under which he would be willing to do so. You have seen his response. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

Really, Masem? This is what counts as arb report worthy? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: When you refer to 'poking the bear', what is the bear in this analogy? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

If taken far enough, politely pushing a point of view (WP:CPUSH) becomes more disruptive than any uncivil outburst. Masem has made 427 edits to Gamergate controversy and 2397 edits to Talk:Gamergate controversy in just under a year.

In addition, there have been numerous noticeboard discussions, for example this NPOV archive has 128KB devoted to some hard-to-pin-down proposal to bend Wikipedia's standard procedures to introduce counterpoints to what reliable sources say.

Masem has had plenty of opportunity to make a proposal that would satisfy himself while being consistent with NPOV and RS. The fact that Masem still wants to discuss who-knows-what such as in this section indicates that it is time for Masem to take a break. A voluntary twelve-month break from all matters related to Gamergate would be fine, otherwise it is time for a topic ban to be implemented. It is not healthy for the community that Masem is able to soak up so much time and energy with polite suggestions that NPOV and RS be suspended for this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72

@Johnuniq: With respect, ...polite suggestions that NPOV and RS be suspended for this topic, is a gross misrepresentation of the editor's comments and actions, and I invite you to strike it, per WP:ASPERSIONS. A more accurate reflection would be that the editor suggests adherence to all aspects of WP:NPOV, including WP:YESPOV, in the face of other editors tendentiously insisting that opinions & contentious assertions be presented as uncontroversial & incontrovertible facts. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brustopher: While I genuinely appreciate the spirit and intent of the proposal, I cannot concur that it is proportionate to the behaviour of the editors in question. Looking at the history of the interactions, including the diffs above, I cannot conclude other than that Masem has been subjected to a sustained campaign of bullying and WP:HARASSMENT by MarkBernstein et al. In the sections which provoked this filing alone, Masem requested no less than four times that MarkBernstein cease making pointed, personal attacks; at each turn these requests were met with a continuation & escalation of the same. Editors may consider it to be minor; but it is sustained, consistent harassment, and heightened by the off-Wiki attacks to which Masem has been subject.

While I also appreciate the intent to address off-topic or non-productive Talk page discussion, I suggest that the proposal is disproportionate w.r.t the amount and nature of this behaviour. Looking over MarkBernstein's contributions to the discussions, both at the article Talk page, and at various "dramah" boards, there does not appear to be much that a reasonable observer would consider to be productive. The majority seems historically to be given over to quixotic, hyperbolic hystericisms; conspiracy theories about zombies & socks; WP:FORUM hung on the flimsiest of WP:COATRACKs; personal attacks and just plain, common, everyday WP:REICHSTAGing.

The issues with MarkBernstein's involvement in this topic space appear far wider reaching, and far more ingrained, that just the interaction between the two editors, as highlighted by a number of other respondents here; and consequently a one-way IBAN seems manifestly insufficient.

Even if the issues were so limited, I could not support rewarding bullying, harassing and personal attacks through sanction of the victim. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Masem has, more or less, been repeating the exact same arguments, with very little change, in the Gamergate article for nearly a year now. Roughly speaking, his arguments are that:

1. The mainstream media is biased against Gamergate. Because the controversy includes accusations against the mainstream media as a whole, normally-reliable mainstream media sources on the topic shouldn’t be considered as reliable as usual when covering it; therefore we need to include (and give more weight to) less-reliable, non-mainstream sources we otherwise wouldn’t use in order to balance this supposed bias out.

2. Gamergate is divided into (relatively) clearly-defined factions, including what he calls an “ethics faction”, which he believes the article needs to give more attention to. As I understand it, he wants key parts of the article to be structured around this division.

My point isn’t to debate these arguments here. My point is that he has repeated these arguments again and again with almost no change, regardless of what is said in talk, regardless of the current state of the article, and regardless of the fact that they’ve clearly failed to gain consensus, for nearly a year now. This is textbook Tendentious Editing (specifically, WP:REHASH).

