Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:11, 10 February 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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ubikwit

Ubikwit may edit a selection of articles (listed in the log and their talk page) for three months at which time they should appeal their TBAN as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Per this Arbitration case, this discussion and your previous warning, I am invoking discretionary sanctions and topic banning you from editing any articles (and their associated talk pages) relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, with immediate effect. Note that any violation of this ban may result in an immediate block from any administrator with no further warning given, as this notice has already explained the sanctions you are subject to and served as sufficient notice. This ban has no expiry, although this ban may be revisited by the community at a later date.

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

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

Statement by Ubikwit

The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled and not knowing how to handle it by disengaging, instead of engaging. I would like the ban overturned. The counterparty of the concurrently imposed interaction ban was a self-avowed activist that has subsequently been topic banned from all topics related to Judaism and appears to no longer be active on Wikipedia.
@NuclearWarfare: I've been in a couple of disputes, three or four that I can recall. One was related to sourcing used in relation to the Ukraine crisis; more specifically, a blanket rejection of sources from Russia. That ended up with my starting a thread on the Identifying RS Talk page, which was inconclusive but productive. Another related to a promotional article about "Jews in Nepal", which was eventual resolved satisfactorily thanks to the participation of Nishidani and Ravpapa, who found some reliable sources and almost single-handedly created an encyclopedic article from scratch. Finally, there is a current dispute I've been involved in for some time now related to the Soka Gakkai, which also involves huge amounts of promotional bloat and sourcing questions. I recently notified one editor of the ADVOCACY policy, due to repeated attempts to find a work around in a content dispute and insert content against consensus, which resulted in this AN/I thread. That seemed to be heading toward a BOOMERANG, but looks like it will be inconclusive, though a couple of editors have voluntarily withdrawn from editing the article itself. There is a series of related articles around that NRM that probably need discretionary sanctions to prevent such long-term disputes from consuming peoples time. The dispute addressed in that thread started back in August, approximately.
It has just dawned on me that I forgot to list the Arbcom Teaparty case, during which you were serving on the Committee, and which occurred after the sanction being appealed.
@Deskana: I do understand that it was disruptive to edit war, regardless of the status of the content dispute. I've since learned a significant amount about policy and dispute resolution and have done my best to adapt my approach accordingly.
@HJ Mitchell: That would be fine. I don't even have any specific articles I want to edit in the area at present, so a random selection or the like would suffice.

I think that the comments added by Is not a (talk · contribs) below are illustrative of editing in a contentious area.

First, it should be pointed out that the editor is a new account with a fairly high degree of familiarity with WP policy.

Second, Is not a (talk · contribs) casts aspersions on the Talk page and here, where he refers to anti-semitism, apparently linking that to his accusation that I "restored a citation of an attack site". A search of RS/N appears to reveal that the site is not an attack site, but a reliable source falling under news organizations, as I've commented on the relevant Talk page thread of the Kagan article. Is not a (talk · contribs) has attempted to dismiss RS documenting connections to the Project for the New American Century and the The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), reference to which has been completely removed from the article, despite numerous RS readily accessible, online, such as this. In fact, this series of edits sees a plurality of passages that appear to be adequately sourced being removed.

I spoke about being trolled, and the conduct of User Is a would seem to typify aspects of that type of behavior. It is not pleasant, but I have learned to respond in a more cool, calm, and collected manner.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 01:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens, it turns out that there was a subplot to the subterfuge at the Kagan Talk page regarding the editor with the tricky Wikiname Is not a (talk · contribs) "is a", with this source being purported "attack site", which is on a website hosted by Institute for Policy Studies, to which he was indirectly referring to using the acronym "IPS" (there is no actual mention of that organization or its acronym in the multiple passages he deleted), while also deleting the text sourced to an article from the news organization "IPS" (the only direct reference to "IPS" on the page). The so-called "attack site" piece is a profile that would probably be categorized as a tertiary source, with 24 citations, including many to pieces in the NYT and WP. I don't have time to read the piece itself but would assume it has a liberal POV. I've inquired whether the editor might have a COI regarding the Kagan and Nuland articles. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 03:34, 05:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this trolling? Harassment?[1] It's certainly not engaging in the discussion at hand in that thread, rather, trying to prevent the discussion from progressing in a manner such as to evaluate the sourcing questions at issue. The editor also linked to their post here in that post on BLP/N.

Note that the edit summary is to the IP rant in which that diff occurs, which has been hatted as trolling.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the recommended course of action to stop this type of continual disruption/harassment LaRouche thread aimed at me. Is not a (talk · contribs) has gone from making oblique accusations of anti-semitism to making a not so subtle representation attempting to link me with LaRouche.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request that the appeal be decided in my favor and closed, with or without a limitation on the scope of articles.

The behavior that I consider to be trolling by Is not a (talk · contribs) is on the verge of becoming a conduct dispute, and I believe that the delaying of a decision of the appeal has emboldened him.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 14:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: OK, thanks. I'll find a couple of articles and get back to you soon. I've been falling behind on work due to the amount of time I've spending on Wiki that past few days and need to catch up. I really don't intend to spend much time editing in that area, but you know Wikipedia goes, sometimes you start on one article and wind up four or five articles down the road from where you started.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC) @Callanecc: Here's what I'd like to propose. Since this edit was reverted with an edit summary stating Dual loyalty: bold edit related to Arab-Israeli conflict by sources, and that I've not exhausted following up on the sources found thus far, I'd like to include something like the geopolitical aspects of the I/P area. Two authors of one source, for example, are former CIA analysts that are ME experts, including Kathleen Christison. It would be helpful to not have to dance around explitily mentioning I/P within the greater context of the ME with respect to the controversy surrounding the neocons and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, etc. Also, since I will be following the news and it is also related to geopolitics, I'd like to include issues related to the ICC and UN. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC) @Callanecc: That's sounds sufficient, basically. Thanks. The only concern I have is that we don't know exactly what matters might be brought before the ICC, so articles related to such incidents might be something I would be drawn to editing in conjunction with the matter pending before the ICC.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 09:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@T. Canens: OK. Aside from articles related to neoconservatism broadly construed (and their talk pages), with respect to which there will be relatively little material that relates specifically to I/P as opposed to broader ME issues, I could ask @Nishidani: to recommend an article or two he foresees showing up on the horizon of the ICC/UN. Since there might be little actual editing related to I/P, depending on what transpires with the ICC, the Settler colonialism article might be an article I could improve with respect to the ME section.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 10:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a followup, as I noticed that a war crimes inquiry has already begun at the ICC. I'm more interested in the meta-level issues in this case, such as the US objection to the ICC taking the case, international law and institutions, and geopolitics in terms of the responses from different countries and implications for the global dynamic. So in this case, I wouldn't be interested in editing articles on either side's culpability for the crimes, just the implications of the findings for the solution of the I/P conflict overall, and reactions by public officials. I searched "Palestine ICC" and think that a few of the returned articles will suffice: States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, State of Palestine, ICC Cases, Political status of the Palestinian territories, International recognition of the State of Palestine, Taxation in the Palestinian territories

No need to bother Nishidani. The above list of ICC related articles along with the neoconservative articles should suffice. The Settler Colonialism article is somewhat and can be skipped, as it looks, at a glance, like it has been improved.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC) @DGG: I'm not sure if you are indirectly referring to the proposal of "articles and talk pages related to neoconservatism, broadly construed" or not, but I have provided one diff of a revert above (edit summary stating that sources addressed I/P) for an edit that involved extremely mainstream sources, including ABC News, TIME and the Atlantic. The ABC article declares that criticism of neocons for having dual/divided loyalties has been heard from the left, right, and center of the political spectrum, and I had only briefly covered the center and right. Another potential problem can be seen here, where I quote Joe Klein mentioning Rob Malley, an expert on the ME and I/P. If there aren't any concrete suggestions for an improved list or other comments, can we close this please? --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 08:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deskana

I've not been very involved in this for a while now so I don't have any strong opinion about this appeal. That said, I would note that a good part of the reason why the sanction was imposed was because Ubikwit failed to realise that he was edit warring and instead tended to blame it on other people (see this example). The fact that the first sentence in his statement in this appeal is "The topic ban was largely the result of my having been trolled" would seem to indicate that he still hasn't really understood that his behaviour was disruptive. This, to me, would seem to indicate that the ban is still necessary. That said, I defer to those more active in this area to make a decision around this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I don't know whether a word from me would be deleterious to Ubikwit's appeal or not, but, since he dropped a note, I'll risk it. I'd be happy to be on call for any assistance he might seek, if he thinks I might be able to provide it. He's copped a lot of flak, as all do in contentious articles, and seems to recognize one should not rise to the bait. He is a good, studious contributor in areas where messy IPs or drum-beaters tend to crowd in, and, subject to the obvious high bar we retro- or is that reprobates should set ourselves, we need knowledgeable editors, ready to acquire thick skins, to work these difficult areas.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ubikwit

Statement by is not a

Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit (talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to violate WP:BLP and other guidelines:

Ubikwit reinserted a meandering discussion of (Jewish philosopher) Leo Strauss,[2] despite Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)'s warnings about WP:BLP ([3], again [4] despite [5], [6] despite [7]) although finally he did respect the BLP-based consensus [8] I am happy to report.
Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan [9] [10] despite RayAYang (talk · contribs)'s warnings [11] [12] and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling [13]. Related edits on the talk page of Kagan follow:
On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" [14] and linking to this anti-semitic website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek [15]. A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang (talk · contribs) [16], who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."[17]
Today Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site, calling Kagan a rightwing militarist [18].

