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	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

Gouncbeatduke

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

Request concerning Gouncbeatduke

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: WarKosign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

1. 17:21, 18 February 2015 After a sockpuppet vandalized Gouncbeatduke's talk page and made some death threats, Gouncbeatduke decided to accuse me. Note that Gouncbeatduke wrote that they did not have a chance to actually see the vandal's posts.

In fact I reported the socks, twice. I also tried to convince the sock to stop on their now revdeleted talk page.

2. 17:42, 19 February 2015 Even after Tokyogirl79 explained Gouncbeatduke the severity of their accusations, they stated again their lack of doubt, and intentions to continue removing my "pro-Jewish/anti-Arab non-NPOV edits from the Israel article".

I tried to open an SPI against myself to have a proof that Gouncbeatduke's slander is baseless, but Mike_V decided that "there are no reasonable grounds to consider a check".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

05:42, 11 February 2015 I previously opened an arbitration request regarding the user and it was found that there was a problem "with how they approach discussions and issues they disagree with". It was decided to offer the user informal advide "and escalate if it becomes necessary.".

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months
05:42, 11 February 2015 Previous arbitration request

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I do not believe this user wishes or is able to collaborate with editors whom they perceive as "anti-Arab POV-pusher". The user exhibits battleground mentality and is not here to create an encyclopedia.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Gouncbeatduke

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

Statement by Gouncbeatduke

At no time did I state that User:WarKosign was the sockpuppet that left death threats on my user talk page. I did ask him if he was the sockpuppet, and I kept asking because I found it strange that he refused to answer. If I am not allowed to do that, I will not do it again. If an editor ask me if I made death threats, I would not mind and I would simply say "No." and that would be the end of it, so I didn't see anything wrong with asking.

Wikipedia administrator Tokyogirl79, who reverted the death threats on my talk page, suggested both User:WarKosign and I stop reading and commenting on each others user pages. I found this to be good advice, and I have followed that suggestion since the time she made it. Unfortunately, User:WarKosign has ignored it, and is now claiming that statements I made on my user page about the person who made death threats are directed at him. As I have said repeatedly, I do not know who made the death threats. I do suspect who it might be, but I do not know.

As far as User:WarKosign's false claim and personal attack that I "exhibits battleground mentality and is not here to create an encyclopedia", I invite anyone who is evaluating this to look the Talk:Israel page. I believe I am normally on the side of the majority of editors, as most editors want a NPOV. I think User:WarKosign editing behavior would be described by most NPOV editors as non-NPOV.

Regarding User:WarKosign reporting the sockpuppet making the death threats, I think it is clear these edits would be quickly reverted, and I find his claim that this proves he is not the sockpuppet ridiculous. While I do not know who made the death threats, I do believe their intentions are the same as User:WarKosign in opening his multiple complaints, that is, to stop me from reverting edits I see as anti-Arab non-NPOV edits from Wikipedia articles.

I did say I plan to continue reverting edits I see as anti-Arab non-NPOV edits from Wikipedia articles, as I do not want anyone who makes death threats to be successful with intimidation tactics. I did not see the death threats made by the editor on my user page before they were reverted. According to a Wikipedia administrator, the threats included "== You deserve to ₫ie for your support of genocidal Islamic settlers. == I will make sure you suffer greatly." and "== You deserve to die ==I will make you suffer greatly." and "I can arrange for you to die in Gaza. Keep it up, raglover." If anyone has better advice on how to deal with such threats, I am happy to listen. I do not see anything unreasonable about stating I plan to continue reverting edits I see as anti-Arab non-NPOV edits from Wikipedia articles, as I do not want anyone who makes death threats to be successful with intimidation tactics.

I have relatively little desire to see Wikipedia admins block User:Gouncbeatduke will be burned alive. or any of it's currently known socks, as I would be happy for them to continue to fire away on my user page. I would far rather Wikipedia admins use their time counselling User:WarKosign, who has a history of opening specious complaints against at least one editor because he reverts User:WarKosign POV-pushing edits in an effort to create a NPOV Wikipedia. I see the Israel article as far more important and in need of a NPOV than my user page. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston - Much to the contrary of what User:EdJohnston claims, I in no way feel "free to revert all edits that he perceives to be anti-Arab on the grounds that he must not allow a particular sockpuppet to win". I feel the best way to deter whoever is making death threats is to continue to revert extreme anti-Arab non-NPOV edits in the same careful, selective manner I have been doing, and always observing the one revert rule, to demonstrate the death threats have had no effect. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WarKosign

In case you missed it, this is how the user "at no time" stated "that User:WarKosign was the sockpuppet that left death threats".