To be clear, having a strong opinion about these things isn’t the problem; almost everyone has opinions on this topic. The problem is that he has repeated the exact same arguments, over and over, with virtually no change, for nearly a year. The frustration visible in MarkBernstein’s edits has to be understood in light of that; many of the arguments he’s responding to there are ones that Masem has repeated over and over and over again on that talk page. I can only assume that Masem is frustrated as well (since he clearly believes the arguments he's putting forward, and has spent so much time and text repeating them while getting nowhere), but simply repeating them over and over for nearly a year is not a solution and has made the talk page a sometimes-frustrating place to deal with. I feel that that is, overall, a more serious problem on the talk page than the relatively mild comments he linked to above. --Aquillion (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brustopher

After a lot of thinking I have come up with a solution which I think will satisfy no one but deal with all of the concerns addressed here:

The following editing restriction is placed on Masem: "Masem may only edit Talk:Gamergate controversy to, 1. propose a specific change to the article, 2. oppose/support a change proposed by another editor 3. remove obvious vandalism or BLP violations." The main problem with Masem's comments on the talk page is that they're often theoretical discussions of wikipolicy that go nowhere. This restriction will help counteract this problem.
MarkBernstein is banned from interacting with Masem. If you dig up the diffs from this request, Masem's previous request and MarkBernstein's original request against Masem on the WP:GS/GG/E page there is probably enough evidence to support this. While it's mostly been minor stuff, it's been minor stuff over a long period of time.
Working on number 3/placeholder for any order concerns raised/an attempt to deal with offsite issues

Thoughts? Brustopher (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: My intention here was not to punish Masem. It was to counteract negative and unproductive editing patterns. I know that seems like an incredibly disingenuous and political response, but it's really the truth. Frequently starting long and rambling philosophical policy discussions that don't really go anywhere, and lowkey insults against another editor over the course of half a year are editing patterns which in my opinion ought to be avoided. But I don't think either of the involved parties are bad people who ought to be punished. However as it seems my proposal is unworkable I (for what it's worth) endorse that of Dennis Brown. Brustopher (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Omegastar: I strongly suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills. Please note that my intial proposal includes an interaction ban for MarkBernstein. Brustopher (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darwinian Ape

I am having trouble understanding editors asking sanctions against Masem, who was extremely patient and always focused on the content. Gamergate controversy article has problems, I think no objective editor can deny this fact. And in order to fix that, you have to challenge the status quo that's not POV pushing. They say Masem is pushing a POV, and being civil. I agree with the latter but not the former, and I urge them to produce any evidence of him pushing a POV before suggesting a yearlong self imposed topic bans. It seems some people think that if you stay in a contentious topic long enough you have to be doing something wrong. Mark Bernstein, on the other hand is both pushing a POV and being severely uncivil to say the least. Apart from the personal attacks targeted at Masem, he questions the motives of anyone opposing his viewpoint. If you are new, then you are either a sock or a part of some evil conspiracy to infiltrate WP, if you are old, well we have seen how it went with sitush. In my opinion he is incapable of being impartial on this topic, and extremely hostile to the opposition, thus a net negative to the project. --Darwinian Ape^talk 13:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I don' think it's fair to ask Masem to volunteer to a topic ban. Gamergate article is on my watch-list for a while now, and not once have I witnessed anything remotely worthy of sanction on part of Masem. It really will be a false balance if Masem gets a sanction in here, so I implore you not to. If the behavior of Bernstein was an isolated incident I would wholeheartedly agree with Dumuzid that this is not a big issue, but it's not. It is an ongoing rant after rant from Bernstein demonstrating he is not here for an objective article. I seriously doubt a 6 month block would be enough either, because as evident by his reply here he believes he is not doing anything wrong, and to add insult to the injury, he declares that ...and discussing ways to get more Gamergate supporters to dig up more dirt to throw here. Some have already answered the call. If you think those posts are not coordinated with and part of this action, you are making a mistake. casting aspersions on editors who commented here, not to mention his ridiculous "It's Mister Bernstein to you!" attitude. Darwinian Ape^talk 18:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I've missed that. Though it would be, perhaps, nice if you leave the duration of the break to him. Darwinian Ape^talk 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