This is just one page, but the pattern of edits suggests that the problematic editing is not just limited to edit-warring violation, which was Ubikwit's removal of Israeli Jews from a list of indigenous populations. Examination of Ubikwit's behavior on other articles related to Jews, Judaism, Israel, The Israel Lobby, neoconservatism, Leo Strauss and Straussians, Robert Kagan and family broadly considered as well as biographies of living persons should be done before making a decision about Ubikwit.

Second, Robert Kagan has had severe violations of WP:BLP since at least 2008. For example, the 128.95.217.149 (talk · contribs) with only vandalism edits targetting Kagan has never been blocked. The history of this article horrifies me. Somehow Kagan's article needs to be protected from further WP:BLP violations, particularly edits that may appear to have anti-semitism.

Thank you. is a 22:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit's behavior over this weekend reinforces the concerns stated above. is a 20:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deskana: Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban (and linked to an anti-semitic site), among other policies. is a 21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:,

Blaming a cabal of American Jews for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the words mean anything. is a 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC) :The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) has similarly complained about the problem of this Ubikwit's citing weak sources on neoconservatism that allege that "a conspiracy of Jews took control of U.S. foreign policy so that its sole focus became the security and welfare of Israel", which is precisely why Ubikwit's campaign to label living persons as neoconservatives violates his topic ban (as well as numerous policies). is a 20:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Ubikwit

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

Note for the sake of completeness: The topic ban (and interaction ban) were imposed 3 January 2013 in this edit by Deskana. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No blocks within 2014 is promising. Would you say that you got into any editorial disputes since your last block? If so, could you please link to and describe them? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The required notification of the sanctioning admin is still lacking. Sandstein 22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's okay. I figured it out. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from the sanctioning admin, but this looks reasonably promising. The sanction was imposed a long time ago, Ubikwit recognises the error of their ways and states that they've changed their approach, they've been active in other topic areas, and they haven't been sanctioned recently. Certainly on the surface this ticks all the boxes that we look at when deciding appeals, but I haven't yet done a deeper review of their recent contributions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ubikwit: How would you feel about having a relatively narrow range of articles to edit in the ARBPIA topic area for a few months, after which we could re-evaluate with a view to lifting the topic ban if you don't get in to trouble during that time? I'm keen to give some leeway because I don't like the idea that topic bans are forever, especially if the sanctioned editor abides by the ban and edits productively elsewhere, but I have to agree with Deskana that your opening statement doesn't fill me with hope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the other user with whom Ubikwit was clashing has stopped editing I'd be inclined to hear this appeal further. It is disappointing (as Deskana) points out that their statement focuses on blaming other people rather than taking responsibility however I can see past that. It like HJ's idea, something like giving us some articles they wish to edit and after a few months coming back here to decide whether to lift it outright or not. ~~Given edit warring was a concern another possibility would be to replace the TBAN with 1RR and see how that goes.~~ I'm not convinced which of these options I prefer at the moment, going to consider it for a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Israel-Palestine articles are under a blanket 1RR, so an editor-specific 1RR would be redundant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I got the I and the P round the wrong way.
  Having thought about this some more I'm moving towards thinking that we should just lift the TBAN completely (especially given it's been 2 years with no major issues) but make it clear that there will likely be a fairly low bar to placing it again if need be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite continuing to edit in contentious areas, Ubikwit seems to have avoided trouble over the last year, and appears to have gotten better at staying cool in heated debates. Since I don't see any barrier to re-imposing it should things to awry, I'm in favour of lifting the topic ban. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still be happier if Ubikwit started off with a few articles or a relatively narrow subtopic so that we could evaluate how they get on there for a few weeks and then lift the ban completely if there were no issues, but in a choice between absolute acceptance or absolute rejection of the appeal, I'm more incline towards acceptance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not too difficult to TBAN them very quickly again if any undesired behaviour occurs, and if we do allow a small subtopic it's completely likely that it won't be enough to see whether the type of behaviour which will characterise their edits to the broader topic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Is not a: I don't believe those edits violated the ban. The ban was from the Arab-Israeli conflict, and precedent at this board is that that doesn't include edits about either Israel or Palestine/Arabia unless explicitly stated, only the conflict between them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: So we can get this moving along can you give a sub-topic (or some articles) you'd like to edit for a few months. Once I've got that I'll add it as an exemption so that you can show that you can edit constructively in this topic area. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: How does this sound an exemption to make any edits related to the geopolitical aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict (including political ideologies, and edits related to the International Criminal Court and United Nations)? Other admin comments welcome... Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike fuzzy sub-topic exemptions like this. They are difficult to get right, and hard to enforce. I'd rather see Ubikwit propose a list of some specific articles, and consider granting an exemption for those articles (and their talk pages). T. Canens (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This make sense to me also. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, gents, but I think the point is that the exemption is a test: if it results in disruption or wikilawyering about scope, we can rescind it. If it results in constructive edits, improvements to articles, and none of the problems that led to the original topic ban, we can lift the topic ban altogether. In other words, Ubikwit has nothing to gain and everything to lose by pushing the limits of the exemption. That said, I'd be happy with an exemption for specific articles if that's what it takes or this appeal to regain momentum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got an objection to the seven articles Ubikwit has proposed? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New timestamp to postpone archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theobald Tiger

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 Theobald Tiger

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Theobald Tiger (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/Landmark_Worldwide#Discretionary_sanctions_.28January_2015.29 :

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

30 January 2015 Personal attack in edit summary, mass revert without discussion
30 January 2015 Mass revert, disregarding active talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
30 January 2015 Personal attacks
30 January 2015 Mass revert of multiple edits, disregarding active talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
29 January 2015 BLP violations on article talk page
29 January 2015 personal attack
29 January 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
29 January 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
4 February 2015 personal attacks, including "You know nothing of NRMs and cults, you do not even know what primary sources really are, your objections to encyclopedic content are based upon prejudice and self-interest. Your means are wikilawyering, taking the moral high ground, lying, insinuating and denying the obvious."
4 February 2015 another accusation of COI
4 February 2015 personal attacks, accusation of "bullying"
5 February 2015 accusations of deception, COI, smearing, etc, immediately after being warned to comment on content not contributors (and with a link to WP:NPA).
8 February 2015 Bulk insert of unsourced material into a BLP, removal of sourced material
9 February 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussion, edit warring, inclusion of unsourced material in a BLP
9 February 2015 edit warring, inclusion of unsourced material in a BLP, removal of sourced content
9 February 2015 edit warring on BLP

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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 23 January 2015.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 9 January 2015.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor was significantly involved with the Landmark Worldwide topic on nl-wiki. There was some kind of block put in place (block log), and I am unclear what the circumstance of that is. It appears that the nl-wiki block has been lifted. Upon arrival here, the editor displayed in-depth experience with the Landmark subject,[19] and appears to have a strong POV (evidenced in the diffs above).

@Astynax: 1) Yes, I am aware of DS. That is why I came here to ask for enforcement of DS. 2) I don't see anything at the ANI link you provided that makes any sense of what you are saying. I made a single comment in that discussion, effectively asking that editors stop fighting over POV. Obviously that did not happen. 3) Multiple reverts to the article are not justified when there is dispute and discussion underway. There was no consensus for the material and yet it was reinserted into the article multiple times. 4) I'm not sure if you are saying that I have been intransigently unilaterally reverting, blanking, hectoring, or entangling. If you are, please stop and use the appropriate mechanisms (such as an enforcement request) to report such behaviour. I obviously disagree and I welcome any and all examination of my editing. Tgeairn (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As three different editors have all responded to the mention above of blocks on nl-wiki and the linking to the relevant block log, it was and is my understanding that the proper form for filing a request here includes linking previous actions taken. As these actions were not on en, but were recent (the most recent three blocks were within the last six months, the prior blocks are much older) I listed them as an additional comment rather than as a recent or current sanction. I also requested and received a review of the form of my filing from a clerk, who said it was correct form. If including the log from .nl was incorrect, I request that a clerk strike my relevant comment(s) or alert me. Tgeairn (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat surprised that the unfounded accusations and occasional outright attacks continue. It seems unlikely that I need to address all of the uninvolved parties accusations, but I will attempt to do so.