Also note that the user claims that they followed Tokyogirl79's suggestion not to make indirect comments while in fact the second accusation was made after the suggestion. “WarKosign ” 21:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I do not believe I had a good option. Trying to reason didn't work. Denying the accusation would be dismissed as a lie. Silently ignoring would be taken for admission. I tried to take a third option. Best case: CheckUser determines I couldn't be the sock. Worst case: an SPI clerk rejects the request. Did I violate some policy or hurt anyone ? “WarKosign ” 07:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: I would be perfectly happy not to interact with the user anymore, it would take care of their repeated personal attacks on me. It would not however take care of the user's unwavering conviction that their opinions are completely neutral and that one editor's opinion can be considered NPOV while everyone disagreeing with them must be a "pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pusher". Most of the arguments the user made at talk:Israel lack any specific information but instead are repetitions of the same mantra:

"This is typical of the editing throughout this very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab non-NPOV article."
"Unfortunately, the POV-pushing editors will never allow this to happen unless more people stand up to them"
"The Jewish Virtual Library is a very pro-Jewish/anti-Arab web site that should not be cited in any NPOV article"
"The Wikipedia editors that control the Israel article only allow pro-Jewish/anti-Arab POV-pushing original research to be included in the article, any NPOV citation of NPOV secondary sources is immediately reverted"
"Looks like the POV-pushing edit warriors are no longer going to allow this discussion"
"Pro-Jewish/Anti-Arab groups in generally push a point of view ..."
"PointsofNoReturn has suggested another NPOV way of stating the facts. Like all NPOV statements, it is unlikely to make it into the article as the Israel article is an non-NPOV Anti-Arabism narrative"
"The Israel article contains a great deal of pro-Jewish/anti-Arab WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and needs work to move to a NPOV"
"The article should note that the definition of Israel's borders throughout the Israel article is an ever changing line depending on which pro-Jewish/anti-Arab narrative the current paragraph is trying to sell"
"I reverted the removal of the tag as I believe this is just more pro-Jewish/anti-Arab WP:TENDENTIOUS editing"

The user made a clean start. Wikipedia:Clean start says "Certain articles and topics are particularly contentious, and have attracted additional community scrutiny in the form of requests for comment, community sanctions, or arbitration cases. These areas should be completely avoided by the editor attempting a clean start". The user claimed having no special interest in the WP:ARBPIA subjects, yet this seems to be the only subject of their edits. “WarKosign ” 18:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil and Callanecc: A two-way IBAN implies wrongdoing by both sides. If you think I did something wrong towards Gouncbeatduke I would like to know what so I can avoid doing it in the future.“WarKosign ” 14:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: I do not intent to interact with the user anyway (just as I did before this incident) so I do not object in the slightest to the sanction. However, a sanction is supposed to be preventing something - what is it preventing in this case ? If I did something wrong please explain me so I won't inadvertently do the same to another editor.

Also, I would like a clarification - does !voting in an RfC posted by an editor (without replying to the editor's own !vote/comments) constitute interaction ? “WarKosign ” 21:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

I´ve had no interactions with User:Gouncbeatduke before, but from what I can see, s/he has recently come under attack from this fellow, and has become a bit unnerved by it. Also, to Gouncbeatduke: I´ve seen User:WarKosign around for a bit, and I´m 100% sure s/he is not "that fellow". "That fellow" typically goes "ballistic" in a short while (he has got a *very* short fuse). Also: there are loads of pro-Israeli socks, but at least 90% of them are *not* "that fellow". "That fellow" have some specialities, like death threats and vulgar, sexual language. Making harassment-accounts is another speciality. (I´ve had this and this, just for starters.) Sending abusive email via wiki-mail is another speciality (I had to disconnect my email-account again, as I about a week ago got emails promising to "rape me to death" and "kill your husband"). Death-threats on your user-page is another speciality. (My talk-page is now thankfully semied, after endless attacks.)