Pretty much everything Darwinian Ape says above is true. Whatever the issues with Masem's participation are (and I disagree that he has been anything like a net negative in the topic area), MarkBernstein seems to be almost incapable of making any edit in the Gamergate area that doesn't contain a personal attack, an insult, or baseless speculation about the motives of any editor who does not fully agree with him. Masem is only the most frequent recipient of this behavior-- Bernstein behaves this way toward anyone he sees as not being on his side. It contributes much more heat than light in an already contentious topic area, and it is very disruptive. Bernstein has been sanctioned for incivility and personal attacks in this area multiple times before, and was unblocked after violating an indefinite Gamergate topic ban on the explicit condition that he avoid personally-directed comments. He has utterly failed to meet this condition. In my opinion Bernstein's original topic ban ought to be put back in place. He has demonstrated no willingness to rein in his personal attacks, which were the reason for the topic ban in the first place. I would ping HJ Mitchell, who unblocked MB under this condition, but I'm unsure whether that breaks some rule about canvassing. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the behavior complained of from MarkBernstein is best characterized as snark. It is hyperbolic, often hysterical, assumption of bad faith against anyone who does not agree with MarkBernstein's preferred take on the article. In relation to Masem, it is a months-long campaign of baiting and needling that has continued through topic bans, blocks, and numerous polite requests to please stop. And MarkBernstein's response to this complaint is to... accuse those complaining of being participants in offsite harassment (and apparently to complain that he hasn't been patted on the back enough for this behavior). Honestly it speaks for itself. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: The fact that you dismiss Rhoark's well-sourced-but-perhaps-intemperately-worded statement as "mocking" and "invective" while defending MarkBernstein (whose stock and trade in the GG topic area has for months been mocking invective, albeit without the diffs) is just more evidence that you really ought to give up the pretense of being uninvolved with respect to MarkBernstein. Even if true, the claim is no longer credible. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

Since I have been mentioned above, I'll just note that Bernstein is the primary reason I only briefly contributed to that article. Yes, there are some other POV pushing types there but none that come close to the poison he produces. Examples have already been given, and there is no shortage of off-wiki stuff also. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: regarding Some have already answered the call. If you think those posts are not coordinated with and part of this action, you are making a mistake, please provide the evidence. Looks like more hyperbole to me. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: and here we go again, I asked that he use such influence as he possesses to dissuade Gamergate from their continued attacks on Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Do you have any evidence to support the implication that Masem has any influence at all over whatever you consider "Gamergate" to be, or is it another one of your carefully-worded aspersions? You're good at that but it doesn't reflect well on you. I know Gamaliel generally seems to sympathise with systemic bias issues etc and that Dennis Brown tries to keep everyone happy but the reality here is that you need an indefinite topic ban. If nothing else, you've done too much off-wiki to be remotely neutral and, if Gamliel is correct, you have also been attacked off-wiki for the same. Unlike a situation in which I was involved last year, it is impossible to determine whether the chicken or the egg came first but the outcome is the same in this case - like it or not, you have become a net negative in this area. I find it striking that Masem is prepared to volunteer a withdrawal and you are not. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

Echo DarwinianApe. --DHeyward (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GamerPro64

I usually keep my distance from actually editing the GamerGate page for a reason. Everything DarwinianApe says is spot on. Bernstein will even call editors out for editing on the site again after being absent for a year or two. Masem, meanwhile, is the most cool under pressure editor on that page and has been like that for almost a year. The article is a touchy subject as it is and Bernstein does not make it any easier with his POV pushing. GamerPro64 14:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel and Dennis Brown: Why not have an interaction ban between Masem and Bernstein? GamerPro64 23:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dumuzid

I can't find a single positive point in this morass. I can't believe Masem thought it wise to bring this small a matter to enforcement. Civility is important, but there will always be sharp elbows in the world. This seems about the mildest possible 'insult' there could ever be. If this is sanctionable, then we may as well Topic Ban all present and future users from the Gamergate controversy page. Having said that, I am disappointed in Dr. Bernstein for sinking to the level he did and bullying Masem for one of his interests. I still don't think it actionable, but this does not cover him with any glory. Finally, the mods, admins, and the rest of the great and good of Wikipedia have dealt with this like a person whose only tool is a sniper rifle. "Who do we shoot dead to solve this problem?" I watch them talk each other up. "One week topic ban?" "No, six months." "NO, PERMANENT." The ever-escalating 'solutions' handed down do nothing more than encourage the continued gaming of the system. This, ladies and gentlemen, is as fine and precise a "what not to do" example of mediation as I have ever seen. In short, (1) Masem: Grow up. (2) Dr. Bernstein: Don't be a jerk. (3) Greater wikians: why not simply retire and set up a peremptory challenge system? That, at least, would have the benefit of being transparent and predictable. I apologize for this splenetic post, and there's no reason anyone should pay attention to me, but there you have it. Dumuzid (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dr. Bernstein: Dr. Bernstein, I think you are a force for good at Wikipedia. It does not follow that everything you do is therefore right or optimal. Yes, there are many others who have committed graver sins against Wikipedia. That does not grant you license to act like a bully, or mean that I should refrain from mentioning it. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Torchiest