Theobald Tiger's statement simply demonstrates their behaviour and contains little that is factual.

1. Despite repeated accusations, at no time has the matter been taken to COIN, and Arbcom did not include such a finding in any proposal after reviewing the presented evidence.

The nomination of Margit Warburg for deletion is one of dozens of similar articles nominated over that past months, the majority of which have been determined to be non-notable and closed as deletes. I was not even aware that Astynax had created the article until TW showed who the notification was sent to.

I have explained my deletions and removals extensively at the Arbcom case, and the committee had no findings regarding any of the evidence presented there. That it is still being cast as somehow negative is an issue, but it is not my issue.

None of what TT wrote in his item #1 addresses that he reverted my edit to List of new religious movement and cult researchers with the edit summary of "Tgeairn is simply not knowledgeable enough to blank this kind of information - moreover it is a form of POV pushing." The revert was uncalled for (and exactly what Arbcom has asked us to stop doing on these articles), but the edit summary contains at least two attacks and is unaddressed by TT's statement.

2. I reverted the re-addition of a very large (over 50% of the readable copy of the article) block of text. The copy in question was BOLDly added by Astynax, then it was removed. TT reverted the removal rather than discuss (again, one of the things Arbcom specifically warned not to do), and by that time there were multiple discussions open on the talk page and at RSN. TT's edit summary is not relevant, as there was no consensus for adding the material in the first place.

Regarding consensus for this material, the entire block of text was added as an apparent end-run around a RfM that closed as no consensus and then editors began merging Erhard and WE&A material here anyway.

3. TT may not think so, but I view telling me that I have not read a source (that I quote extensively and provide links to in that thread and elsewhere) and that I "have not the faintest idea of what primary source actually means" to be a personal attack.
4. In this case, TT reverted hours of work where I made single edits clearly describing the reasoning for each edit. TT reverted my work saying "no consensus", when in fact the talk pages clearly demonstrate that there is no consensus for having the material there to begin with.
5. BLP applies, even on talk pages. Making unsourced statements is an issue, and I raised it. By itself, it's probably not a sanctionable offense. As a part of a pattern of behaviour, it is relevant.
6. Again, "It is crystal clear that Tgeairn has not read the Lockwood article" is an attack at this point.
7. TT's own edit summary is clear that editors at the talk page do not support the inclusion of the material TT is reverting into the article.
8. TT's own edit summary is clear that there is a dispute over this material on the talk page, and TT is reverting it into the article anyway.

Legacypac's statement is misleading in two out of three points.

1. The edit history of the article clearly shows actual edit summaries and incremental improvement of the article and its sourcing. Each edit was researched and performed deliberately.
2. Legacypac filed that SPI, and at this point it has not been reviewed. Legacypac's own statement indicates that they filed the SPI due to their opinion of conduct on the LW article, which is a rather odd reason to file an SPI unless the intent is to chill participation.
3. Further review of the discussion linked by Astynax and the discussion linked from there indicate that TT's block at nl-wiki is unrelated to the Landmark article there. That discussion did not address the multiple blocks for personal attacks at nl-wiki. As explained above, I linked the nl-wiki block log because I thought (and still do) that the filing required notice of previous actions.

Cathar66's statement is difficult to address, and will likely be the foundation of a follow-up enforcement request on this board. It contains a number of attacks, unfounded assertions, and strays away from either my or TT's behaviour fairly extensively. I expect that reviewing admins will see that there's a string of misinformation there. Seriously, I'm somehow "caught" because I used the expand citations tool weeks after an IP added an incomplete citation?

The failed outing attempt certainly doesn't help Cathar's credibility either.

Thank you to the admins and arbs for your attention. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from archive --Tgeairn (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Preventing archive. Tgeairn (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

31 January 2015

Discussion concerning Theobald Tiger

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 Theobald Tiger

I will comment briefly on the difflinks provided by Tgeairn:

Ad 1. Tgeairn is, in my view, a contributor with a clear COI who tries to keep Landmark Worldwide free from encyclopedic content by all possible means. Tgeairn is sometimes reasonable, mostly frankly unreasonable, often intimidating, always taking the moral high ground. Tgeairn has also violated WP:Point by nominating Margit Warburg for deletion, an article started by Astynax with whom he happens to have an argument on Talk:Landmark Worldwide, and by deleting whatever he/she comes across that has something to do with the sociology of (alternative pseudo-)religious movements (like Landmark). Therefore I reverted his blanking with an edit summary that seems to me appropriate.
Ad 2. The discussion on the talk page did by no means support the blanking of the new history paragraph. Therefore I reverted Tgeairn's blanking, with an edit summary that seems to me appropriate.
Ad 3. This is no personal attack at all. My conclusions might have been unpleasant to Tgeairn, but they seem to me well-founded and even inescapable.
Ad 4. See Ad 2.
Ad 5. This allegation of a violation of WP:BLP seems to me not only far-fetched but wrong. Tgeairn had objected to some article text on the topic of Werner Erhard's lack of education. I replied by saying that such information is to be expected in cases like this, because (as I said) "Erhard is in large part an autodidact and a dreamer". This remark does, as far as I can see, no harm to Erhard's reputation. Moreover, it is well-founded (autodidact, Erhard is frequently called a 'visionary', having had a decisive 'vision' on the Golden Gate Bridge), and it was a remark on the talk page, not in the article.
Ad 6. I recommend to read the complete Reliable Sources Request. This request, done by Tgeairn, is plainly absurd. I have answered it to my abilities.
Ad 7. Revert of unmotivated blanking with an edit summary that seems to me appropriate.
Ad 8. See Ad 7.

A topic ban for Tgeairn seems to me indicated. My blocklog on nl.wiki has absolutely nothing to do with Landmark as two admins on nl.wiki (Josq & CaAl) and a Dutch speaking admin on en.wiki (Drmies) have attested. I wish the Arbitration Committee wisdom and understanding when investigating the case and passing judgment on our actions. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS Tgeairn pulls an angelic face confronted with criticism of having mentioned my blocklog on nl.wiki, but the way he/she did it - "There was some kind of block put in place (block log), and I am unclear what the circumstance of that is" - is outright insinuating, offensive and malicious. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for a conflict of interest on the part of Tgeairn is overwhelming, both onwiki and offwiki. Asked if there is a COI, Tgeairn's has persistently answered in an evasive manner. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The treatments I have received since I have done some contributions to the Landmark related articles is really unbelievable. As the uncivilised idiot I happen to be, I prefer to be banned indefinitely from this miserable project. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Astynax

Tgeairn was also explicitly made aware of discretionary sanctions[20] and hopefully admins will take his own activity into account. Tgeairn is almost certainly aware (as he commented here, where it was a notable part of the discussion) that the calumny recently raised at ARCA[21] regarding Theobald Tiger's participation on nl.wikipedia has no more merit or relevance here than it did a week ago. Nor were Theobald Tiger's reverts unjustified, as they merely restored massive and incremental blanking reverts of referenced material. Tgeairn himself participated in the blanking of this material. Arbcom invited new eyes to the article, yet those who have arrived (Manul, Cathar66, Legacypac, IronGargoyle, in addition to Theobald Tiger) have been subjected to the same intransigent reversion/blanking and talk page hectoring (including unilateral reversion, citing an invalid rationale, of a Move survey by a non-involved editor[22][23]) behavior by Landmark advocates which I attempted to describe in the original arbcom case. This is also not the first attempt to entangle fresh eyes who have come to the article in WP:DR processes, which is itself very off-putting. • Astynax ^talk 19:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dave Apter's assertions: As was pointed out on the article's talk, there were no BLP violations (material accurately reflected the references, it was noted in the text that tax fraud charges were eventually dropped, and the text intimated nothing illegal regarding the "Hunger Project" fiasco). Even were one to suspect such BLP violations, that would have not in any case justified the summary blanking by MLKLewis of an entire section of fully-cited material or the similar incremental blanking by Tgeairn. Nor is complaining about the length of a History section by Dave Apter as WP:UNDUE a valid reason for blanking, most especially in an article where other sections have yet to be fleshed out. Admins will also note that Dave Apter has a self-declared CoI with regard to this topic, even though he disputes and has been warned about this by admins and others repeatedly. The accusation of tag-teaming is ridiculous; as far as I know, there has been absolutely no coordination among editors Dave Apter has accused of tag-teaming. • Astynax ^talk 19:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legacypac