To User:Gouncbeatduke I would say this: firstly, if you cannot deal with the behaviour from "that fellow", then don´t edit in the Israel/Palestine area. Yes, it is as simple as that. He has been behaving like this for 10 years now, and is not likely to stop soon. Also, never, never, never, accuse anyone with an edit-count of say, above 100 of being him: it is virtually certain it is not, as "that fellow" have a tendency to go ballistic long before they reach such a number of edits. If you have in any way indicated that you thought an *established* editor was this fellow, then you should humbly, (and I mean humbly) apologise to them.

Also to User:Gouncbeatduke: this fellow is still a student, but yeah, he knows how to use TOR ( and scripts). Get your talk-page protected and unlink your wiki-mail will help enormously, I´ve found. Forward any abusive emails you already have received to this guy, who is collecting info. The best policy is to give "that fellow" as little (public) attention as possible. He loves attention, so why should we gratify him? Huldra (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Huldra, for the information about "that fellow", . When I contacted emergency@wikimedia.org and ask about proximity, they assured me they were 100% certain my death threats were originating from a location outside the USA, and "that fellow" appears to only appears make threats from Los Angeles, CA, USA. I suppose maybe he has become more sophisticated about hiding his location, but it could also mean it is someone else. and his history of masking IP addresses to appear outside the USA. I agree he is the most likely suspect, so I have opened a SPI on him. I continue to find this all very confusing. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to revdelete the self-outing of location above to minimize the risk. “WarKosign ” 20:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Plot Spoiler

Is it not already apparent that Gouncbeatduke is largely beyond reform in the IP area? The user believes that there is some "pro-Jewish/anti-Arab" camp operating on Wikipedia [1]. And it's been mentioned here before, Gouncbeatduke has said that s/he has edited before under a different username but started a new account for a WP:CLEANSTART. As a single-issue editor, Gouncbeatduke does not seem to be abiding by the recommendation that "it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start." Given that Callanecc has already warned this user at AE (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive163#Gouncbeatduke), it would be wise to see if Gouncbeatduke can edit constructively outside the topic area. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gouncbeatduke

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

Even by the usual standards of the I/P area, one of this editor's assertions about how he plans to edit appear to cross into WP:BATTLE territory. He feels free to revert all edits that he perceives to be anti-Arab on the grounds that he must not allow a particular sockpuppet to win. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This request is an example of a user spiraling out of control. Tokyogirl79 has valiantly tried to get through to Grouncbeatduke, but apparently to no avail. BTW, WarKosign is not looking that great, either, when they filed an SPI against themselves to "clear their name".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would other sysops support for a two-way interaction ban here? It seems to me to be least harsh solution--Cailil ^talk 17:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: That looks like a good outcome to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are substantive objections from other uninvolved sysops within the next 24 hours I'll enact the following, and close this thread with the result: "User:Gouncbeatduke & User:WarKosign are banned from interacting with one another as per policy described at WP:IBAN, for three months, per this AE request."--Cailil ^talk 11:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spudst3r

Out of scope for discretionary sanctions, but Spudst3r topic-banned pursuant to community sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Spudst3r

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Spudst3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions: standard dscretionary sanctions authorized for all edits about and all pages related to any gender-related dispute or controversy

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

These diffs predate the alert; they can be used to establish a pattern, but the final decision will be based on post-alert edits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 5, 2014: original research, source doesn't mention sexual assault statistics (relevant passage on p. 33, second paragraph)
March 3, 2014: adds unsourced material and original research, passage "feminist organizations ridiculing, ignoring and having perceived gender biases" unsupported by source (p. 431, right column)
February 5, 2015: original research, source doesn't discuss the men's rights movement (MRM)
February 9: revert, restores original research, disregarding active talk page discussion
February 10: adds uncited material, changes meaning of sourced phrase, presenting oppression as real rather than perceived, deletes critical content and describes peer-reviewed article as the opinion of "feminist authors"

