Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Askahrc

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

Request concerning Askahrc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Manul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :

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

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

[Arbcom has extended the word count limit to 1000 for this case.]

Askahrc has orchestrated a number of deceptions on Wikipedia. I once asked at WP:AN about the loophole in the "disruption must be current" rule: Can one conduct an unlimited number of abuses on Wikipedia without repercussions, provided there is a sufficient time lag between the disruption and its discovery? The consensus was clearly "no", so I present the following evidence. Askahrc was sanctioned for the first item below; the second has not been addressed before, and only the third is recent.

Askahrc harassed editors with a sockpuppet, for which he was given the sanction listed above. By issuing threats under the disguise of the sock, Askahrc was trumping up the "bullying" evidence for his Arbcom case, "Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors". (Three admins affirmed the sockpuppetry: two in the SPI and one in the tabled AE listed above.)
Askahrc knowingly permitted Tumbleman's sockpuppet SAS81 to disrupt Wikipedia, standing by while Tumbleman (as SAS81) attacked editors with whom he and Askahrc had prior grievances (evidence to follow). Admins at Tumbleman's AE called him "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll", and "a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues".[1]
- Askahrc and Tumbleman had already been affiliated via their off-site harassment (addressed later in this request) prior to the appearance of the SAS81 sock.
- Askahrc is the founder of ISHAR[2] where Tumbleman worked.[3]
- Out of the millions of topics on Wikipedia, Askahrc "just happened" to become involved with the topic of Deepak Chopra soon after Tumbleman (as SAS81) appeared. Askahrc's first Chopra-related comment on Wikipedia is at BLPN where he replies to Tumbleman.[4] Hours later he jumps into a COIN discussion to defend Tumbleman and "help mediate".[5] And after joining forces with Tumbleman, Askahrc was effectively an SPA for Chopra.
- An example of the disruption this produced: in a thread in which Askahrc participated, Tumbleman strongly attacked me with wild and false accusations, calling me "unscrupulous".[6]
Presently Askahrc has relaunched his campaign to falsely paint me as someone who files fraudulent SPIs.
- This began with his campaigning in favor of Tumbleman after Tumbleman's block,[7] e.g. "a large number of innocent editors have been blocked as collateral damage".
- Other examples from the long campaign:
  - Suggesting I have an "an inappropriate tendency to accuse people who disagree with them of sockpuppetry"[8]
  - Suggesting a "high number of editors who have been accused and blocked" by me for sockpuppetry.[9] (In fact it was just one person with multiple socks.)
  - Suggesting the SPI was somehow equivocal, and falsely claiming that an admin told me to "stop".[10]
  - Suggesting that I engaged in misconduct by filing SPIs.[11] (No admin has ever suggested this.)
- Finally the recent campaigning (my account was renamed from Vzaak to Manul):
  - Falsely claiming that it was "eventually proven" that I had been "citing inaccurate information".[12]
  - Falsely claiming that the SPI evidence was "solidly debunked" and making the misleading statement that "the SPI conviction was not supported by a Checkuser"[13]. There was no checkuser request, of course, because checkusers won't link usernames to IPs due to the privacy policy.

Much of the motivation behind Askahrc's deceptions may be found in his off-wiki harassment activities. Askahrc identified himself when he brought attention to his contributions to an off-wiki harassment site containing his name,[14] and an Arbcom member had recorded the page.[15] Arbcom is aware of this request. Out of courtesy I will not mention the name in clear text here.

In the link to the harassment site just mentioned, Askahrc calls editors "unethical" and "pisspoor bastards".[16] By citing the evidence he fabricated from his socking (first item above), he attempts to provoke outrage and rile up support: "Nearly a dozen editors who have disagreed with the skeptical majority's opinion on the Sheldrake page have been threatened with banning." To be clear, Askahrc himself issued the threats and then complained about them in order to generate "buzz", and indeed the story was picked up by blogs.
More recently Askahrc has taken to writing polemics at the Huffington Post,[17] e.g. "The fact that an innocent man's character is being assassinated is apparently irrelevant to these skeptic editors. He is famous, after all, and therefore not truly human."
And in another HuffPo article[18] he says, e.g., "Wikipedia's dishonest biography on Deepak Chopra", "the orthodox-skeptics have grown even more aggressive", "Go here to learn how to edit Wikipedia and, if the above behavior seems unethical, remedy it." Note the last one is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy: recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited.

From these writings we learn that Askahrc holds the view that Wikipedia is overrun by "skeptics" and that it's dreadfully important to right this great wrong. I suspect this is the impetus behind his deceptions. Now that Askahrc has a financial conflict of interest, I find it doubly reprehensible that he would continue the pattern of falsely defaming me. I do consider it harassment, and I am citing Askahrc's current sanction, "Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users..."

A final note: when confronted with his behavior, Askahrc tends to respond by making a slew of false claims. This puts me in a Catch-22: if I debunk each point, the result is a wall of text that repels anyone who might evaluate the matter. If I leave the points unanswered, it gives a sense of false balance. It is a phenomenally successful method of trolling Wikipedia editors, and I discussed this with Callanecc.[19] I would just implore admins to follow the evidence while not taking what Askahrc says at face value. Manul ~ talk 05:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original case submitted to Arbcom (who sent it here) contained private evidence showing an even greater extent of bad faith behavior. For instance Askahrc had been colluding with Tumbleman even way back during the Philosophyfellow socking, and had proxied edits for the SAS81 sock. I have asked Doug Weller or another arbitrator to comment. Manul ~ talk 17:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2 March 2014

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning Askahrc

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

Statement by Askahrc

There's quite a bit to respond to, though it appears all but two diffs (1, 2) are years old, and those two were me asking an admin for clarification. For the sake of brevity I'm going to ignore issues from years ago that have already been discussed in front of admins several times.

1) The "harassment" Manul/Vzaak references was a request for review I sent to the enforcing admin of the SPI from 2 years ago. I was not trying to attack Manul/Vzaak, I didn't even know they were still on WP; Vzaak being inactive. In it I mentioned the original slew of SPI's and AE's from Vzaak seemed to show a level of WP:GRUDGE. This is the fourth SPI/AE Manul/Vzaak has charged me with: I think WP:GRUDGE is not an unreasonable conclusion.

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

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

I apologize if I misinterpreted the issue of suppression, but you did directly argue I was issuing death threats (11). Worse, you continue to insist (even here) that, despite the fact I was unequivocally absolved, the evidence is still very strong that I committed this criminal act.