I agree with Darwinian Ape and GamerPro64. In one of my earliest interactions with him, Mark Bernstein came across as hostile, condescending, and assuming bad faith. On another occasion, he asserted a very neutral edit summary of mine be oversighted, as if I had violated WP:BLP, which was neither my intent nor remotely accurate for the content of the summary. I feel like he creates an environment that's not conducive to consensus building and article improvement, which pushes away a lot of other editors. I feel like I must walk on eggshells when I comment on the talk page, because I'm worried about provoking his wrath. Masem has been exceedingly patient and gets treated pretty poorly. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rhoark

I'm not sure if Masem meant to write "tenacious" when linking to "tendentious", but his choice was the more apt when it comes to his performance. People say as if it were an indictment of his behavior that he's made such-and-such many talk page edits - well, at what point is it best to give up on policy and let factions write whatever they want? There is no such point, so if Masem's edit count troubles anyone, let them bear some of the load of defending the wiki.

The problem is not Mark Bernstein alone, but he's certainly the editor whose contributions have the greatest negative impact. Snide remarks about ponies are just the tip of the iceberg; Mark Bernstein is the Platonic ideal of the tendentious editor. Do not be misled by the notion that he is protecting the privacy or safety of any living people. He will not hesitate to use the flimsiest pretenses to claim a threat has been made.[46][47][48][49] An isolated misunderstanding would be one thing, but the regularity with which he infers malice of melodramatic moustache-twirling proportion can only be explained as incompetence or a calculated ploy.

There are of course actual threats that have been made in the course of the Gamergate controversy. There are also people saying derogatory things about Mark Bernstein. The distinction that seems lost on him is that all these activities are unconnected with his interlocutors on Wikipedia. He continually seeks to connect editors like Masem or myself with various socks, zombies, and IPs, but when it gets down to brass tacks, he cannot substantiate any fault with the conduct or contributions of experienced editors.[50][51] Nevertheless, aspersions still flow like rivers. Supposed efforts at making peace have included asking AE to permanently lock the article at his preferred version, and a heartfelt essay about why his opponents should give up.

What exactly is he railing so hard against, if not against harm to women? Quite simply the endgame he seems to fear is one in which the article follows the reliable sources. As I put considerable effort into detailing[52], the reliable sources put the most emphasis on threats and other criminal activity, but recognize a larger context as well. They document other people, of benign actions and legitimate concerns. They document unprovoked threats against Gamergate. Mark Bernstein's response has been a consistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Also, misrepresenting a source to try to discredit it[53], while also calling it a BLP violation against the author to doubt the reliability of another source[54]. Essentially, Mark Bernstein seems willing to run rampant over any content or conduct policy he can get away with to push his point of view.

There are of course many sources that agree with Bernstein's point of view, but the correct response is to document the range of opinions as opinions - not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Bernstein's supporters are happy to pile on Masem for his diligence in trying to get NPOV right, while turning a blind eye to Bernstein's calculated efforts to get NPOV wrong. Why does he do this? Is it because visions of Zoe Quinn haunt him in his dreams?[55] All one can be sure about is that it's not about building a better encyclopedia.

Statement by Omegastar

I cannot believe the reactions of some of the Wikipedians here. We have, here, an enforcement request regarding Markbernstein, which includes evidence for said enforcement. Yet not only do some Wikipedians here instantly dismiss this evidence, they actually do not even mention it at all and instead treat this as if it is an enforcement request against Masem.

If these Wikipedians want to see Masem punished for gamergate-related edits, then they should start an arbitration request about this. What they are doing here is attempting to derail an arbitration request against Markbernstein. Stick to the topic! If you think Masem's evidence is without merit, then say so and the arbitration request can be decided based on that. If you think Masem needs to be punished, start another arbitration request specifically about that.

@Aquillion:'s statement completely ignores the actual request and the actual evidence that has been made. Instead the sole purpose of this statement seems to be to rail against Masem. Since this arbitration request does not concern Masem and since Aquillion apparently cannot be bothered to even attempt to address the evidence that Masem gives, his statement should be ignored.