February 15: revert, restores original research (source doesn't discuss the MRM)
February 15: revert, restores original research again
February 15 and again: tendentious OTHERSTUFF arguments
February 15: baseless accusations ("small cadre of editors fighting against any sources content that portrays the "men's rights movement" in innocuous language")
February 15: synthesis, combined two sources to suggest that, since the author is considered a "men's rights leader" (first source), he wrote about the MRM in his book (second source) which he didn't
February 17: partial misquote of source ("believe female privilege and male degradation is system within society"), again original research (adds statement from a source that doesn't mention the MRM)
February 17: partial revert, restores misquote, adds synthesis by combining two sentences that aren't combined that way in the source
February 19: describes majority academic position as the opinion of "some feminist scholars" although the statement is sourced to academics (i.e., Maddison, Flood, Messner, Menzies, Dunphy, Mills, interview with Kimmel, Williams and two additional reliable sources.
February 19: again original research, sources the statement conservative men's rights activists consider the MRM to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism with a quote that doesn't mention men's rights activists or the men's rights movement
February 19: changes the lead without any prior discussion; again original research: Advocates describe the movement as bringing attention to... and One prominent leader within the movement described men's rights..." sourced to a book that doesn't discuss the MRM, its activists, or anything about the MRM; removed the source which contained nine academic citations for the statement that the MRM is considered a backlash

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

Alert about discretionary sanctions in the men's rights topic area in the last twelve months, on February 13, 2015

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Spudst3r is a long dormant SPA; two of his three edits in 2014 were to Masculism and Men's rights movement and the vast majority of his edits in 2015 have been to the same topic area. His sudden return in 2015 to the MRM article coincides with several off-site calls for meatpuppets (e.g., [2]) in this topic area.

In addition to the problem that he misleadingly summarizes sources, he reverts to his preferred version without waiting for the discussion to conclude. He either doesn't understand the original research and synthesis policies or he prefers to ignore them. In either case, the editor should be topic banned until he can demonstrate his ability to follow our content policies in the men's rights topic area.

His talk page edits are disruptive and circular, mostly consisting of arguments that the MRM page and women's rights movement page must be treated equally or repetitions of (as many as 13) guidelines and principles per comment. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Disputes and controversies involving the men's rights movement could be covered if they are gender related, e.g. a controversy about an MRM figure's allegations of bias against men would be within scope, but controversy about that figure's allegations of bias against Christians would not. The men's rights movement is a strand of the men's movement that's based on the idea that men are discriminated and oppressed. All secondary sources about the movement discuss men's rights activists' belief that men are discriminated and oppressed and all primary sources from within the movement argue that men are discriminated and oppressed relative to women. All disputes and controversies involving the MRM are inherently gender related. For example, one of the most favorite primary sources used by Spudst3r is a book (The Myth of Male Power) written by activist Warren Farrell who argues that male privilege is a myth and that men are the oppressed and disposable sex, and that secretaries oppress their male bosses with their "miniskirt power", and other stuff like that that's all clearly gender related. Btw, Farrell never actually mentions the MRM or its activists, yet Spudst3r attributes statements about the MRM and its activists to that book. The men's rights movement page is clearly a gender related page, everything mentioned on the MRM page is gender related. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I took this to AE instead of ANI because if the MRM page isn't about a gender-related dispute or controversy, then what is? The MRM issues are basically a long list of gender-related disputes and controversies (MRAs say that domestic violence is gender symmetrical, that many rape reports are false, that men receive harsher prison sentences as Spudst3r conjectured, etc.) There's ideological overlap between GamerGate and men's rights activism [3], A Voice for Men and other MRM sites have taken up the GamerGate hashtag. And it's also not a coincidence that many of the editors who edit the GamerGate page also edit the MRM page. I believe that the MRM is within the jurisdiction of ARBGG, probably more so than most other gender-related pages. Moreover, WP:MRMPS mentions incivility and edit-warring and personal attacks as sanctionable behavior, but doesn't explicitly cover OR and Synth violations whereas discretionary sanctions do. ARBGG even has an "accuracy of sources" provision. Also, in my experience, it's useless to bring OR and Synth violations to ANI and expect ANI regulars to wade through the diffs and sources and the unbelievable original research. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Spudst3r

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 Spudst3r

Opening Remarks

I hope that this arbitration is not administrated by editors who have a POV interest in gender-related subjects, since I believe I am being dogpiled by editors with a stake in those matters right now. I don't say that to cast aspersions: anyone can look at the history of the men's rights movement article and see a long history of nonstop reverting.

The men's rights movement article is currently under a Neutrality notice dispute right now Almost immediately after I started making edits to the men's rights movement page, I was accused of being a sockpuppet as a way to further limit my participation: I was thoroughly investigated and eventually exonerated only after an IP lookup and diff commits proved it would be near impossible for the allegations to have been true. Third, when the other user in this matter spoke up about another user spreading false sockpuppet accusations, the entire process was turned around into a vote on topic banning him. That's what I call a chilling effect.