My issue is not about "blaming" or "faulting" anyone. It's when admins tell you I have no connection to a sock, by either geographical region or user agent, and yet you won't drop the WP:STICK. I've asked you in the past to agree to a voluntary WP:IBAN, but you did not (12), and I've repeated the option here, with the only response another list of accusations. This is exhausting... the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 17:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I find your statements here and on my Talk Page confusing and not particularly civil. You've asked me questions (13, 14), then when I replied told me that you wouldn't believe whatever garbage I said regardless (15, 16). You told me that unless I dropped the WP:APPEAL you would attempt to get me TBANNED (13), then when I told you I had already dropped the APPEAL you declared you'd pursue the TBAN anyway (16). I'm trying hard to AGF, but you seem to be taking your frustration with another editor out on me. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 21:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, it's perfectly reasonable to question whether I can and will conform with NPOV matters relating to Chopra, though I feel my current conduct answers that. While I do feel there are some WP:BLP concerns that could be addressed on that page, I have always emphasized upholding policy and have not used the kind of battleground language found in the Huffpo article. I try to focus on building consensus, participating in RFC discussions, offering sources, and explaining how I see policy/guidelines applying to the page. While some of my conclusions differ from editors on that page, I have backed off of topics when it seemed to skirt my COI, as well as supported positions that would make it harder to upload positive content about Chopra if it helps NPOV. I value NPOV, and strongly feel that editors with an opinion (as many on that page do) can still meaningfully contribute if they focus on policies and sound sourcing rather than their own POV's. the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 00:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manul and Jytdog have posted another two large lists of new accusations, apparently due to my "refusal to drop the matter". I've dropped it; I dropped it before this AE ever began, I dropped it here, I dropped it on my Talk Page. I asked an admin a question in accordance with WP:APPEAL, I got an answer, and that's all. I've worked well with the editors I regularly engage with (Manul and Jytdog are not editors I generally interact with), but since Manul's AE post every time I log in I see another wall of new accusations I have to spend ages looking into, all from a two edit conversation with an admin! the Cap'n ^{Hail me!} 06:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by olive

This is very strange. Almost all of these diffs are years old; the filer seems to be attempting to use stale information and diffs to implicate an editor. When I first looked at this case I thought I had somehow stumbled onto an old case. Might be expedient to withdraw this complaint before more time is well.... wasted?(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by JzG

Askahrc is indeed waging a one man battle against reality-based criticisms of Chopra, but he is open about his COI, polite and in general a decent person. There is a worrying tendency to stonewall and endlessly make the same or very similar requests, but I don't see this as actionable at this point - perhaps an admonition to accept consensus and not spin things out forever might be justified, but no more that that IMO. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Askahrc is not, and cannot be, neutral. He has not, as far as I can tell, edited the article directly, certainly in recent times, because of an admitted COI. That's fine up to a point, the point being where it becomes disruptive. Are we at that point? I'd say not, but we are at the point where Askahrc should be reminded to accept consensus and move on,rather than repeat rejected claims or stonewall discussions. He seems to be a decent enough person and his input is not, as far as I can tell, preventing us from accurately representing the consensus view on Chopra, namely that pretty much everything he says is faux-profound bullshit. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Looie496

The enforcement request comes to well over 2500 words. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog

No Askahrc you did not "drop" your appeal. Per your contribs to Callanecc's Talk page, the last thing you wrote there was continuing your argument to have the "conviction" overturned. That is not "dropped". If you had written there, "Hey Callenecc I am dropping this, but thanks for your time" -- that would be dropping it.

I was hoping Askahrc would just walk away from the past or come clean, but instead they are dug in and have doubled down above and at their Talk page. I do not believe that this editor is WP:HERE to benefit the project, and has not been for a while. This is a first batch of stuff and there is more. This is enough for now. A timeline.

Tumbleman was blocked October 2013.

Dec 2013 Askahrc worked with Rome Viharo aka Tumbleman aka soon-to-be-SAS81 to post this to Viharo's blog. Askahrc acknowledged this on his WP talk page here at the time.

Feb 2014. As documented in Manul's SPI posting (that resulted in sanctions against Askahrc, and the contesting of which by Askahrc led to Manul filing this AE) Askahrc disclosed that he was in contact with Viharo, discussing Viharo's banning.

April 2014 in this piece on Viharo's blog, Viharo approvingly quotes Askahrc's comments at Arbcom made in this dif in particular. Which has the great bit where Askahrc tells another editor that it is "unrealistic to claim ignorance." That's from the part that Viharo quoted, too.

April 2014 is also when SAS81 created their user page. SAS81 and Askahrc start working in tandem at the Chopra page to "improve it". (I will not provide difs, there are too many)

July 2014 Askahrc offers to help Viharo/SAS81 write an article about the Chopra Foundation article at COIN (!), prepares it in his sandbox, apparently posts it, and then reported to Viharo/SAS81 SAS81's talk page that the article was posted. I can't see the article b/c it was deleted and redirected per the AfD, where Askahrc was the only one arguing to keep it. btw, SAS81's last contrib to WP was thanking Askahrc for creating that article, on July 15. (If admins don't know, ISHAR is "a Chopra Foundation Initiative" per its webpage.)

Per his contribs from that time, Askahrc too vanished after July 30 (after having made some more arguments at the Chopra talk page in late July), and then appeared briefly on August 20 and 21 to fiddle with his sandbox and with his talk page.

November 2014 is, according to Viharo, when Viharo separated from ISHAR, see this blog posting.

Askahrc's next edit is on Dec 9, where he first deletes a bunch of stuff from his Talk page, including [the posting in the dif I gave above, where Askahrc acknowledged posting on Viharo's blog... and his next edit was at Talk:Chopra - the second post at Talk:Chopra - after announcement of SAS81's block as a sock was posted there. Here is Askahrc's dif. No disclosure of COI there, which was a violation of the Terms of Use. A small thing but part of this whole bad faith enterprise. Askahrc's next dif is at Manul's page, asking if Manul is concerned about Askahrc's acknowledgement of his connection with Viharo via that blog posting. Only then does Askahrc post his COI notice, in this dif, where he wrote: Please note that I am not currently affiliated with SAS81, nor is that user currently affiliated with ISHAR. As of August, 2014 I work for ISHAR, the Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository, as an archivist. As soon as I was approached for a position with ISHAR I ceased editing any articles or Talk Pages on Wikipedia but my own to prevent any WP:COI issues. (note - I removed original bolding)

I'll note here that in fall 2014, after Askahrc says he joined the organization ISHAR was busy with an indiegogo campaign That campaign targets Wikipedia's "bias", front and center. There are also public records of Viharo promoting ISHAR in August and September. It was not a big shop, and there is no plausible way that Askahrc could have not-known (in other words, Askahrc must have known) that Viharo was SAS81 - especially given Askahrc's own relationship with Viharo documented above. Even without that, "SAS81" was all over ISHAR's webpage, as their Wikipedia editor. ISHAR did not have gobs of staff and Viharo's history with WP is clear. Viharo even says on his blog that Chopra hired him because of his Wikipedia experience getting banned as Tumbleman. (see here: "A few months after this occurred and I published Wikipedia we have a problem – Deepak Chopra contacted me via twitter. He offered to give me a small grant to continue my work. I created a new Wikipedia editing account called SAS81 – and within 30 days, I completely resolved his ‘wiki war’ and returned his article to neutrality.")

Anyway, Askahrc didn't stick around much after December and the revelation that SAS81 was Viharo, per his contribs. He was mostly gone til May 2015, edited a few days in July, August, and Sept, but starting in Oct 2015 and continuing til now, he has been back pretty full press trying to make the Chopra article more positive, exactly continuing the work of SAS81/Viharo, who bragged on his blog that he dramatically changed the article as SAS81.

I find that timeline to be telling. Really telling. What was the phrase? It is "unrealistic (for Askahrc) to claim ignorance" about SAS81's SOCKing with all that on-Wiki evidence of interaction, especially since the two definitely overlapped at ISHAR for August, September, October, and at least part of November. Yet in his statement above, and at his Talk page, Askahrc denies knowing anything about this, says he is not associated with SAS, blah blah blah. Says his role at ISHAR has nothing to do with WP, blah blah blah. ISHAR ethics, blah blah blah.

There is some stuff I want to say that i am pretty confident is OK per OUTING, but to be safe I am checking first. Will be back afterwards.