1. BOOMARANG this - the edit history on Landmark Worldwide shows the tactics clearly of systematically deleting material. 2. The Editor who filed this unfounded complaint is the subject of an active Sockpuppet investigation [24] over conduct on this article. Let's see where that goes before taking this too seriously. 3. It was well established that th nl-wiki block was nothing to do with this issue. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What DaveApter calls disingenuous and Tgeairn calls a bad faith attack while disparaging my edit history is actually a legitimate use of SPI to find out which editor is hiding behind an IP to edit war on the article. I filed the SPI before this Request for Enforcement was filed and I signed the SPI so I'm hardly hiding my actions. User:Tgeairn is even asking for sanctions against me for filing the SPI while not even denying he used an IP to edit war. Sanctions are needed here, but against Tgeairn. Legacypac (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DaveApter

It seems disingenuous for Legacypac to point out that Tgeairn is the subject of "an active sockpuppet investigation" without making it clear that he himself was the editor who requested that investigation. I can't help wondering what prompted it, as the reasons seem no more than conjecture. Rather than attempting to introduce distractions to this Enforcement Request by making counter-accusations, perhaps a specific request, with evidence, should be made here if Legacypac thinks this is called for.

I should have hoped that the conclusion of the recent Arbcom Case with no findings or sanctions passed against Tgeairn would have put an end to the continued accusations being levelled against him, but if anything the intensity of the attacks has increased. DaveApter (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further responses to comments by Cathar66

The comments from Cathar66 below seem to be the latest attempt to draw attention away from the substantive points of this request by casting aspersions on the messenger.

Cathar66's principal contribution to the Landmark article has been to re-introduce the majority of a highly contentious mass edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=645233779&oldid=645085794

This sequence started with the replacement of the 'History' section of the article with an overblown bulk edit by Astynax on 29th January which was about as big as the whole of the rest of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644672518&oldid=644672217

This was (quite rightly IMHO) reverted by MLKLewis on the grounds that it violated BLP by accusing a living person of tax fraud and of embezzling charitable funds, without adequate evidence. There are also other grounds for objecting to the material – including the fact that it is undue weight, and that it is largely irrelevant to the subject of the article, dealing mostly with events long before the corporation was formed.
Without engaging with discussions on the talk page, a tag-team edit war was undertaken to keep this material in:
Theobald Tiger on 30th Jan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644768203&oldid=644741559
and again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644824862&oldid=644819594
Astynax later on 30th Jan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644878221&oldid=644877732
IronGargoyle on 30th Jan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644880836&oldid=644880331
Legacypac on 30th Jan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644884569&oldid=644882151
and culminating with the partial re-insertion by Cathar66 above.

I have also followed the links alleging 'forum shopping' and cannot find anything contentious, nor any “less than truthful comments” by Tgeairn, or even any mention of Cathar66.

The combined effect of all these attacks is beginning to look like a classic instance of a WP:POV railroad intended to undermine the credibility of Tgeairn rather than to address the merits of his arguments. DaveApter (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Astyanx

Once again the unjustified accusation that I have a COI on this topic is dragged out as a red herring to distract from the issues. Let's stick to considering the evidence that has been presented here. For anyone who cares, I specifically requested that the Arbitrators give a ruling on my alleged Conflict of Interest (as did John Carter, rather more persistently and aggressively), and their comment was “I did not include Apter in proposed sanctions because I didn't think the evidence presented warranted it.” [25] This should be the end of the matter unless anyone can present some compelling evidence.
My reference to 'tag-team' was not intended to imply active collusion (about which I could not possibly know), but merely the fact of six block-reversions of the same contentious material in a single day by a group of like-minded editors operating in turn, without significantly engaging in talk page discussions.
This page is not the place for discussions of the merits or otherwise of Astynax's material; the issue here is editor behaviour. DaveApter (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

As someone who has never edit the article, and frankly has little interest in the topic, a look at this filing and the article talk page shows dubious behavior all around. (Note that some of the diffs entered by the plaintiff are very borderline, including the so-called "personal attacks.") I conclude that the only way we're going to get a neutral, well-written article is if new editors come in. For that to happen will require admins to ~~knock a few heads together~~ put the current warriors on a very short leash enforced by liberal use of blocks and/or topic bans. Without this few neutral, outside editors will want to dance into the minefield. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cathar66

I visited the Landmark article for the first time on 18 January 2015. Having read the article I edited out 2 pieces within which were not reliable sourced. Tgeairn wrote a note on my talk page wondering why I thought that the Irish Daily Mail and Mayfair (magazine) are not RS.( an unusual question from an editor I now know to have made over 40k edits) I replied that a tabloid newspaper and a soft porn mag are definitely not RS. I understand Theobald Tiger's frustration as this editor purports elsewhere to be an expert on RS. This actually made me interested in Landmark and I the read the talk page reread the article and did a sourced (NYT} 3 word edit which caused a furore on the talk page - I let the other editors get on with it while I familiarised myself more with the subject. I am not afraid of editing but the hostility on the talk page was unreal. How are new editors supposed to get involved with the talk page behaviour of Tgeairn. The wrong editor is before this ANI People in glass houses should not throw stones.

I have looked at the difs cited in the complaint. I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris that the behaviour is borderline in some of the edits but justified by Theobald Tiger in others.

I would also like to comment about forum shopping by Tgeairn who has commented less than truthfully directly and indirectly on me at AN, JzG and also at Drmies and hope that my replies on the first and last of those pages are educational for him .Cathar66 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dave Apter's assertions

Your selected difs are mischievous. The first dif you used was totally justified because of Tgeairn removal of content which was reliably sourced. Tgeairn then reverted it without sufficient reason [26] Theobald Tiger correctly reverted this with an explicit explanation.The next interjection was by a now banned IP who blanked the section noting (Remove slanderous accusations). Instead of reverting this as any reasonable editor would do he edited other sections removing a sourced reference [27]then removed another source with a misleading edit summary [28] and others until ashyntax reverted to the last stable version before the ip reversion which the banned ip 173.161.39.97 then reverted using a bs reason (Removing these attacks. Stop placing untrue stories here.) IronGargoyle correctly reverted this vandalism. The banned ip reverted again for another bs reason and Legacypac correctly reverted this. I read the section that was being edit warred and tried to put it in more NPOV language. Tgeairn ridiculed this on the talk page obviously not understanding my intent despite the edit summaries stating starting abbreviated text - more neutrally worded. The IP as a sock puppet or one of a banned editor I don't know. I do know that another ip 23.25.38.121 [29]may be a sock puppet for Tgeairn as the language used in an anally retentive style is similar to Tgeairn. This ,and other edits by this IP, I will raise this at sock puppet investigations (as soon as I figure out how). (The Irish Mail on Sunday article is only referenced online in Wiki sourced sites and Landmark related PR sites. The Irish daily Mail is not available online as it is a regional version of the UK Daily Mail. (more info) It was originally added to the page by the same US based Comcast IP at 12 July 2012 [30] so this IP is connected to Landmark internal sources. At 23:04, 21 August 2012 Citation bot fixed the citation on this reference with the reference Misc citation tidying. | Tgeairn when this section and others was deleted DaveApter restored it on 10 September 2012 [31] when this was then deleted Tgeairn restored it.

Finally I'm rusty and not particularly familiar with BOOMERANG and believe a topic ban for this and all NRM articles is appropriate for Tgeairn. Like the Spanish Inquisition in Monty Python I have yet one more comment (maybe two) to add Dave Apter your COI is obvious and the “I did not include Apter in proposed sanctions because I didn't think the evidence presented warranted it.” reflects on the quality of the evidence presented and not on your COI behavior. I will review the evidence and eventually present sufficient cause for an enforcement. It's ~~Friday~~ oops Tuesday night / Wednesday morning and I've enjoyed my hot whiskeys but not enjoyed having to do this. Goodnight Cathar66 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Tgeairn, for the content that was removed, but as you appear to be the expert on reliable sources why would you fix an unlinked citation from a newspaper that has a tiny circulation in Ireland and is not available online and only available online through Landmark PR? I find that odd.Cathar66 (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Theobald Tiger

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

I haven't had a chance to have a look through the evidence here yet, just commenting to prevent archiving for now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gouncbeatduke

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 Gouncbeatduke

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: WarKosign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gouncbeatduke (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 :

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

The user repeatedly behaved in uncivil manner towards me, bordering on personal attacks. Any attempt to reach a conesnsus was ignored and responded by edit warring, often in seeming teaming with a similar minded editor. The user demonstrates battleground mentality, treats every user in disagreement as an "anti-Arab POV-pusher".