I think accusations of tendentious editing, sockpupetry, and meatpuppetry reflect a seriously unhealthy attitude towards contributing to Wikipedia. New editors who make bold but good faith changes are now being quickly accused of all sorts of things - pick a WP:, any WP: -- to scare them away from participating. It bites newcomers, demonstrates Badfaith and does not promote civility.

A Few General comments:

Being a SPA is not an offence. (Not that I think I am a SPA.)

Disagreement over how to structure an article is not grounds for disciplinary sanction. Please judge me by the content of my edits and comments, not my opinions.

Contributions do not have be perfect.

Honest Good Faith disagreement =! tendentious. I may disagreement with Sonicyouth occassionally, but I do with a genuine concern for encyclopedic accuracy and a desire for consensus building.

It is not against Wikipedia policy to be active. Am I am interested in the men's rights movement article? Yes. Have made a lot of activity over a very short period of time. Yes. May I be inconvenient for others showing elements of ownership over the men's rights movement article? Yes. Is it against the rules to be active? No.

The current men's rights movement page is POV because it gives undue weight to a collection of sources and lacks balance due to pervasive insertions of expressions of doubt. I am not alone in thinking this:

Background diffs collapsed for readability. HJ Mitchell \| Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Current talk page 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

The tl:dr of the original research debate is: 1.Currently a collection of scholarly articles are describing the movement from one point of view, while sources established by scholarly sources to represent the movement describe it another. Most of my edits attempt to add an encyclopedic description of how supporters see the movement from their perspective using scholarly sources as citations. This is not OR.

To explain my spike of new activity: I picked up Wikipedia editing activity last month due to having more free time now. Before the men's rights movement article, I started my editing back up by making contributions to the securitization (international relations) and ritual articles. This article is not what brought me back, though it's been on my to-do list since last year. bb23 (talk · contribs) my edits have tapered down to periodic fluctuations in my availability.

Response to Specific Accusations

I ignored examples before Feb. 15 in light of Cailli (talk · contribs)'s comment, Please instruct me if that interpretation is incorrect. Here we go:

Example 1 & 2:

I made two reverts to preserve the contributions of a different editor. I justified both reverts in my comments and cited Wikipedia policy. During my 2nd revert I even noted "See Talk.", and immediately opened a talk section to seek consensus." My two reverts are not even close to a violation of 3RR. In fact, if we removed one of them, my reverts would actually be an archetypical example of Bold, Revert, Discuss.

Example 3 regarding my "tendentious" comments:

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not official Wikipedia policy. But let's say it was official: The OTHERSTUFF article itself even notes that the rationale "may be valid in some contexts but not in others". The rationale I made in the talk page was that the women's rights movement and men's rights movement should strive for similar tone and structure, because they are so clearly related in character as articles and as concepts. I still believe that is a valid point that I back up with genuine examples.

Example 4:

Baseless accusations? I made those comments in the appropriate notice board in response to BrantNewland (talk · contribs)'s remarks. I backed those comments up with evidence in that thread, pointing out how "consensus-seeking attempts to make the tone more neutral are getting reverted over and again by the same individuals."

Example 5:

RE Warren Farrell quotes: I have devoted considerable time discussing with Sonicyouth why Warren Farrell should be sourced here -- my reasons justifying them are in the talk page there. In fact, other editors who self-evidently hold a different POV on this article from mine, such as EvergreenFir, also saw justification to including Warren Farrell citations when revising my edit. To seek consensus since making the original contribution I even improved my edits further in response to Sonicyouth86 disagreement with the use of "complement". In return for all of this? I get attacked for making "reverts before discussion has ended" and brought to arbitration...

Example 6 partial misquote of source ("believe female privilege and male degradation is system within society" and Example 7: restores misquote

Am I seriously getting accused of misquoting a line that was already present before I edited this section?! I made a typo where I accidently wrote "system" instead of "systemic" in a quote, which I immediately fixed after I noticing. With all due respect to Sonicyouth, I think it's fair to characterize the first part of this accusation as spurious. In regards to the addition of Warren Farrell quotes? I added them to provide detail of why a male's rights advocate would deny male privilege from their perspective as they see it. I added them boldly to provide detail on why the MRM denies male privilege. (which it currently did explain why). (Afterall... isn't it curious that in a section about female privilege, nothing at all exists to actually discuss that concept?)