My bottom line here is that Askahrc has dug up the past, in the present. That past appears to me, to be very sordid. It appears to me that Askahrc has lied to the community about his relationship with SAS81. I believe that Askahrc probably knew that SAS81 was a sock from the beginning in April 2014, but there is no way they could not have known this beginning in August 2014, when they joined ISHAR. Yet they did nothing. This to me belies any claim that Askarhc or ISHAR actually respects Wikipedia's policies. If they did, Askarhc or ISHAR would have identified SAS81 as a sock (with on-wiki evidence or emailing off-wiki evidence to an arb or clerk), and the editing community would not have had to dig that up itself and only in December 2014. And yes, with the Huffpo pieces and the indiegogo campaign, it is obvious that ISHAR is deeply opposed to WP's NPOV policy when it comes to altmed. I believe that Askahrc should be be topic-banned from the Chopra article and from altmed topics as well. If I am able to get the other things I want introduced, that will support that even more strongly, but I think the evidence is clear already. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have been reflecting on this. And here we go. As I noted above, in this dif on 3 January 2014, Askahrc pointed the community to a posting he had made on Viharo's blog. Looking at Viharo's blog today, I provided a diff to this because the current index at that blog showed that this was the posting closest in date prior to Askahrc's acknowledgement. There actually was an earlier posting by Askahrc to Viharo's blog. It is here (captured by Internet Archive on 20 Dec, 2013. Askahrc revealed in that posting that he is Ryan Castle in the real world. For belt and suspenders with regard to OUTING, for three and a half years, from the day he put content on his user page in Sept 2010 til he removed it in April 2014 Askahrc disclosed on his user page that his name is Ryan. He has not had that oversighted. As noted above, Askahrc has disclosed that he is "an archivist' at ISHAR on his userpage. ISHAR's webpage clearly states that Ryan Castle is their chief archivist. There is absolutely no doubt, within the bounds of OUTING, that Askahrc = Ryan Castle.

The reason I am introducing this, is that Ryan Castle is the one who wrote those two articles at HuffPo that Ed cited below, here (which says "Wikipedia is free for all to edit and get involved in, so the power to fix it lies with everyone." - please note that the second link there is to instructions at ISHAR for how to use their refs in Wikipedia) and here (which ends with the clarion call: "Anyone reading this article is capable of contributing to Wikipedia, all that is necessary is patience and the will to act. If there is misinformation occurring, it is the responsibility of all who know better to do something about it. Go here to learn how to edit Wikipedia and, if the above behavior seems unethical, remedy it. There’s a common saying on Wikipedia: if someone notices a problem and asks why it has not been fixed, the traditional answer is “Because you haven’t fixed it yet.” Let’s fix it."), that made Ed wonder if someone affiliated with ISHAR could be neutral. I am taking that a step further, and saying that those two pieces are obvious violations of WP:MEAT, in that they are clear efforts to recruit people to change the Chopra article. Per MEAT: "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited."

Please TBAN Askahrc from all alt-med topics under the CAM DS. I would even more like to see Askahrc banned from Wikipedia since he obviously colluded with SAS81's socking, but that may be asking too much. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Askahrc: Clerk notes

Both parties statement lengths have been extended to 1000 words by agreement of the arbitrators. Amortias (T)(C) 22:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Askahrc

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

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

I see the new post by User:Jytdog and am hoping to say something later about it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi

Chesdovi is topic banned from Zionism (broadly construed) and Western Wall or adding references to Palestine or Palestinians in articles that do not contain them. I have left out categories as they should be covered by the Zionism tban. Chesdovi is cautioned that high volumes of repetitive edits in sensitive areas that case disruption are to be avoided. Further controversy over such edits will result in long blocks Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Chesdovi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles :

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tachlifa_of_the_West&type=revision&diff=710075488 Chesdovi moved the page to his POV version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive279#Tachlifa_the_Palestinian Chesdovi discussed my moving his page back to the correct page and Nishidani told him that my version is the more correct version. "I think Sir Joseph's literal version is well grounded in sources."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balady_citron&type=revision&diff=710084016 Changing Israeli to Palestinian
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yisroel_Moshe_Dushinsky&diff=prev&oldid=710082233 Adding anti-Zionist cat to article
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yisroel_Yaakov_Fisher&diff=prev&oldid=710082280 Adding anti-Zionist cat to article
and he did the same to about 20 more.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I did not add all his recent edits since that's not necessary, but he has begun to edit again in this area.

Here is the original TBAN, that the above referenced clarification references, asked for by Liz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106#Chesdovi,

He has also continued to discuss the ban on the ANI and on user's talk pages.

RolandR there are many diffs, one of them is changing the title of an article from "of the West" to "the Palestinian" to further his POV. This is the same person who created a now AFD'ed Jewish boycott of the Western Wall. When you change the title of an article to suit your POV that is certainly against the TBAN. The article may be about a 4th Century rabbi, but his edits are not. His edits are about the ARBPIA topic area and it is clear to all.
Hmm, I thought continuing to discuss your TBAN on user talk pages and on ANI is a violation of the TBAN, regardless of the other diffs.
Zero0000Can you explain how changing a person's name from what it is to "the Palestinian" is not pushing an agenda that we have seen from Chesdovi? Articles may not be covered by TBAN or ARBPIA but edits are. His edits are covered under ARBPIA TBAN "broadly construed." In addition to the other diffs? How much more can we take?
Serialjoepsycho, I'd ask you to AGF and strike your last comment. This has nothing to do with my ban. I moved the original page weeks ago. This has everything to do with Chesdovi pushing his agenda to put the word Palestine where ever he can get a chance, even where it has no business being, and that is why it's a violation of his TBAN. Don't try to threaten me with a ban. The whole point of AE is to bring violations to AE for enforcement. Now I'm to get a ban for bringing a violation? I do not appreciate that one bit.
Serialjoepsycho, there are also sources that say Tachlifa of Ceasaria. so the easiest and Wikipediest solution is to use his actual name and not a SYNTH version of his name. His name translates to Tachlifa of the West. His consensus move was just him, that is not a consensus. As for him adding Palestine, that's not righting great wrongs, that is his POV, similar to him creating a Jewish boycott of the Western Wall which was deleted and other POV pushes.
@Drmies, I initially did not see those diffs. Jeppiz below pointed those out in his comments and so I edited to clarify that he is editing in the area without abandon and not just one article that may, to some, be on the periphery.
@Only in Death, changing "Israeli" to "Palestinian" in an article about citrons is certainly pushing a POV.
He is still editing, even after told to wait until a decision is made one way or another: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATachlifa_of_the_West&type=revision&diff=710223772 clearly he doesn't care about the TBAN.
The fact that he is still editing the offending page and other pages listed as well as creating contentious edits while at an AE action shows that action is warranted. I have warned him repeatedly at the talk page of several of the articles not to comment and to wait, one way or the other, but he is continuing to edit. This can't continue.
I agree with Spartaz, and I just want to remind the admins that Chesdovi has been editing in the TBAN area for a while before anyone noticed that he is in violation of the TBAN, and then Debresser brought the clarification request. Then he is still continuing to edit, even though he was told to ease up until the AE is closed. Clearly he can't stay away from this contentious area. I think a TBAN extension to Zionism/Israel and Palestine/Palestinian would do this encyclopedia well, yet another new edit from Chesdovi: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AYishuv_haYashan&type=revision&diff=711095380. I think it may be wise to block him until an AE decision is finalized. He is posting on his talk page in violation of his TBAN and is continuing to post in violation of his TBAN.
Still editing on my talk page, other talk pages and creating new articles in violation of the TBAN and discussing the TBAN, all in violation of the TBAN.
Chesdovi, you still don't get it, and the fact that you link to Tachlifa the Palestinian as a redirect just proves that you are here to be disruptive and not to build an encyclopedia. Why not take all the advice given to you and stop editing in this area until after a decision has been made? Then you can continue with whatever the admins decide. Right now you are just showing you can't edit without being contentious. Someone brought before AE in a certain area is not usually creating articles and still editing those areas even after they're told not to. That is evidence that you will not abide by a TBAN. (as for why I removed Palestine from your brand new textile article, three words earlier you mention Ottoman Empire and then you link to Tzfas, that is enough for a location, adding Palestine (which is not the proper linking anyway) is just your POV and your sole reason for creating the article. )
I'm not getting into a pissing match with you. IIRC, I believe Serialjoepsycho also advised you to ease up on your editing. Furthermore, you are now claiming I am stalking you, which is a violation of AGF and you should either strike that out or I will highlight that for the admins. Furthermore, you have been editing in violation of your TBAN for quite some time, just nobody realized your TBAN was still operation. I am not going to respond to you anymore, you are already well past your limit, even if you don't care about rules. Plus, your behavior here just proves you are not here to build an encyclopedia, you are here to be confrontational. and you are a WP:SPA.
Chesdovi, you fail to mention you went to ANI without notifying me. That right there shows how you continue to edit in a battleground demeanor. Serialjoepsycho, when you comment at ANI you MUST notify the person. So it's not big deal to wait days if you fail to notify me. Chesdovi has repeatedly brought action against me at ANI without notifying me. That is not someone who is acting in a manner conducive to collaborative editing. Even after "reminded", Chesdovi still opened up ANI actions against me without notifying me.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChesdovi&type=revision&diff=710081001