Here are examples from a single discussion/edit war in the lead of Israel. I understand that you will not go into a content dispute, the content is only mentioned to explain the user conduct.

GregKaye added a {{cn}} tag to a statement about Israel's declaration of independence in the lead of Israel (that the borders of Israel were not specified) and wikilinked to the UN partition plan that did specify the borders. I provided the missing source that proved that the declaration intentionally did not mention the borders suggested by the partition plan and removed the wikilink that this source proved irrelevant.
Gouncbeatduke replaced the statement with another that is not supported by the source and is relevant to the UN partition plan, not to the declaration of independence. Edit summary was "(replace POV-pushing with NPOV version of article cited)". I reverted this edit with "Factually incorrect - UN revision plan suggested borders for "a" state, not "the" state that was declared", GregKaye un-reverted the edit without any comment.
Gouncbeatduke created a talk page section named "Edit warring by WarKosign", incorrectly stating that I've twice reverted the article (actually one edit and one revert), that I removed all references to the UN partition plan (actually it remained referenced two sentences above) and that I was "pushing" a certain version (actually the stable version that existed before their edits). I responded explaining my edits, Gouncbeatduke dismissed my explanation with "I think we both know you are misrepresenting your edits." and wrote that my version was less NPOV (without giving any reason).
I renamed the talk page section to more appropriate "Relevance of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to borders of Israel" and continued discussing the content with GregKaye and other editors. The only contribution from Gouncbeatduke was accusing me of "regurgitating the anti-Arab narrative" and saying that "current version of the article is a much more NPOV", again without any usable explanation.
After some more discussion I made (what I consider) a compromise edit and asked the editors to comment on it. Gouncbeatduke reverted the edit commenting "returning to last good version prior to User:WarKosign multiple edit warring reverts", renamed the talk page section back to "Edit Warring by User:WarKosign" and moved a statement together with an unrelated quote, effectively restoring half of my compromise edit while removing a relevant source and introducing another source misrepresentation.
I added a tag for Gouncbeatduke source misrepresentation and wrote on the user's talk page asking to remove the attack in the talk page section name. The user responded again accusing me of edit warring and pov-pushing without any actual details, and refused to change the section name. Note that the user actually renamed the section on their own talk page, demonstrating understanding of how take page section names matter. Eventually GregKaye renamed the section to something more appropriate.
The user removed the misrepresentation tag while leaving the misrepresentation, with the comment saying "Please discuss in talk section before reverting again" (so far I reverted once in the whole discussion, while Gouncbeatduke reverted at least 3 times). The user insists to keep dispute tags for other matters, so they clearly understand their importance.
The discussion continued for a while then Gouncbeatduke "contributed" another baseless accusation. I expected the user to understand the uncivility of such accusation after having explained it on their talk page, so I asked the user to retract the statement, with no response so far.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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 think the user is well-intended but unready to collaborate. They seem to think that NPOV is some magic word, once they say it everybody is obliged to accept whatever unexplained and unsourced edits they make. The best possible outcome of this request would be to have the user drop battleground mentality and collaborate in order to achieve their stated goal of NPOV.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Gouncbeatduke

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 Gouncbeatduke

The current version of Israel article reads “Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries.” As best I remember, User:WarKosign and blocked sockpuppet User:Ashurbanippal where the two editors pushing a version that said “The borders of the new state were not specified”. I believe the current version of the article is a more NPOV. I believe much of the article reflects a pro-Jewish/anti-Arab bias, likely a systemic bias from the fact there are so many more English speaking Wikipedia Jewish editors than Arab. Part of the article’s bias is to downplay the view of the UN on Israel’s borders, and up-play the promulgations of the Israeli Government regarding the borders. I therefore believe the current version of the article with the “Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN” statement helps to bring about a more NPOV.

I am not Arab or Jewish, I have no bias feelings either way on the subject of Israel, and I am only interested in seeing a NPOV article. I believe that I am in a minority among those editing the Israel article, and most editors have a very strong pro-Jewish bias. I understand Israel is a tough neighborhood, where religious extremists often kill people and attempt to kill more just because they are Jewish. However, I think a NPOV Israel article is a better way to combat extremism than a biased article that fuels resentment.

I believe User:WarKosign and blocked sockpuppet User:Ashurbanippal have engaged in intimidation tactics against many editors who desire a NPOV Israel article. These include accusations of Antisemitism and bad faith by User:WarKosign, for example, his “Israel is critisized out of blind hatred, i.e. new antisemitism. Comments made by … are a good example” statement in the Israel talk section. However, as this is an emotional topic, I would not be inclined to file an Arbitration request or request sanctions against User:WarKosign. As I have said to User:WarKosign in the Israel talk section “I have no problem with you other than you editing behavior, as far as I know you are a good person. I think we both recognize that most of your edits to date push a pro-Jewish POV, and I don't see how we can make progress towards a NPOV article without being honest about that. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a pro-Jewish or a pro-Arab POV, just that a NPOV Wikipedia article is not the place to express it.” Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WarKosign

@Gouncbeatduke: Your statement is misleading on many points:

The subject of this discussion is your uncivil behavior (pushing your own POV while you're accusing other editors of the same). If you are ready to begin discussing the content, let's do it at the article talk page and not here. Now you accused me of intimidation. Read this essay, it matches many of your recent actions. If any of my actions matched this essay kindly let me know which.
Current version of the article is what GregKaye and you pushed. You never bothered achieving consensus before making the changes, and then reverted all the attempts to correct your factual errors and source misrepresentations you introduced. Previous version (one that you accused me of pushing) was stable. When consensus can't be reached the previous version is the one that should remain.
What you consider NPOV is clearly and obviously biased. Saying that you want NPOV is not enough, you need to collaborate with editors that have bias opposite to your so everybody are equally unhappy with the compromise.
You are misquoting my statement: "There are opinions that often Israel is critisized out of blind hatred, i.e. new antisemitism. Comments made by the IP user are a good example - instead of legitimately criticizing problematic decisions made by Israel, the user requires Israel not to be treated like "just another country" but as "illegitimate and ... perhaps the most hated country in the world"."
You wrote twice that you have no problem with my personality, yet used the talk page to accuse me of POV pushing and ignored my every attempt to discuss the content of the article with you. I would much rather you hated my guts but worked with me to improve the article. “WarKosign ” 18:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler

@Callanecc, it does not appear that Gouncbeatduke is a "relative newcomer." I asked Gouncbeatduke if s/he had ever editing under a different username, and s/he stated, "I decided to WP:CLEANSTART"[32]. As a single-issue editor, Gouncbeatduke does not seem to be abiding by the recommendation that "it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start." Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gouncbeatduke

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

There does seems to be an issue here regarding Gouncbeatduke's conduct specifically their use of incivility and personalising disputes rather than engaging in the core issue. Having said that I'm not convinced that there is enough evidence to do anything more than provide some informal guidance (ie third para regarding Wikipedia's norms and expectations of editor conduct (especially considering that they are a relative newcomer). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am seeing an issue here with how they approach discussions and issues they disagree with. I'm considering whether a logged warning regarding battleground, civility and edit warring would be appropriate, or perhaps a topic ban from Israel related articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd suggest we start there, and escalate if it becomes necessary. Nothing is at risk immediately (there isn't an ongoing edit-war or BLP issue, for example), so starting with encouraging encouraging reform is proportionate and can be taken into account in the event of recidivism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - New timestamp to postpone archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by MarieWarren

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

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

Appealing user: MarieWarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – v/r - T P 03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: "To enforce an arbitration decision and for misrepresenation of sources to push a point of view on the page Abortion Rights (organisation), you have been blocked indefinitely from editing"

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

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

Statement by MarieWarren

I believed that the representation of the organisation was correct. My other actions with regard to this organisation was to make it accessible on wikipedia through providing an updating of the name to its current name. I was providing a summary of information that was on its website. I consider this to be consistent with the ethos of wikipedia. There was no point of view expressed but simply a stating of information that was present on their site. I do not think that this appeal will be successful but if it is I will ensure that I do not edit this organisation again. MarieWarren (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TParis

Statement by MarrieWarren copied on behalf of user account per request on unblock template. Nothing to say here. The user had been warned previously and continued to misrepresent sources. The source has a list of unsafe abortion practices that could lead in injury or death. The user claimed that the organization is promoting unsafe abortion practices. The user's only purpose on Wikipedia is to identify which organizations are pro-Abortion.--v/r - T P 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Squinge (talk)

The "Information on how to perform an abortion" section added by User:MarieWarren to Abortion Rights (organisation) was such a gross misrepresentation of the cited source that simple incompetence is not a plausible explanation. We're looking at blatantly dishonest POV-pushing here, in my opinion. Squinge (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by MarieWarren