Example 6 / 7: Sonicyouth writes: "adds statement from a source that doesn't mention the MRM"

Not true. I am accurately summarizing Clatterbaugh here in a section called "The Men's Rights Perspective" on Page 11. Here's part of the quote "This perspective concurs with the profeminist view that masculinity is damaging to men but with the gigantic difference of the belief that the principal harm in this role is directed against men rather than women." From this existing source in this section I wrote: "In contrast to feminist approaches to Masculinity, men's rights advocates see masculinity as primarily damaging to men more than women," I'll let you be the judge of whether that's actual WP:SYNTHESIS, or a simple WP:GOODFAITH summary citation of a reference. Either way, it's worth noting also how I also in this edit removed the Warren Farrell attributions as a consensus seeking measure. I fail to see how I've engaged in bad behaviour here.

Example 8 & 9 which Sonicyouth is literally now bringing to this arbitration after making zero attempts to discuss them in the talk page:

I made these edits based on the discussion here on the movement's strands and this discussion putting to doubt that the "backlash" opinion is so definitive as to be valid as a factual assertion. So to fix this, I went about attributing POV as best I could. First: Since scholarly disagreement exists, I first clarified the statment as coming from "Some feminist scholars ..." since Lingard, Douglas, Clatterbaugh, and Coston/Kimmel all provide more nuance than calling the movement a backlash. In this respect I admit may have been a little too general with the description of feminist scholars in my attribution however, since there sociological scholars also appear. Sonicyouth brings up a valid point there, and I agree referring to "Some scholars" may be more appropriate. Either way, these concerns concerns have not been up anywhere else except in this arbitration talk page.

Second, Sonicyouth accuses that I: sources the statement conservative men's rights activists consider the MRM to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism with a quote that doesn't mention men's rights activists or the men's rights movement No, the source citation is very clearly speaking about the men's rights movement. I'll let you be the judge of what Lingard and Douglas wrote on pg. 36 as it also informs the previous citation above: "While conservative elements of the men’s rights position overtly describe themselves as a ‘backlash’ to feminism, their more liberal counterpart’s self-proclaimed commitment to ‘the true equality of both sexes and to the liberation of both sexes from their traditional roles’ (Clatterbaugh 1997: 89) make it problematic to describe the men’s rights position in general as nothing more than a backlash against feminism.". Sounds like an accurate source citation to me.

Example 10: This is the first time concerns with these edits have been raised by Sonicyouth: changes the lead without any prior discussion; again original research ... sourced to a book that doesn't discuss the MRM, its activists, or anything about the MRM;:

I changed the lede to make concrete progress on trying to find consensus within the lede after revert after revert after revert after revert shows no sign of NPOV issues getting addressed. In my comments I emphasize heavily that this is a "first attempt" at seeking consensus: updated lede: first attempt at reworking lede to achieve balance using existing article content. Content has been rearranged but NOT deleted, as to help consensus seeking for now. In that edit I did not remove any existing content from the lede, nor did I delete sources despite what Sonicyouth suggests. The additional content I added to the lede comes from existing sources within the article itself. Sonicyouth's disputes that this source "doesn't discuss MRM" again comes back to our disagreement in Example 5 on whether Warren Farrell's Myth of Male Power book is eligible for citation or not -- which other editors have indicated it is. You can again find our extensive discussion of that matter here.

Conclusion:

In my contributions I have made extensive (possibly excessive?) use of the talk page. I used citations extensively in my new additions, and edited articles to reflect concerns that are raised in discussions. Perfect or not, I believe my contributions demonstrate a good faith effort to making consensus seeking progress in areas that have otherwise been lacking. I have lots of activity in this article, yes, but not activity worthy of disciplinary sanction. I think my banning or blocking has the potential to have a real chilling effect on new contributors. Spudst3r (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil (talk · contribs) - Hi Cailli Not sure if I'm allowed to reply to statements... but I just want to clarify that the paragraph above does not reflect my personal views on men's rights. Unfortunately with how I wrote it I look like an ideologue. That was not my intention - I was just trying to sum up the views of Warren Farrell and Clatterbaugh regarding how MRM supporters see men's rights issues. E.g. Clattebaugh who wrote "the movement divides into those who believe that men and women are equally harmed by sexism and those who think that female privilege and male degradation are systemic in society" I wrote that in the talk page to state my understanding from the sources what the movement thinks as a way of suss out what other views exist within the movement.