@Brustopher: seems to be under the impression that this is an arbitration request against Masem. He too, apparently, cannot be bothered with discussing the actual conflict or any evidence, instead preferring to immediately suggest punishments against the accuser. Since Brustopher's statement consist solely of a suggested punishment with the most barebones justification I have ever seen, while ignoring the actual purpose of this specific arbitration request (that is, ignoring Masem's claim and ignoring the evidence Masem gives to support this claim), I suggest that Brustopher's statement also be ignored.

@Johnuniq: also seems to think this is an arbitration request against Masem. He does not even mention Markbernstein at all. The only thing he does is rail against Masem. There is nothing in his statement that is actually relevant to this arbitration request. Therefore this statement should be ignored.

Address the claim, address the evidence! Omegastar (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ForbiddenRocky

Masem deserves at least a trout, but I think a boomerang. Nothing MarkBernstein has done is beyond explaining the illogic around Masem's inability to drop the stick for trying to get things into GGC without supporting RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

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

I skimmed this discussion earlier this evening after seeing lots of activity on my watchlist. (I'm pointing that out lest anyone thinks I was contacted about this matter by anyone from either side, which has happened quite often over the last year.) While this is not optimal behavior, personally I don't see how it is sanctionable behavior, especially given the far harsher stuff which we regularly shrug off here and elsewhere on the encyclopedia. This is pretty mild stuff by the standards of the Gamergate article, or really any even remotely contentious article. It also leaves out the context of the discussion. While it does not excuse sub-optimal behavior, you have been beating the same drum on the talk page for nearly a year, which is bound to irritate other editors and has just as much of a negative effect on the atmosphere of collaborative editing as snarkiness does. Gamaliel (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel echos my sentiments here. I would note that since the article was first created and sent to AFD the next day, Masem has been heavily involved. This is fine, but I fear Masem is very invested and his threshold is set too low with this topic. This doesn't excuse MarkBernstein's behavior, which is often filled with ad hominem, but it really isn't an AE issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: What do you think about Brustopher's suggestion? It might be worth exploring in modified form. Gamaliel (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel: My first impression is that point 1 is difficult and may end up in more AE requests rather than fewer. In a way, the restriction would be a wikilawyer's dream, as "theoretical" would be bandied about with each comment, causing more disruption. Point 2 is problematic because all one way interaction bans are, and they edit the same article so it is wrong to allow Masem to reply to MB but not let MB reply in kind, on this heated topic. The ideas aren't bad, but unworkable in current form. There is also the fact that Masem's verbosity and sometimes tenacity in editing may be inviting some of the incivility, if we are fair about it. In short, both editors are wrong to one degree or another. A limited time, two way interaction ban (say 6 to 12 months) that allows for both to participate in polling situations might be better. As to Masem's talk page problems, I don't know. It is a singular problem but I don't have the answer there. Some kind of restriction may be in order but I'm at a loss as to how to word it so it is clear, fair and simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the goal is exactly what we want, but the result will likely be very different, even with the most careful wording. Gamaliel (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The more I ponder this, the less I like what I wrote. I do think MB is the larger problem, Masem is just being too active there which can interfere and frustrate. This didn't come across in the last comment. I think MB is just on this side of a traditional WP:NPA violation, but passive-aggressive insults are actually more damaging than calling someone an "asshat", so I'm not impressed with the idea that MB has been somewhat "civil" in his insults. There is a lot of nuance in this issue. This requires more thought. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the archives of the talk page, I'm wondering if a 6 month GG topic ban (broadly construed) for MarkBernstein, and a voluntary 3 month topic ban for Masem is the right solution (assuming he agrees). Maybe even a 3 month two way interaction ban, to force a cease fire. This also allows some fresh ideas on the GG pages in their absence, plus no one gets blocked, both get to return to the page in time, and hopefully the break will restore some civility and calmness. My first obligation is to the community, including the other editors who deserve a drama-free environment, and removing them temporarily is the best way, and this non-level way is the most fair considering the actual activities of the editors. Your thoughts Gamaliel? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do support an interaction ban. I think it might be best if both parties stepped away for a bit, but I do not support any broad topic ban that is voluntary for one party and involuntary for the other. (Smaller targeted topic bans are tempting, but the wording would be tough to get right.) ArbCom topic banned a whole bunch of people, and that was supposed to solve the issue, but it did not. Both sides are still complaining; all Five Horsemen have been topic or site banned, yet GG boards find new editors to target. That tells me that these kinds of topic bans have not addressed the real, underlying problems with the article. The ArbCom decision mostly covered behavioral matters and didn't delve much into other policy matters (NPOV, RS, etc.), and if Aquillion's summation is accurate, perhaps we should be focusing on that instead of who was snarky to who, because there will always be editors who will be snarky to one another, especially when offsite commentary is so offensive. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did find that it was MarkB that was poking the bear often. Each instance was minor to moderate, but it adds up, which is why I was thinking this kind of asymmetrical sanction. Masem is bludgeoning the topic, but that isn't the largest problem. From what I read, Masem needs a break and we would benefit, but we need a break from MarkBernstein on that page. I thought 6 months was very generous given the amount of passive aggressive behavior, carefully crafted to fly under the radar, yet still do great damage. Forever hopeful, I didn't want to be forced into an indef for MB. I don't think Masem has done anything to deserve a formal sanction yet, particularly since he has expressed a willingness to back off GG for a while. I need to go back and read even more archives I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bernstein is often his own worst enemy and needs to do a better job refraining from poking and refraining from taking the bait when he is poked. But given the constant level of bile and mockery directed at Mark Bernstein, some of it on this very page whenever one of his many detractors brings him up here (Rhoark's mocking contribution above is a very mild example of the kind of thing regularly thrown at MB at AE, staggering in both quantity and the level of invective), and much of it no doubt directed offsite (note that there are two open threads on this AE request on Reddit alone, in r/wikiinaction and r/kotakuinaction, nevermind the various -chan boards), let's not forget who exactly is getting poked here. Gamaliel (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But how do we parse this out, dividing his reactions between being poked, and just bad behavior? What is "reasonable", or is any? With a single instance, this is easy, but given the duration of the problem, it is not so simple. So either we tolerate, or we do not. If someone has a half measure that makes sense, I'm happy to hear it, but otherwise we will just get more of the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. If it boils down only to an iBan, I think it is a bit futile but willing to sign on, assuming it is limited in time, 6 to 12 months in duration. If I have to go read Reddit again, I'm afraid I will jab my eyes out with a fork. I would want to warn MarkB in a clear and obvious way that the constant low level incivility (no matter how "polite" it is) needs to stop. Being attacked outside our doors can't be used as an excuse but for so long. I bet this is what Gamaliel has in mind as a solution, and if so, he should probably just implement it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Darwinian Ape: Masem has volunteered. A voluntary topic ban isn't a sanction, it is a binding promise. Honestly, he probably needs the break and to come back refreshed. The same is true with MarkBernstein. This is just my suggestion, a sanction that isn't permanent, where no one gets blocked, but there is a forced truce and breathing time for everyone else at the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 880: / Line 880: @@
 ::::::::*Bernstein is often his own worst enemy and needs to do a better job refraining from poking and refraining from taking the bait when he is poked.  But given the constant level of bile and mockery directed at Mark Bernstein, some of it on this very page whenever one of his many detractors brings him up here (Rhoark's mocking contribution above is a very mild example of the kind of thing regularly thrown at MB at AE, staggering in both quantity and the level of invective), and much of it no doubt directed offsite (note that there are two open threads on this AE request on Reddit alone, in r/wikiinaction and r/kotakuinaction, nevermind the various -chan boards), let's not forget who exactly is getting poked here.  [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 20:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 ::::::::::But how do we parse this out, dividing his reactions between being poked, and just bad behavior?  What is "reasonable", or is any?  With a single instance, this is easy, but given the duration of the problem, it is not so simple.  So either we tolerate, or we do not.  If someone has a half measure that makes sense, I'm happy to hear it, but otherwise we will just get more of the same.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 21:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
+::::::::::::Sigh. If it boils down only to an iBan, I think it is a bit futile but willing to sign on, assuming it is limited in time, 6 to 12 months in duration.  If I have to go read Reddit again, I'm afraid I will jab my eyes out with a fork.  I would want to warn MarkB in a clear and obvious way that the constant low level incivility (no matter how "polite" it is) needs to stop.  Being attacked outside our doors can't be used as an excuse but for so long.  I bet this is what {{u|Gamaliel}} has in mind as a solution, and if so, he should probably just implement it. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 23:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 *@{{u|Darwinian Ape}}: Masem has volunteered.  A voluntary topic ban isn't a sanction, it is a binding promise.  Honestly, he probably needs the break and to come back refreshed.  The same is true with MarkBernstein.  This is just my suggestion, a sanction that isn't permanent, where no one gets blocked, but there is a forced truce and breathing time for everyone else at the article. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 18:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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