Result of the appeal by MarieWarren

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

Per the information above, and my review of the thread in ANI archive 865, it seems that User:MarieWarren is here on Wikipedia to push a POV on abortion. She does not seem to care about the details of what the sources say. I recommend declining this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be better to keep this user away from Abortion related articles, however if MarieWarren is willing to contribute constructively to other areas I'd be willing to consider granting the appeal and replacing with a indef TBAN from abortion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since we can't indef block under DS, the block should be parsed as an 1-year DS block plus a normal indef block, with only the former in AE's scope. Regardless of the technicalities, the source misrepresentation is blatantly obvious, and the claims made in defense makes it doubtful that this editor could ever constructively contribute to any area of this project. Decline. T. Canens (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the fundamental problem with MarieWarren's statement is that it shows no acknowledgement at all that there has been any problem with her editing. If she cannot see what the problem is, then she will not be able to avoid making the same mistakes again. She seems to think that the block is just a result of her editing of one article, and says that she will not "edit this organisation again" (presumably meaning the article about that organisation). However, that assurance is nowhere near sufficient, as she has exhibited the same problems in editing a number of different articles, not just one, and avoiding one article will do nothing to prevent her from doing the same on other articles.

For the reasons I have described, I think we should decline the request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I would call User:MichaelBLewis72 a Confirmed sock of MarieWarren, and it appears both accounts are editing similar areas. It may be helpful to evaluate this as y'all evaluate this appeal. Courcelles 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the userlinks:

MarieWarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MichaelBLewis72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:MichaelBLewis72 has been adding papers by 'M.B.Lewis' to articles. For example here. He has stated he is an expert on face recognition and Google Scholar shows that someone of that name is recognized in the field. One option is to leave the indef of MarieWarren in place, ban MichaelBLewis72 from the topic of abortion and ask him to cease adding his own papers to articles as a condition of continuing to edit. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, they are technically indistinguishable. They could very well be different people, but CU brings them back technically identical. Courcelles 04:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very low opinion of people who misrepresent sources, ad I see no mitigating circumstances here. Even ignoring the possible sockpuppetry, I see no reason to trust MarieWarren to not continue misrepresenting sources if she were unblocked. Consequently we should decline this request. Huon (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially encouraged by MarieWarren's response to a discussion in my talk page regarding her synthesis of these abortion-related sources and how they apply to the organizations whose articles she edited. I later found out that despite the fact she appeared to have understood why her edits were inappropriate, she simply continued to perform them. I'm not very hopeful this time around, so I do not look kindly on this appeal. I think she is here to simply push her POV. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New timestamp to postpone archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close soon?: I suggest declining the appeal by MarieWarren since no admin favors it. The other account, User:MichaelBLewis72, has not edited since 13 January. Conceivably this is a different person using the same computer. Why not leave an alert for him under WP:ARBAB but take no other action at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett

Three admins have opined that this is stale (that is, the comment is too old to be sanctionable). Normally, I'd leave a request open longer, but I'm closing this before the heat-to-light ratio deteriorates further. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 7 February 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 Eric Corbett

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Eric Corbett (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/Interactions_at_GGTF#Eric_Corbett_topic_banned :

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

1 February 2015

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

25 January 2015 Most recent block for violating the same 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.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Eric_Corbett 25 January 2015].
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

To me this is a blockable violation, especially coming so soon after another violation of the same topic ban. Given that this issue came to my attention in the comments of a Signpost story (I am one of the new editors-in-chief there) and that I've more than surpassed my drama quota of late, instead of blocking myself I bring this matter here for others to assess. Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[33]

Discussion concerning Eric Corbett

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 Eric Corbett

My understanding of the purpose of LB's Kaffeeklatsch was that it is intended to provide "a safe place for women Wikipedia editors to get together". I don't see what that has to do with the GGTF or the gender gap in general, however broadly construed. Eric Corbett 17:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel. I'm not aware that my ban extends to "gender-related discussions", as Ironholds claims. My understanding is that it relates to "the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians". Where have I commented on either? Eric Corbett 18:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChrisGualtieri

Sorry, but I don't intend to muddy the waters much here, but an IP editor mentioned 10 minutes later that User:TallNapoleon/Association of Established Editors still exists. When I was reading the discussion I glossed over it, but I felt that Corbett was referencing it. Though I suppose Eric Corbett's very action in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch might present issues given the repeated issues of Lightbreather and Eric Corbett. Is the issue that this page was gender selective and Eric Corbett was chiming in that presents an issue or was it that specific edit's content or summary? I'm sorry, but I don't understand the issue without a better explanation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Ironholds my confusion has been cleared up. Possibly another issue in this Diff here. While I am overly cautious on the first... the second instance seems to break the GGTF topic ban and the provision about "Eric Corbett prohibited" from making such remarks. The edits were not helpful or necessary either... it just seems, mean. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Edited:Dropped the actual content in lieu of a plain diff.[reply]

Statement by Ironholds

Fully endorse an AE block here. This was quite clearly within the realms of Eric's topic ban.

@ChrisGualtieri:: Eric is banned from "editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed". I'd think that commenting on discussions about the retention/deletion of an experimental space aimed at improving the gender gap would quite clearly fall under both ii and iii, even narrowly construed. Is that clearer than the initial note by Gamaliel? Ironholds (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that repeating them word-for-word here is probably an extension of the same problem, Chris, while I recognise that you're trying to be helpful ;p. Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: what? The initial remedies were nothing to do with article space, so that's a moot objection. If you're objecting to the remedies, well, first, we don't get to decide what ArbCom decided, and second, discussions about the kind of environment we create and the processes it follow have a tremendous impact on the article namespace because they impact the kind of people we attract, the environment they exist in, and how they behave - it has systemic bias implications at a minimum. The mainspace is not a standalone kernel. And, have you ever seen Eric take warnings as a reason not to repeat the same behaviour? Because mostly I see him treating warnings as a platform to soapbox from. Ironholds (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, "I can't argue that this isn't a valid enforcement of the arb remedy, because it is, I'd just like to try for jury nullification". Glad we've worked that out. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO

It's the big yawn. Eric is apparently no longer allowed to have an opinion, anywhere. This wasn't in article space as it's not an article. Regardless of the arbcom remedies, it's pretty ridiculous to ever penalize someone for this sort of "breach" of remedies when it is NOT adversely impacting article space. At the extreme...a stern reminder is all that is necessary here...and I don't think even that is necessary.--MONGO 17:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ironholds: I do not concur with the arbcom remedies in that case. I found them to be flawed and were I to be an admin that spent time enforcing arbcom sanctions I would have to recuse from anything related to Eric Corbett and GG issues. However, I am not an admin so all I have is my opinion and my opinion here is that this petty bullshit sucks.--MONGO 17:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ironholds: Being a nobody all I have is my opinion. You're free to disagree with me.--MONGO 18:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Giano

Have people so little to do that obsessing over Eric Corbett has become their sole occupation. This is all becoming more than boring why not just have his tongue ripped out with a red hot iron - isn't that normally the sort of thing that bigots like to do those whose opinions they happen not to share? Giano (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: It matter not how this matter came to your attention, you have brought it here because you are trolling for trouble - nothing more. I have sat idly by for far too long while all this gender gap rubbish (yes, I said rubbish - get used to it, you'll be hearing it a lot more often from now on) and persecution of Eric Corbett has been discussed. It's people like you that give this project a bad name, you are vindictive and obviously obsessed - you need to get a life. Giano (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gamaliel

@Chillum: do you have any basis for your assertion that this is "an attempt to get Eric blocked"? A violation was pointed out directly to me here, I reported it. If I wanted to block Eric, I would have just blocked him myself. Gamaliel (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum: thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Corbett: Lightbreather's proposal is clearly intended to address the gender disparity on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Giano: Vindictive? That word, I do not think it means what you think it means. What do I want revenge for? Did Eric run over my dog? Your outburst here says far more about your suitability as a Wikipedian than it does about mine. Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EChastain

This is the third request for such action against Eric Corbett in the last two weeks.