RE OR / Synthesis revert issue: At the time my reverts were based in pretty strong policy (I wrote: Directly related sourced facts is WP:NOTOR, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Compiling_facts_and_information. I admit the subsequent talk discussion I created in the talk page for the 2nd revert was instructive for clarifying how this source could be properly incorporated, however. So I admit my actions on that revert were not perfect, but I think in terms of conduct I acted reasonably: I cited policy I thought was appropriate in my revert comments, and limited my reverts by using the talk page to prevent an edit war.
RE WP:ASPERSIONS: Diff 9 when read alone does look like I am casting aspersions with no evidence. But I was making that comment in relation to another comment in that same thread where I did provide evidence. Specifically I wrote: "consensus-seeking attempts to make the tone more neutral are getting reverted over and again by the same individuals." I also made those comments after receiving serious/false accusations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry right after my first contributions to the MRM page (where you suggested I be sanctioned with BrantNewland (talk · contribs)). I hope you can understand how that has contributed to a feeling of getting dogpiled (though I think we've had productive interactions on the MRM page since then.) Spudst3r (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) - Yeah, I really need to work on that. My apologies. I'm half convinced that I'm here due to the alacrity and verbosity of my comments than necessarily the contents of my edits...Spudst3r (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK (talk · contribs) & @HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) Callanecc (talk · contribs) & @Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Thank you for your time looking at this -- I apologize for the length of my response. I trimmed my submissions a bit, but it's difficult to respond to so many allegations without being detailed. For the tl;dr: I had a burst of editing activity over a very short period of time that makes it very easy to look at my actions as problematic. I suspect most mods are judging Cailli's accusation of edit warring in Example 1 & 2 (which notably @Cailli did *not* recommend I receive a topic ban for), and Sonicyouth's discussion with me over the use of Warren Farrell as a source mentioned in Example 5. On Example 1 & 2 I concede I made a error in not properly recognizing the addition of OR. But was it edit warring? In this specific example I made two reverts total, and in my second revert I immediately opened the talk page to discuss it -- making a second revert was a little tenacious and I probably shouldn't have done it, but I don't believe this warrants a topic ban for edit warring. Since this complaint I have made three significant submissions: 1. A small edit to address a valid point made only here by Sonicyouth that I scoped a citation attribution too tightly -- I agree and I fixed it. 2. A scholarly citation to back up Warren Farrell as a non-OR source for quoting on MRM perspectives. ^[1] 3. A consensus-seeking edit to improve the lede using existing article content & sources that that I think (& correct me if you disagree) now represents one of the best efforts in years to improve the page's lede towards consensus. Discretionary GG-style topic bans should be meted out to unproductive trolls--not against editors who are making productive, consensus-seeking edits. Please contrast my actions with other editors focusing heavily on gender subjects who have made revert after revert after revert after revert after revert after revert to restore disputed POV wording many independent editors contributing at different times agree represent POV expressions of doubt. I have never reverted anything on this page as aggressively as this. Spudst3r (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Coston, Bethany M.; Kimmel, Michael S. (2013). "White Men as the New Victims: Reverse Discrimination Cases and the Men's Rights Movement". Nevada Law Journal: 376. Retrieved February 20, 2015. Warren Farrell's 1993 book, The Myth of Male Power, has become something of a Bible to the Men's Rights followers. While early in his career Farrell seemed to ally with feminism—he convened NOW's Task Force on the Masculine Mystique and was thrice elected to the board of New York's chapter of NOW40—and he believed that men could benefit from women's liberation, saying that if she could refuse to be a "sex object" he could just as easily refuse to be a "success object"—some of the inversions in his book are worth noting, because they anticipate many of the more hyperbolic claims made by the Men's Rights activists (MRAs) today. According to Farrell, men's power is, well, a myth. Farrell has explained that power is not earning money that someone else can spend and dying earlier so they can get the benefits.