Discussion concerning Chesdovi

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

Statement by Chesdovi

Allowed word count increased to 750 Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz, Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism is not linked to the I/P conflict: [20]. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I may not be a "major editor on Orthodox Jewish topics or on historical rabbis of various periods", but I have spent hours adding my fair share to Wikipedia over the years, besides from my numerous edits on Haredim and Haredim and Zionism , I have created pages about rabbi throughout the ages ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]) and added tens of images to supplement rabbi pages. Chesdovi (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

I am also not sure how הָאֶתְרוֹג הַפַּלֶשְׂתִּינִי translates in "Israeli citron", changed by a vandal and not linked at all to the I/P conflict, (except by those who will go to war for the sake of a lemon's name it seems...) Chesdovi (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brewcrewer, the category was not plastered over "random pages". I felt this category would be in line with Category:Criticism of the official accounts of the September 11 attacks and the like. It seems not. I may create a page about this topic instead. Sorry for any offence caused. It was not meant as an "attack". It is a widely held belief, and I thought I could group together the relevant pages. Chesdovi (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, you think I should be banned from that page, but I am not topic banned from that page, just like I am not topic banned from Tomaccio. Where have you explained that the venerable old rabbi is related to I/P? This is a dispute centred around name conventions. I prefer the historic common use in RS, while you prefer literal or translation. You persistently force you POV without waiting for due consensus and wish to drag this innocuous article into the I/P conflict. It seems some people will go to war over the name of a lemon! I was not banned from using the word "Palestinian" and I don't see why I should be. Maybe you should be banned from using the word "West"? "Changing "Israeli" to "Palestinian" in an article about citrons is certainly pushing a POV" does not stack up. I reverted "Palestinian" to match the Hebrew text next to it, something you will appreciate in your efforts to call Rabbi Tachlifa the "Westerner" - a literal translation of the Aramaic. Chesdovi (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

AnotherNewAccount: My motivation for the creation of Palestinian wine was contrary to your claims and I dispute your assessment of my conduct at AfD. (modified) Chesdovi (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser: Thank you for calling me "unscrupulous and unprofessional", but you jave not responded to repeated requests to show where consensus has been reached that "Palestinian" is not to be used. I reject your allegation that my source are "often biased" or "cheery-picked". Scholarly RS, both inside and outside Israel, chiefly use Palestine/Palestinian in relation to matters prior to Israel's creation. (modified) Chesdovi (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz: 1. As mentioned at talk, I do not add the word Palestinian to every page where it can possibly be put. In the past I have created pages including the term whereupon they are pounced upon by Debresser who removes the "offending" word according to his/her POV. This not an issue? 2. I'm curious to know whether you also think it is "unhealthy" to have editors "obsessed" with Zionism removing the word "Palestinian" from every page as they deem necessary. 3. I'm also curious to know how numerous and painstaking gathered inline citations I provided at Jewish boycott of the Western Wall were insufficient and would like to know your suggestion of how to include that information on Wikipedia. Leibowitz still has not been re-added to Western Wall at the behest of Debresser an SJ. The obvious question is Why? 4. I would also like to know why you think it was valid for SJ to revert to "Tachlifa of the West" without opening a discussion at talk if indeed it is such a sensitive editing area. Why do "obsessive" "pro-Zionists" trump "ant-Zionists" on Wikipedia? 5. Debresser is of the opinion that using the term "Palestinian" is inappropriate according to consensus but has yet to show where this so-called consensus was reached. Chesdovi (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SJ is making allegations against me which I cannot respond to since I have passed my word limit. (Please note that he is removing the word "Palestine" on spurious grounds, just as he did at Tachlifa the Palestinian: [32] - we are not to be informed where in the Ottoman Empire Safed was! If this is not a clear POV push, I do not know what is. Chesdovi (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Please see talk and talk. Chesdovi (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SJ, I have not been told "not to" (except by you); I have not added the word "Palestinian" to any articles mainspace since this began; I have not edited articles under my TB since it was given 4 years ago. You were extremely upset about Jews who boycott the wall and have been following me around ever since making it very unpleasant for me here. Chesdovi (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serialjoepsycho, I agree my editing can become "animated" at times, but at the same time, I know myself that I can and have remained constrained in the face of similar editing, failures of AGF and PA by other editors.
I greatly appreciated your mentoring at my talk page and found it useful.
I am unfamiliar with the rules about ARBPIA and apologies for that.
I did indeed intend to take action to combat what I see as “Anti-Palestinian POV pushing”. But it was not related to the scope of the word’s usage as it may relate to the modern-day conflict. My bias is rooted on widespread usage of the term in RS regarding early Talmud era rabbis. That was made clear. Your claim that “After 1 revert attempt I chose to hit ANI” is not accurate. After SJ literally out of nowhere, stumbled upon TotW, unilaterally moving the page, I went straight to ANI without reverting, precisely to prevent an edit-war erupting]. Having previous experience with SJ, I was not prepared to engage in lengthy, confrontational and unconducive discussions with him and requested outside help in the first instance. That I felt was the correct course of action. My immediate resort to ANI was not rooted in "battleground behaviour." Additionally, As far as I’m concerned, I have been through this rigmarole before, in 2011 when I launched a successful RM bid after after Debresser had reverted twice. Veteran Talmud rabbis page creator Midrashah had seen and accepted the original page name in Jan 2012. Only SJ and Debresser (who I’m not sure how familiar they are with the RS on this subject) contest usage of the word Palestinian. After my first post at ANI, I waited 10 days for Admin comment and nothing was forthcoming. Only after seeking resolution and a 10 day wait, did I then revert SJ's page name change. That is not conventional “battleground”. Yet 16 minutes later, SJ reverts for a second time, (including further edits I had added) without any discussion whatsoever. Am I then expected, instead of going a second time to ANI, to open a second RM or a discussion at talk? Possibly. Instead I asked at ANI for assistance ("can somebody mediate so an edit war does not erupt" - I did not simply accuse SJ of any particular conduct). SJ for his part, instead of providing firm rational about term usage, insisted I had violated my TB by editing the page and proceeded to get me blocked or banned further! Yet I was aware from Aug 2011 that this particular page was not covered by the ban.
I hope that with further clarifications, you may reconsider you conculsion, as you have done with originally asserting that TofW is under TB. Chesdovi (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SJ, I did not intentionally not notify you. I posted on March 4th and you replied on March 7th. Chesdovi (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did notify you but was unaware there was an "official" way of doing so. I will add that SJ insisted that the adding WoW to WW was a TB violation!? Chesdovi (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeppiz

I came here as an uninvolved user who has had no interactions with Chesdovi, but the topic ban violations are so rampant it seems to be deliberate and provocative. In the space of one hour, Chesdovi has already violated the topic ban 20 times! I'm afraid an indef block is the only solution, this user seems determined to go on violating the topic ban. Jeppiz (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

The article in question is about a 4th century rabbi; as far as I can see, it does not have even a minimal connection to the Palestine/Israel conflict, however broadly interpreted. The complaint is without merit. RolandR (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Drmies notes below, at the time I commented, the only diff listed in this complaint was about Tachlifa of the West. I have not examined the diffs added subsequently; but I repeat my view that the complaint, as originally submitted, was totally meritless.RolandR (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

As per RolandR, the article in question is not covered by ARBPIA and Chesdovi is permitted to edit there. Zero^talk 23:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

This topic ban includes any thing that can be construed to be a part of the Palestinian conflict. Edit warring because you disagree that something is a part of ARBPIA is a violation of ARBPIA. [33]. If you disagree that something is a part of your topic ban WP:ARCA has been set up for clarification. There is also here at WP:ARE. Be more careful Chesdovi.

An additional side concern, This seems to have more to do with Sir Joseph's recent ban than any disagreement with Chesdovi. Disrupting wikipedia to make a point is grounds for a ban. Be more careful Sir Joseph.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I strike my comment again? I am assuming good faith, I'm just not slitting my wrist.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Materially I'd have to agree with RolandR, that Tachlifa of the West is not covered by ARBPIA. How ever, a Google search suggests that Tachlifa of the West and Tachlifa the Palestinian have both been used by sources. I note the comments in the diff I linked above. That his page removal was appropriate because of it was "changed by two editors with a history of pushing anti-"Palestine" POV in all its various guises." It certainly wouldn't seem that he has an exemption to his topic ban to right the great wrongs. Actually it would seem where righting great wrongs are involved with Palestine he should know not to edit there.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, I'm not actually interested in having a pissing contest with you. My comments were directed at Drmies, they were not directed at you and your comments suggest that you simply do not understand them. The implications of "righting the great wrongs" above is that Chesdovi was Povpushing. In short, you are trying to argue against me while making the same case that I did. Let me further add this is not the place to argue out the content dispute portion of this. That would be in an RFC. The admins that are involved here are here to help end disruption thru enforcing active arbcom sanctions and not to help you achieve a consensus. If they were to help in achieving a consensus they would do so either in their capacity as editors or in the capacity of an uninvolved closer.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides an article on Palestinian wine, I'm not familiar with Chesdovi to the best of my knowledge. Content wise this article is outside of his ban. You couldn't even argue that it is a part of ARBPIA. However with that said my talkpage, contentwise is outside of his ban. He however is banned from bringing an ARBPIA related discussion to my page and it would stand to reason that he is equally banned from taking action combat what he sees as Anti-Palistinian POVpushing. After 1 revert attempt he chose to hit ANI, where what was basically a pissing contest took place. He could have instead used the talk page. We also have page moving procedures. He could have discussed why the page should be moved instead of going into a tangent about AntiPalestiant/antiIsrael povpushing by using sources and pointing out the relevent policy. He's actions more rooted in battleground behavior. This is a realistic concern. This is not to suggest his actions are the only of concern.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: I note EdJohnston's comments below and I note also the discussion at User_talk:Chesdovi#Regarding_your_ARE. With all the comments above by Chesdovi, I can see nothing that suggests his battleground behavior was an aberration or that he will make any much less every effort to cease it. It seems to me that the course of action you have highlighted would be the best course of action for Chesdovi and the community. The only other thing I can really say is honestly that other users may be here with unclean hands and their actions may be just as unhelpful.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Chesdovi has now actually addressed his own behavior I'd agree now with EdJohnston's position that this can be closed with no action, with only a warning that no further battleground behavior or related disruptive behavior will be tolerated . Watching this pissing contest that has been going on here and at ANI I would however question if a 2 way interaction ban between Sir Joseph and Chesdovi and a 2 way interaction ban of Debresser and Chesdovi may be beneficial to the community.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in Death

Editing articles about historic or even recent Rabbi's does not necessarily infringe upon 'Arab-Israeli conflict' Which is what he is topic-banned from (emphasis mine). Unless those rabbis are themeselves embroiled in the conflict in some way its just not part of the ban. Unless you are going to modify the ban to 'Anything remotely Arab, Jewish or middle-east broadly construed'. This is a non-issue. The description for the category added is "The category Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism includes articles about groups and subject matters that oppose Zionism, on Jewish religious grounds." Thats not exactly related to Arab-Israeli conflict. If anything its Jewish-Israeli conflict... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Debresser

According to a recent clarification request at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_.28February_2016.29 the unanimous opinion of 7 editors is that the topic ban is still in place. This editor has for years been pushing the word "Palestinian" where it is not appropriate. His recent move of Tachlifa of the West to Tachlifa the Palestinian is just the latest of them. I strongly feel we will all be better of without this unscrupulous and unprofessional POV pusher. Debresser (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only in Death, Zero, RolandR, Serialjoepsycho I beg to differ. In this case it was Chesdovi himself who enlarged the scope of the articles related to the conflict by propagating the name "Palestinian" at improper locations. That is precisely why I called him a "unscrupulous and unprofessional POV pusher". Debresser (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to all those who insists on a minimalist interpretation, as opposed to {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} which uses "broadly construed", how is Western wall not related to the IP-conflict? Debresser (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

@Spartaz Good proposal. I mean the alternative, a broadly constructed topic ban. Debresser (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chesdovi

It is consensus which finds your usage of the word "Palestinian" out of place.
You show me 3 removals from one and the same article, while you added it to numerous articles. By the way, I also add it, but only where it is appropriate: [34], [35], [36] (this soooo proves you wrong in accusing me of having a POV it makes you look pitiful)
Those so-called scholarly sources are 1. often based on old sources using old terminology 2. often biased, which is why you chose them 3. always cherrypicked by you to prove your POV.

Debresser (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brewcrewer

He's now commenced with a conspiracy theory category blaming Zionists for the Holocaust [37] and plastering it unsourced all over random pages. If this is not what the intention for topic bans I don't know what was. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Finnusertop

ArbCom members, uninvolved administrators or Chesdovi. Please amend the opening post to hide (using a :File link rather than embedding) the following non-free images because they are not allowed in Wikipedia: namespace: the first 13 images plus File:Steipler Gaon.jpg. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed since. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnotherNewAccount

Voluntary self-hat, per discussion on Talk that AE submissions are becoming unwieldy

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

As I see it, without managing to violate his topic ban as such, Chesdovi deftly exploits genuine confusion between the historic Palestine (region), the Mandate of Palestine and the modern State of Palestine in order to give 'Zionists' the elbow.