[34] initiated 24 January 2015 by Lightbreather, resulting in a 48 hour block of Eric Corbett
Eric Corbett (2), [35] initiated by Rationalobserver, long comment by Lightbreather on 28 January 2015[36]. Case closed and deleted shortly after. EChastain (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the previous block, which was controversial and opposed by the majority of admins commenting:[37]

It led to a Clarification request: See this Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling [38]

particularly this part focusing on Eric Corbett[39]

and this ammendmend request:[40]

So how to handle these requests is controversial and still being discussed by arbs. The point of ds was to curtail disruption, but it seems to have furthered disruption. EChastain (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Eric Corbett

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

It appears to me that the comment is near the ill-defined outer edge of the topic ban. Whether it crosses the blurry line boils down to semantics and speculation about motive. I'd be inclined to discuss this if the comment had been made today or yesterday, but it's nearly a week old now, so unless there is evidence of other potential violations in the meantime, I think this should be closed as stale. Failing that, there are two questions that I think should be answered, given that there is scope for debate about whether the comment was a violation: Ignoring everything else, could Eric have made the comment without realising he was encroaching on his topic ban? And was the comment, or the effect of the comment, disruptive? The answers to those questions are likely to be significant mitigating or aggravating factors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions were put into place to prevent disruptive editing. While if we construe broadly enough it may be a violation I don't think we need to be that broad. The comment was not disruptive to the encyclopedia ~~and frankly this report seems like more of an attempt to get Eric blocked than to help the project~~. Given the staleness of the report and other factors I described above I don't think action is needed. Chillum 18:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: My sincere apologies, I did not realize this was being reported by proxy. Even if this was your idea it was a failure of AGF on my part, I have struck that comment. I just woke up and I appreciate you pointing out my faux pas. Chillum 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the request is closed quickly because it is stale and it is not clear, despite what some may think, that it violates a restriction so broad that almost anything could be considered covered by it. If any action is deemed to be necessary, I suggest that the only action is that a statement is made that reports done by proxy in future should never be accepted because they could be open to gaming of the system. (I make this comment without intending to criticise anyone up to the time of this report here.) I also suggest that a recommendation be made that people should spend more time on adding content. DDStretch (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, lets keep it going and let everyone see what sad individuals these people obsessed with gender gaps are. Giano (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect

Closing with the filer's consent. If this issue needs further discussion, ANI is probably the most appropriate venue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 7 February 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: Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:50, 7 February 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:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons :Collect warned of DS on BLPs

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

Collect removes infobox religious affiliation category as well as “Jewish” from the phrase “Jewish neoconservatives”, removing the aspect that makes the religious affiliation blpcat notable.[41]
@MrX: agrees that sources meet blpcat and notability in terms of relevance.[42]
@Nomoskedasticity: agrees that sources meet blpcat.[43]
Nomoskedasticity indirectly warns Collect against reverting against consensus[44]
Collect claims that blpcat policy overrides consensus between the three editors commenting on the thread.[45]
MrX adds sources and queries Collect about collaborative editing.[46]
MrX asks Collect if he intends to restore categories, etc. removed in this edit, which Collect had initially reverted and after which further sourcing was provided and the above-mentioned consensus reached.
I repeat blpcat notability and ask him to abide by consensus.[47]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since I have already mentioned, in a different context in relation to the appeal above, the very edit with relevant blpcat portions of which have been reverted edit, it I decided to file this complaint instead of querying Nomoskedasticity and MrX about the preferred course for seeking redress.

Joe Klein Talk thread
BLP/N thread

--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC) The NNDB sourcing issue was resolved three days ago, and I have certainly learned more about blpcat than I did then. There was a consensus built over the past three days collaboratively in relation to numerous sources, as the threads demonstrate. Collect has tendentiously been insisting on three points, basically: that references to "Jewish" and "Jew" in the sources refer to ethnicity, not religious affiliation; that Klein's religion (ethnicity) is not relevant to his notability; and that Jewish neocons were not a specific issue for Klein, eliminating an important reason that Klein's religion (ethnicity) is related to his notability, as described on the Talk thread.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Collect's behavior becomes more astounding by the minute. His assertion of an attack by me was a reply I made to a comment by @MastCell: that Collect has repeated unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism against Ubikwit[reply]
And below it seems that two uninvolved editors commenting have only read Collect's comments, not the relevant BLP/N or Talk threads, because they otherwise would know that
three editors have explicitly agreed that the sources support categorization of Joe Klein as Jewish and as having notability as such, and Collect, insisting that his interpretation of policy was correct instead of ours, reverted the consensus based categorization and supporting text.
--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 19:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: I'm redacting and addressing a couple of the points in the Arbcom decision that are relevant, which is probably the last edit I will make tonight.

In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Here, when Collect objected to material being included, it was removed, and when sources supporting inclusion garnered "local consensus" categorization and text were re-added, in accordance with blpcat, but reverted on what two editors found to be obstructionist grounds.

Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Collect has refused to collaborate, simply acting as arbiter, saying "nope", and belittling the import of the discussion. The statements after his last revert were seen to be as pointy and not in good faith.

Collect makes statements irrelevant to interviews content and context, so I remind him. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Klein&diff=645770180&oldid=645767379 I thank Collect for reading article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Klein&diff=645810543&oldid=645808207 I query Collect as followsAm I correct in assuming that you are now satisfied that he is in fact Jewish, but disagree with that the Atlantic interview qualifies him as "self-identifying" with respect to his religious affiliation? But receive only an evasive answer.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Klein&diff=645888466&oldid=645827337 repeating policy jargon].
Clearly that is not indicative of collaborative content creation, but evasiveness, which is in effect an implicit misrepresentation of the sources in os far as he refuses to even discusses aspects that three other editors are clearly in agreement on.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 20:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.
@Obsidi: For one thing, would there be any possible problems with categorizing someone as Jewish only by ethnicity without religious affiliation? The BLP is misrepresenting Klein in terms of his notability in relation to his religious affiliation, and that was caused by reverting well-sourced categories and text supporting notability. It is highly unusual that the article at present states that Klein is ethnically Jewish, but does not indicate that he took a stance as a Jew against Jewish neocons, which is the primary reason his religious affiliation (or Jewish ethnicity) is notable in the first place.
There's no question that it is tendentious editing, including WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI but the result has a direct bearing on the public representation (or misrepresentation) of the personal attributes and notability of Klein with respect to his self-identified religious affiliation, or denial thereof. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 20:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: If this is misplaced, sorry. Please close it and I'll take it to AN/I, or consult with the other two editors in consensus on the content to determine the most appropriate course, as they are more experienced with BLP than I. I've never filed a case here before, and maybe misunderstood the relation of DS to BLP violations.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 20:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[48]

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

I have sought to abide by WP:BLPCAT and when a source was finally provided to source "Jewish heritage" for Joe Klein I made that specific edit. WP:BLPCAT specifically requires "self-identification" for claims of religion made in Wikipedia's voice. One should note that I started an RfC on whether this should continue to be policy. Absent a change oin BLP policy, I believe I was on firm ground in following that policy, despite repeated and iterated addition of the claim of religion as "Jewish" on the Joe Klein article.

[49] shows an editor insisting that NNDB is a source for claiming religion in Wikipedia's voice. [50] etc. have the editor explain his rationale as "I don't know whether the characterization belongs in the lead or whatnot as I don't work on BLPs very often, but it isn't even mentioned in the article despite the high-profile he's received in media coverage of the debate. I don't have time to sort out a text for the article.", [51] has a second editor excuse the violation of WP:BLPCAT with "Yes. "Danny Postel is Associate Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies". Jewish is not a pejorative term" and so on. The problem was that the editors were unfamiliar with the policy in WP:BLPCAT. On this current noticeboard page you will see a large number of edits where the aim is to label a person or persons "Jewish." Were WP:BLP to be amended as the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#RfC asks, none of this would have occurred, but WP:BLPCAT is pretty clear unless altered.

[52] shows my prompt request at BLP/N for opinions on NNDB as a source for the claim. [53] expands the statement.

In short - the complaint has no merit here, and the fact that I was the personto finally add the proper source for Klein having Jewish background should indicate that the word "Jewish" is not the problem Collect (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is not the only case where I have made assertion of BLPCAT - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Timothy_McVeigh_Religion_and_Political_categorization (long list of cases where I invoke that non-negotiable policy, in fact) where I show an exactly parallel concern. If Ubikwit wishes to alter the policy, I set up the RfC precisely for him to opinion. Complaining here is poor form indeed. Collect (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appending: The OP here posted:[54]

The problem is your obstructionist rhetoric and refusal to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. Three editors disagree, explicitly with your "parsing" regarding the meaning of "Jewish" and "Jew" by both Klein and others, and others referring to Klein as Jewish in the above context means that his Jewishness is notable to the controversy

Now the issue to be determined is:

Do "Jew" and "Jewish" as claims and categories in Wikipedia's voice fall under WP:BLPCAT or not?

If so, then can 3 editors state that the material is relevant even when the term s not from "self-identification" (presume that the source I do accept which was finally proffered does not exist, as it was not even mentioned until far on in the discussions - and I accepted it).