The example given above is the Palestinian wine article, which largely described the Palestinian Jewish (now effectively Israeli) wine industry from when the area was under the Mandate, but written in such a manner that made it very easy for one of the pro-Palestine nationalist editors to then connect everything to the modern State of Palestine. This enabled the bypassing of the inconvenient reality of Israel's creation, and opened the door to the implication that the modern Palestinian nation has existed since of the dawn of time (a preferred tactic of nationalist editors in general). This was the root of the ARBPIA discord that Debresser complained about a while ago.

Incidently, Chesdovi's conduct in that article's AfD was appalling - and even included composing a poem to taunt the nominating editor there. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Chesdovi's conduct during that AfD was deplorable, but the AfD was closed more than a month ago. The time to complain about his conduct came and went.

Since AnotherNewAccount has the chutzpah to complain about the article Chesdovi wrote about Palestinian wine and about unnamed "pro-Palestine nationalist editors", let's take a look at Israeli wine—which is mostly grown on occupied Syrian and Palestinian land, but you would never know that from reading the Wikipedia article about it. You also wouldn't have a clue that one of Israel's biggest foreign trade issues at the moment is its fight to prevent the European Union and the United States from properly labeling "Israeli" wine based on whether it is produced in Israel or in Israeli-occupied territory.

No, let's throw the book at Chesdovi—who probably deserves it—and lob stones at unnamed "pro-Palestine nationalist editors" instead of being honest and requiring all editors to follow NPOV, which is allegedly a core policy here at Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(In fairness to AnotherNewAccount, it doesn't appear that he has edited Israeli wine. That doesn't make that article, or the rest of Wikipedia's coverage of Israel and Palestine, any less of a POV mess.)

Result concerning Chesdovi

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

Can you provide a link to where the specific topic ban for this editor was imposed? I don't see it on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[38] Chesdovi (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Chesdovi was banned for a year in 2011, but placed under an indef ban in January 2012. The indef ban is currently still in effect. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yisroel Yaakov Fisher is not a 4th-c rabbi. I am interested in hearing from RolandR et al. how those edits do not violate the topic ban. Sir Joseph, the last last remark by Serialjoepsycho warned you to be careful. That sounds like good advice to me. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriajoe, I see now that at the time of RolandR's comment the third and fourth offending diffs were not yet part of this--another reason to think carefully before one files a complaint. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that Chesdovi likes to see the word 'Palestinian' in articles, as also 'Palestine'. If you check his last 100 edits, you'll see many examples. He doesn't appear to be a major editor on Orthodox Jewish topics or on historical rabbis of various periods, but often these articles have at least a traditional use of 'Palestinian' to identify certain people. He wants to be sure that 'Palestinian' is inserted wherever possible. He also likes to add Anti-Zionist categories to various orthodox figures. He wants the 'Israeli' citron to be referred to as the 'Palestinian' citron. In my opinion, this request could be closed with no action if Chesdovi will agree to stop this behavior. Another possibility is to modify his topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi your section comes in at a shade under 1200 words. Please trim it or I'll remove it entirely. Also you need to get rid of the image gallery. Its extremely disruptuive killing my phone on this page and adds no value except to suggest that you don't edit with any concern about the impact of your actions against fellow editors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi's word count extended to 750 words

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

- Chesdovi Thank you for removing the gallery but somehow between that and hatting your comments you seem to have added another 80 words making your statement reach 1283 words. Trim means trim not hat. Please do so. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spartaz, do the words in the extended section automatically show up on your phone? Chesdovi (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The limit is 500. Irrespective of the impact on my phone it is too long but since you asked the hat means that not only does the phone download the content it also has to run the script to hat it - so the hat makes it worse. Is there a reason why you insist on maintaining a contribution that is so far over the word count when you have been told to reduce it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Spartaz, if the limit 500 for the whole statement, I will by all means trim it. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Chesdovi (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Spartaz, is the limit for the "defendant" also 500? It seems odd that I am expected to respond to all my "prosecutors" in the same space they have each to accuse me. I have only managed 760 words. Chesdovi (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Spartaz, please allow another 118 words for a further reply to Debresser. Chesdovi (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does strike me that this is not obviously a violation of the topic ban but that it is unhealthy to have an editor with an obsession around anti-zionism and inserting the word Palestinian into articles trundling around such a sensitive editing area. This (admins only) now deleted page comes across as seriously POV and lacks the inline citations to enable any reasonably quick clarification of what is OR and what is cited. This (admin only) now deleted category is also deeply concerning. I don't know that it would fall under ARBPIA but I would be inclined to topic ban Chesdovi from 1) zionism broadly construed, 2) adding or creating categories in mainspace and 3) Inserting the word Palestinian into articles. The alternative, if that is too complicated, is a ban from Arab, Israeli and Zionism articles broadly construed. Thoughts? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: Not sure we have the authority to ban Chesdovi from all category creation. But otherwise I agree with your proposal. A ban from Zionism (and anti-Zionism) broadly construed, and a ban from inserting the words Palestine or Palestinian into articles. I would go beyond Spartaz by including Western Wall in the ban. If difficulties continue even with an expanded ban then we should be considering a long-term block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sinceouch2422

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 Sinceouch2422

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Happymonsoonday1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sinceouch2422 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 :

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

11/27/15 Series of changes under explanation of 'rv to last consensus' when there was no consensus
11/27/15 Deletion of relevant material with specious explanation
11/28/15 Blanket revert with explanation of "consensus" (when there was none)
11/26/15 Delete expert opinion under 'redundant line'
11/26/15 Delete relevant information with no explanation
12/5/15 Many deletions and additions with no discussion or real explanation
12/5/15 Same edit again, no discussion
12/17/15 Same
12/29/15 Same
1/23/16 Same
3/7/16 Same
3/7/16 Same
3/8/16 Same
3/17/16 Same

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)

Given alerts about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 5/12/15 and 3/8/16, both of which were deleted.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The edits above are to one page that is included in the Falun Gong arbitration dispute (Epoch Times is a newspaper associated with Falun Gong). The edits in question had been under extensive discussion on the talk page, as can be seen. It seems that 90% of Sinceouch2422's edits on the encyclopedia have been of this sort: revert with no discussion. Other editors, including myself in some cases, then reverted his changes back and called for discussion. The changes that were reverted were of a series of iterative changes that had been made, as a result of protracted discussion and the sharing and debating of different opinions, on the talk page, engaged in by myself and other users. Sinceouch has never been part of that process and simply disruptively wound back the page to versions months prior. After two warnings and constant disruption, I'm bringing the case to AE. Happy monsoon day 17:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

Response to Rhoark

Enforcement of arbitration rulings does not primarily involve qualitative judgements on the content of edits. The issue under consideration is the behavior of Sinceouch2422. Myself and other editors (how I wish I had "allies") were discussing and making changes to the pages for several months. There was a step-by-step, iterative process involving discussion and push-and-pull. Very normal Wikipedia process. Sinceouch2422 would come along every couple of weeks and just do a massive revert to an old version of the page. Again and again. That is a completely different dynamic of interaction than that myself and other editors engaged in, no matter how we judge the quality of the arguments that the various parties were presenting. Happy monsoon day 14:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Sinceouch2422

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 Sinceouch2422

Statement by Rhoark

The user is obviously using misleading edit summaries, and that needs to be addressed. I'm struck by one fact, though: all of the associated edits are eminently reasonable. Why would one need to resort to subterfuge to introduce such edits? I've caught up on the talk page, and it's pretty clear what's going on. Essentially, there are no clean hands here.

In the first diff, Sinceouch2422 was not reverting to a prior consensus as claimed, but was reverting material by Happymonsoonday1 that talk page consensus was also clearly against. Sinceouch2422 combined removal of material that consensus was against, along with addition/alteration for which consensus was unclear. Sinceouch2422 has participated on the talk page rarely, but there are certainly others on the page whose views align.

The edit summary in diff #2 was not "specious" in any way. Using the page for a newspaper to go on a tangent about a story the paper published once is classic WP:COATRACK.

In #4 the claimed redundant line is, surprisingly enough, redundant. The same claim is made twice. It's said once in the section and the said again. A second time. Redundantly.

Diff #5 is removal of primary-sourced claims which had talk-page consensus for removal.

The rest, #3 and 6-14 are part of edit warring by both parties and associated allies, neither of which has clear consensus on the talk page. I suggest a 6 month page ban for the accused and filer, and then maybe we can see what the consensus really is. Rhoark (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

Looks like a classic single-purpose account. No edits outside the Epoch Times page, though judging from the level of precocity on display, it seems plausible that they have alternate account(s).TheBlueCanoe 18:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sinceouch2422

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

Awaiting a statement from Sinceouch2422 but leaning towards a pageban, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool

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 GHcool

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GHcool (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/CASENAME#SECTION : WP:ARBPIA3

Specifically "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited"

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

March 10 adds the line "in an area of Israel that is not within the West Bank" which falsely implies parts of the West Bank are in Israel (rather than occupied by Israel).
Feb 20 Removes the word Nakba, I see this edit like others would see someone replacing the Holocaust with WWII when talking about Jewish immigration post-Holocaust.
Feb 20 sentence was neutral until he unnecessarily unbalanced it by adding that one, and only one party, attacks civilians without stating that both sides do this.
Feb 18 Deletes notable text of a pension divesting from Israel rather than fix the deadlink.
March 13 joins an edit war despite ongoing discussion on talk page
March 14 breaks 1RR to keep edit war going
Jan 4 adds a paragraph on BDS being violent and adds a quote from As'ad AbuKhalil who himself has said that this added quote is misused by opponents of BDS to attack BDS (although GHCool doesn't add that part).
March 13 Removes Palestine's President's home as being in Palestine to being in the West Bank, he makes this edit again multiple times after being reverted, this edit is akin to removing Netanyahu from Israel
March 13 he makes this edit three times in the last month, he deletes Palestine from a list of nations and replaces it with the region of the West Bank.
March 16 again removes the word Palestine, even though, as another editor commented, his replacement wording made no sense.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

He's been blocked a number of times

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

He's been blocked and topic banned a few times for this behaviour.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not a content dispute but an editor with a clear agenda to remove reference to Palestine whenever possible as well as further edits to delegitimatize Palestine and demonize BDS while he reverts without listening to what others have to say at the talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[40]

Discussion concerning GHcool

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 GHcool

I stand by almost all of the edits not as legitimate editing in the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold. I encouraged and participated in debates in these sections before making edits that I felt might shake up the community unduly: Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Mandate_era_boycott, Talk:Jordan_Rift_Valley#Consistency.3F, Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#West_Bank. Sometimes Sepsis II participated in these debates, but often he/she did not and simply engaged in censorship of facts that were cited to such reliable sources as the Encyclopedia Britannica. I'd like to respond to the ten edits I am accused are improper:

March 10 - I admit that I worded this edit improperly, though this was not by design, but by a simple accidental error. I was glad to see this edit not long after mine and have not reverted it as I believe the current edit is clearer and more accurate.
Feb 20 - I don't understand why this edit was controversial. I'm happy to discuss if necessary.
Feb 20 - This was an honest account of Israel's and Hamas's actual positions on the issue. See the sources cited.
Feb 18 - As I wrote in the edit summary, I felt that the sentence wasn't notable. If others think it was notable and could cite it to an "live" link, I have no problem with restoring it.
March 13 - I felt it was discussed and agreed upon.
March 14 - This edit was regrettable. I do not stand by it and haven't repeated the error.
Jan 4 - I don't understand why this edit was controversial. I'm happy to discuss if necessary.
March 13 - Britannica says that Ramallah is in the West Bank (and I cited Britannica here). The Associated Press states that Ramallah is in the West Bank on every Ramallah byline.
March 13 - I decided not to pursue this matter further since I could not find sources saying that the Jordan Rift Valley was in the "West Bank" but found plenty of sources saying it was in "Palestine."
March 16 - I don't understand why this edit was controversial. I'm happy to discuss if necessary. --GHcool (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Above, GHcool writes that she/he made this deletion because "As I wrote in the edit summary, I felt that the sentence wasn't notable." What a crock! The Luxembourg national pension fund divests from the biggest banks and businesses in Israel (and a major US firm), accusing them of human rights violations, and it's not notable?!? That says much more about the agenda of this perennial pro-Israel POV-pusher than it does about the notability of the pension fund's action. It took me all of five minutes to find a "live" link and news stories with which to undo GHcool's vandalistic deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gaijin42

#2 It is difficult to say for sure as the diff in question has been deleted, however use of the word "Nakba" in an article about Israel is a gross NPOV failure, unless being used in a direct quote, or as an attributed opinion. In the context used, the neutral meaning is "creation of Israel" or "1948 Arab–Israeli War". Using the word "disaster" or as the OP equates "holocaust" in wiki-voice in that context is not neutral. Beyond that, the entire sentence that the term is used in is unsourced. In the parent article Arab_citizens_of_Israel use of Nakba is attributed appropriately, and is generally balanced by the neutral wording Gaijin42 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnotherNewAccount

We may actually be looking at some tendentious editing from Sepsis II here. Sepsis II has edited pretty non-neutrally ever since returning recently after a long absence following a topic ban for, I think, tendentious editing.

Sepsis II's edits to Israelis

The diffs from the Israelis article above starts with Sepsis II's edit here. That edit did two things:

Replaced the word "Many" with "A fraction of" - minimizing, in the consciousness of the reader, the number of Palestinian Arabs who remained within the borders of the State of Israel against those that fled - a subtle POV-push.
Replaced "state's establishment" with the term "Nakba" or "catastrophe" - the term favored by Palestinians and a much less subtle POV-push.

Sepsis II seems very insistent on drawing attention to the "Nakba", restoring it twice so far in opposition to GHcool and Gaijin42: [41][42] - who tried to offer neutral alternatives: [43][44][45].

Sepsis II's edits to Israeli–Palestinian peace process

As for the diffs from the Israeli–Palestinian peace process article, I see Sepsis II doing the following:

Remove apparently sourced material
Remove "Israeli" from the concerns about security - I don't doubt for an instant that the Palestinian people want security as any man would - but for the purpose of negotations, these are primarily Israeli concerns. The resulting prose misleadingly suggests that both Israelis and Palestinians engage in "terrorism" and "incitement" in equal measure - and the list now omits Israel entirely, subtly implying that it's only the Palestinian side that has reasonable demands.
Highlight Palestinian "rights" - I don't know if the source provided says anything about rights (I don't have access to the book), but I suspect not.

The GHcool edit complained about above, shows him restoring the removed material with a genuine attempt at more neutral and succinct wording.

Sepsis II's edits to Mahmoud Abbas

No comment on whether the disputed content should be "State of Palestine" or "West Bank", but here Sepsis II reverted the addition of sourced material by GHcool as "vandalism".

Sepsis II's edits to Jordan Rift Valley

Another "State of Palestine"/"West Bank" dispute.