Is "Jewishness is notable to the controversy"

a valid exception to the policy? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another source proffered:[55]

Enough sources have been listed, but you refuse to recognize the obvious; furthermore, the Atlantic article links to the response from ADL's Foxman

We were deeply troubled by your outrageous assertion on Time Magazine's "Swampland" blog that Jewish neoconservatives "plumped" for the war in Iraq and are now doing the same for "an even more foolish assault on Iran" with the goal of making the world "safe for Israel." ("Surge Protection," June 24).

[56], which includes a link to Klein's response.

Unfortunately I do not see Klein saying anything in that blockquote :(. The Time source did allow me to be the one to add Klein's Jewish heritage to the BLP, but I fail to see what else I can do with this current interesting interpretation of WP:BLPCAT. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just ran across an interesting attack on me:[57]

I would say that Collect flew under the radar of making overt accusations, so I've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I do consider his insinuations of anti-Semitism, particularly with respect to the Monoweiss source related thread, to be a highly offensive and disruptive form of baiting

Which appears to me to be an accusation against me of insinuations of anti-Semitism at which I take justifiable umbrage. Collect (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Obsidi

A few things here:

You are arguing that he was WP:Tendentious editing in that he was editing against consensus. This is not a BLP violation (it might violate other rules but those should be brought before ANI not AE).
This seems to fall within WP:Local consensus, the fact that you and two other editors came to a consensus that Collect disagreed with does not matter if it is about a policy that has been accepted by a wider consensus. In this case that is from WP:CAT/R: Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question. If this person is or is not religiously Jewish should not be said in WP voice without the person making that claim themselves. If you think this policy is wrong, propose a chance to the policy.

--Obsidi (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think, assuming that what the complainer said is true, this may be a good case for WP:BOOMERANG. Basically what the accuser has said is that he and his two other editors repeatedly insisted on adding poorly sourced material about a LP being religiously Jewish to a BLP page despite an objection by another editor and while they were aware of the BLP discretionary sanctions. --Obsidi (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ChrisGualtieri

This seems to be an attempt to win a content dispute by Ubikwit. WP:BLPCAT is clear that it requires the subject publicly self-identify with the belief or orientation in question. Jewish atheism is well-known given the prominence about many Jews who are "ethnically Jewish", but do not subscribe to the religion or other perhaps subscribe to an entirely different set of religious beliefs. We have a category dedicated to such persons "Category:Jewish atheists and members of this category should meet the requirements of WP:BLPCAT as well. Few editors will remember Philip Roth of another Wikipedia drama who is clearly a Jewish atheist. Roth's inclusion comes from the well-stated and public beliefs that are cited in Roth's article. As a result, I am not convinced by the complainant's argument because it does not allow such a distinction to exist. Collect is right to protest on those grounds. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Collect

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

This appears to be a case of WP:Tendentious editing, but could the parties instead discuss specifically how this does or does not violate the policies covered by the discretionary sanctions? Gamaliel (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the conduct being reported is a BLP violation (and thus how it's covered by discretionary sanctions or any other arbitration remedy). Note that disruptive editing or editing against policy/consensus on an article that happens to be about a living person is not a BLP violation in and of itself. Unless something is posted promptly that suggests discretionary sanctions are applicable, I suggest this be closed an deferred to ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steeletrap

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 Steeletrap

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#May 2014 (BLP discretionary sanctions)

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

February 8, 2015 Reverted wording and changed the meaning of the phrase
February 8, 2015 Defied the RfC closing of admin Nyttend after he pointed out the fundamental noncompliance of NPOV, and she adding back the term conspiracy theory
February 8, 2015 Went even further in noncompliance of NPOV by adding more contentious material to the BLP
February 8, 2015 Went into the body of the article and reverted the wording to change the meaning of the phrase
February 8, 2015 Reverted another editor's correction of BLP violations and again brought back the noncompliant contentious material

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[December 30, 2014]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#May 2014 (BLP discretionary sanctions) If I read the information properly, Steeletrap just completed a 3 week TB, and went right back to editing with no regard for DS, the recent RfC results, or policy compliance.

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

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

This is my first AE, and I apologize in advance for any technical errors I may have made completing this form.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[58] Notified by another editor of edit violations at article TP
[59] Warned of the violations and my report to Callanecc who has been overseeing Griffin
[60] Callanecc asked me to make a report of this at AE which I am doing now.
[61] Steeletrap's response to Callanecc - the user has been notified.
[62] Notice of this AE

Discussion concerning Steeletrap

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 Steeletrap

I was not edit warring. The Griffin article has nothing to do with my topic ban. Hence in the last AE sanctions case against me--the successful one--no one raised the issue of my editing the Griffin page. Steeletrap (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC) The diffs cited of Jytdog admonishing me are out of context. Jytdog supported my edit that OP is objecting to here. He opposed an edit of mine which added new content. My edit was reverted and I did not re-add it. Steeletrap (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Atsme has unclean hands in this matter. [63]. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog

Suggest boomerang. Please see 3RR thread I had opened with regard to Atsme prior to this AE being opened, here. Please also note Atsme's response in that board action. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Steeletrap did edit aggressively, Steeletrap later (in the midst of Atsme's edit warring described in my 3RR post above) posted on my Talk page acknowledging that she should have shown more restraint: see User_talk:Jytdog#In_retrospect.... That was after I had urged her to stop editing the article and seek consensus first, here: Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#Edits_today. I have seen no such insight from Atsme. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

We already have Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_review_of_close_of_RfC_at_Griffin_article where the issues have been discussed at length. That regards an RfC whose close is likely to be upheld which found calling a person a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's voice was improper.

The current issue is whether, presuming that the RfC closer's conclusions were proper, whether "advocate of alternative medicine and fringe science" in Wikipedia's voice falls under the same WP:BLP stricture as "conspiracy theorist" does when made in Wikipedia's voice.

It may be that this is a content dispute, but where an administrator Nyttend (who appears to be an experienced editor and administrator) has apparently ruled that it is a matter of WP:BLP requirement, then it is unlikely that ArbCom is likely to overturn it when the close was upheld at WP:AN. And in that case the issue should be whether the onus falls on the first to undo such an action [64] and not on the successive edits.

Callanecc's solution is good - but does not address that initial reversal of an admin's edit apparently made on BLP grounds. . Proposal's for "boomerang" or the like are, IMO, ill-judged. Collect (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The close was:

Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist". Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Which quite appears to indicate the closer viewed the term "conspiracy theorist" to be intrinsically "derogatory" and violative of NPOV - and the requirement for "self-identification" appears to draw directly onWP:BLP)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Steeletrap

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

NorthBySouthBaranof

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 NorthBySouthBaranof

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AnsFenrisulfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: NorthBySouthBaranof (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/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate :

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

^[1] ^[2] NbSB removes a link in the talk page, cites ^[3]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Per Sanctions to be Reinforced, NbSB is currently Topic-banned from the article.

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

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

The citation of the exemption is improper. The link they claim to be a BLP violation was cited on the talk page, was explicitly said by the poster to be a source for possible additional sources, and not a source to be used in the article itself. Thus, they are in violation of their topic ban.

Also, because I could see the label of SPA or Attack being thrown at me. I had wished to avoid the GamerGate article after I received Bite, and have even by eying other articles that interest me.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=646560006 He has been notified.

Discussion concerning NorthBySouthBaranof

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 NorthBySouthBaranof

Statement by (username)

Result concerning NorthBySouthBaranof

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

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

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

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=646479745

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=646479629

[5] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 712: / Line 712: @@
 ===Result concerning Steeletrap===
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
+<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
+*
+==NorthBySouthBaranof==
+<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
+===Request concerning NorthBySouthBaranof===
+; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|AnsFenrisulfr}} 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
+; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}}<p>{{ds/log|NorthBySouthBaranof}}
+<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate]] :
+<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
+; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
+<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. -->
+<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=646479745</ref>
+<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=646479629</ref> NbSB removes a link in the talk page, cites <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans</ref>
+; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
+<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
+Per Sanctions to be Reinforced, NbSB is currently Topic-banned from the article.
+;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
+<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link 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 :
+The citation of the exemption is improper. The link they claim to be a BLP violation was cited on the talk page, was explicitly said by the poster to be a source for possible additional sources, and not a source to be used in the article itself. Thus, they are in violation of their topic ban.
+Also, because I could see the label of SPA or Attack being thrown at me. I had wished to avoid the GamerGate article after I received Bite, and have even by eying other articles that interest me.
+; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
+https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=646560006 He has been notified.
+<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
+<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+===Discussion concerning NorthBySouthBaranof===
+<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
+====Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof====
+====Statement by (username)====
+<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
+===Result concerning NorthBySouthBaranof===
 :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
 <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->

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