Reverted an edit as "vandalism" - the material in question was changed by an IP some time earlier. It may or may not have been mistaken, but it was not vandalism.
Reverted GHcool's edit as "vandalism"

AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GHcool

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israelis&type=revision&diff=706020767&oldid=706012335 This is the diff for 20 Feb. Possibly incorrectly linked? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou

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 Beautifulpeoplelikeyou

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 00:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions

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

14-03-2016 "Since decades ago, the alleged victims around the world claim their truthfulness, while mental health professionals address their expertise according to their technical knowledge often ending the debate in what looks as an embarrassing empasse." Empasse [sic] is piped to Martha Mitchell effect; the clear implication is that the conspiracy theory is based on real electronic mind control torture.
14-03-2016 contains personal observations and WP:SYN
22-03-2016 "Show the POV, prove it, if it really is so. Otherwise keep eating your clover." This is a reversal of the onus on an editor to support proposed edits, instead demanding that others refute his claims. The bizarre reference to clover is explained here as: "It looks as sheeps eat clover, and I found it fitting to greet those pompous seasoned editors."
22-03-2016 copyright violation from a differently-rational Weebly web page
07-03-2016 defines psychotronics as "the study of parapsychological capabilities via bionic means]". The purported source actually says "According to (the late) Larissa Vilenskaya (1983, p. 107), the term was first pro-posed with the analogy of “bionics” in mind, to refer to “the field dealing with the construction of devices capable of enhancing and/or reproducing certain psi phenomena (such as psychokinesis in the case of ‘psychotronic generators’ developed by Robert Pavlita) and later embraced some other phenomena." The source distances itself from any assertion that the claimed phenomenon is real, and does not support the assertion made in the edit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Special:Log/block&page=User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou 3RR block 14-03-2016

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

DS notice issued 14-03-2016 [46]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Articles involved include:

Electronic harassment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Psychotronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Psychotronics (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Psychotronics (conspiracy theory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Beautifulpeoplelikeyou is a single-purpose account whose focus is promoting the idea that "electronic harassment" - i.e. electronic mental torture of individuals - is real, or at least potentially real, rather than psychotic and/or illusory. Consensus on the Talk page of the article is that these edits are tendentious, violating WP:SYN in many cases. A purported bolded alternate term psychotronic assault, is sourced to a Washington Post article that does not appear to use the term, for example. Some edits, including the user's current proposed rewrite User:Beautifulpeoplelikeyou/sandbox have serious coherence issues.

I think we need this person topic banned from electronic harassment and psychotronics, broadly construed, for the sanity of all involved. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Looie496: The sanctions apply to pseudoscience and fringe scinece, pseudoscience is merely the title of the case. The edits promoted by Beautifulpeoplelikeyou clearly fall within the remit of science (mind control using nefarious electronic systems), but they equally clearly lack any significant mainstream support, so this is within the ambit of the case and remedy. Applying the sanction does not imply any judgment as to which of pseudoscience or fringe science it is. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]; @Starke Hathaway: I would have just blocked him if I was not involved, but since I am I thought this was the most transparent venue for this. It's a WP:FRINGE issue and IMO falls closer to AE of that case than the remit of ANI. I could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[47]

Discussion concerning Beautifulpeoplelikeyou

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 Beautifulpeoplelikeyou

I'm in a real hurry now (going to the doctor for an Echocardiography). I think the most relevant and compelling thing I can say is: I'm not "promoting the idea that "electronic harassment" - i.e. electronic mental torture of individuals - is real, or at least potentially real, rather than psychotic and/or illusory". Maybe I'm promoting the idea that psychotronic weapons could exist but that's not the issue. What I'm trying to do with the Electronic harassment article is to correct its (imho) biased content, because I believe the sources depict it as both a conspiracy theory and a mental illness without giving away one of the two? In other words: I believe the sources depict it as an unknown/ambiguous phenomena with no overall bias, thus it deserves to have all its relevant aspects (psychological diagnoses, the claims, legislative interventions, past experimentation and research, and violent incidents) equally covered. See you later. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Looie496

Although I agree that the editing pattern here is disruptive, I'm not entirely comfortable with classifying it as pseudoscience. The sort of beliefs reflected in such edits often arise in the context of delusions associated with schizophrenia, and tend to be more anti-science than spurious science. We have seen this sort of thing dozens of times from many editors, and as far as I know nobody has yet tried to apply the "pseudoscience" sanctions to them. Looie496 (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

It seems to me that the behavior being complained of here is disruptive, but is also not a great fit for the pseudoscience case. Is there a reason this needs to be at AE rather than ANI? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LuckyLouie

A few diffs that illustrate the POV that Beautifulpeoplelikeyou is advocating, and the scope of the resulting disruption:

[48] "What is described in the article is the psychiatric view, not the mainstream one."

[49] Edits the article lead to describe electronic mind control as a "purpotedly" delusional belief.

[50] Accuses editors of being cops, saying "I'm not going to uselessly repeat every single peace of information that points to the chance Electronic harassment may very well not be just a delusion" as part of a huge, disruptive wall of words. Then he summarizes his position by pasting another SPA account's comment into the Talk page -- 'If this info isn't introduced then I will assume the authors before are schills and Wikipedia is complicit in trying to shape public opinion and prevent the truth of the claims of people being affected by "psychotronics" from being acknowledged' -- and praises it as a "very honest, airtight, polite and crystal clear comment". [51]

[52] Refers to those who deny the possibility that electronic mind control might be real as "psychology-diagnoses-advocates" and "psychological-diagnoses-advocates"

[53] When advised that content must reflect reliable sources rather than his own judgement, he posts a response that's pure WP:SOUP.

I've left out documenting this user's personal attacks against other editors, since they've been covered elsewhere. Beautifulpeoplelikeyou has already shown that warnings and temporary blocks have no effect on their disruptive behavior, so I believe a topic ban is warranted and appropriate, given the user's history and the fringe nature of the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog

Support TBAN. This editor's trajectory here is almost a perfect paradigm of an advocacy editor who came here to soapbox and who interprets every effort to educate them about policies and guidelines as efforts to control or censor them. The "psychotronic" stuff is definitely PSCI and it is for people like this that the PSCI DS were created. Please do enact them. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Staszek Lem

<Sigh> I was patiently ignoring his references to "pompous <whatever>" (because I know I may look like one due to terseness of some responses). This editor's response to this ArbReq clearly demonstrates that we hit a blind spot in his perception. This user simply ignores multiple comments that unreferenced wikipedians' opinions cannot go into articles. In particular, he was told we cannot describe something as "unknown phenomenon" without refs. We cannot write into article the statement "often ending the debate in what looks as an embarrassing impasse" without refs, etc. However he dismisses these requirements with phrases like "This is called stonewalling" or calls it "censorship". Concluding, unfortunately we are indeed in "an embarrassing impasse" with this editor and it looks like an administrative intervention is required. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was also suggested to edit the article in small increments and I even started smaller subsections for smaller bits. In 1-2 places a reasonable agreement was reached, but instead of updating the article with these simpler pieces this user continued general soapboxing, so WP:AGF is getting really thin and I don't think I want to spend more time on this non-productive debate. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Beautifulpeoplelikeyou

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

Agree with JzG's proposal of a ban from the topic of electronic harassment and psychotronics, broadly construed. Notice that the user was blocked for edit warring on March 14 but has plowed ahead regardless, with snark against anyone trying to explain Wikipedia policy. More examples of his response to feedback can be seen at Talk:Electronic harassment#Going for a WP:RFC.. what do you think?: "Do you expect me to reply to your nonsense?" EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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