Statement by Cailil

This is a rare occasion when I comment as an involved user (due to my edits at Men's rights movement not in the GG area) at AE but I've had a number of interactions with Spudst3r and have in a very short space of time had a number of red flags raised

Diffs 1-5 are not relevant to the case since the notification is post Feb 13. However, Diff 6 was a revert of original research I removed from the Men's rights movement article. The material a) had no connection to the subject b) it was being used in essay form to synthesize a point and c) it was a copy-paste of the majority of the linked article's abstract (probably a copyvio). Spudst3r then reverted its subsequent removal again diff 7. Diff 9 falls into the category of casting unfounded aspersions about other users. Here Spudst3r is parroting the r/mensrights reddit party line that feminists run wikipedia and the only way to solve "their article's" problem is to ~~illuminate~~ eliminate the "enemy" (see also this ani thread). I have little problem with Diffs 8 10 or 11. My only other issue is his use of POV-statement in an attempt to discredit scholarly opinions he seems not to like[5]. His defense of this action speaks volumes in terms of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTADVOCATE

" I think it's accurate to say that most Men's rights advocates see issues of male inequality as ones that are systemic throughout most of recorded history and in need of changing society as we currently know it away from how it currently or previously existed to address them. Recent social advancements coming from the women's movement may be seen as making the situation for men's rights worse, but only because they see the movement as imposing additional obligations on to men and new social rights to women without providing commensurate changes to complement them in areas where men face systemic disadvantage."[6]

Even so I think a final warning and advice on how to fly right might be enough here--Cailil ^talk 20:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ HJM - My understanding of the wording of WP:ARBGG is that any gender controversy is covered - so controversial backlashes against Feminism, the USA bills/laws VWA & ERA, and other topics like Same sex marriage, as well as any future issues like the Chelsea Manning conflict etc etc are already preemptively covered. It is as I understand it a preventative measure so that nothing ever gets to the GG level of disruption on WP again. The Men's rights issue is highly controversial a) in RL and b) for the Men's rights online community's reaction to wikipedia's coverage (exactly like GG). Offsite interference has been an ongoing issue in the area since 2006 (and if you want to see a summary of the history which was made nearly 3 years ago see this)--Cailil ^talk 12:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thydruff: Spudst3r's edit re: the POV templates was about how women's equality movement (in the eyes of mRAs) has effected men's rights for the worse. That is very clearly a gender conflict. His edit re: Warren Farrell is exactly what you describe - an allegation of bias against men, and the prison/WP:NOR issue is about bias in favour of women--Cailil ^talk 19:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undid premature bot archival--Cailil ^talk 15:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet

After I saw just a few of Spudst3r's contributions to the article and talk page of the men's rights movement topic, I thought that he was WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. Rather, he is here to make the men's rights movement look good, to the best of his ability. Thankfully that motivation has not resulted in too much damage, since there are experienced and neutral page watchers keeping track of activists such as Spudst3r. I, too, was taken aback at Diff 9 with its display of battlefield attitude. Spudst3r is too deep into advocacy to see that this comparison is nonsensical, that the men's rights movement assertions of "male disadvantage" are overwhelmingly dismissed by sociology and anthropology scholars who should not have to remind us of the two-thousand-plus years of thoroughly established male advantage. In that same diff Spudst3r tries to argue against reliance on scholarly sources. Wikipedia does not need this kind of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by abhilashkrishn

When considering all the points mentioned by Sonicyouth86 and Spudst3r, I can't see anything wrong in Spudst3r's actions. The user is actively using the wikipedia for positive contributions and the sources are well acclaimed. - abhilashkrishn ^talk 20:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strongjam

No stance on this request, but I am surprised by how broad the wording on the GG sanctions is. Based on the wording I think this case would qualify, MRM is certainly controversial and there is some overlap between GG and MRM. Clarification from the arbitrators if they meant for it to be applied this broadly might be needed though, should there be at least some connection to the Gamergate controversy first? — Strongjam (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Complaint aside, I think the admins might encourage this editor in the direction of terseness. --TS 06:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting beyond a joke. Spudst3r has just added another 2000 characters of unreadable apologia, bringing his personal contribution to approximately 7% of the entire page in which several other cases are being discussed. I suggest we permanently block him as functionally incompetent for the most basic tasks of editing. I'm serious. Just block him for incompetence and move on before this page turns into an airport novel. --TS 09:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Spudst3r

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

I'd like to hear from @Bbb23: who seems to be the resident uninvolved admin on this topic. I'd also note that the article is under community-based article probation. I'm not entirely sure that masculinity and the men's rights movement fall under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions, which are authorised for any gender-related dispute or controversy (emphasis mine); I'm not sure masculinity/MRM are disputes or controversies in their own right. Input on that from other admins would be appreciated.
To the substance of the allegations, the complaint does appear to have some merit. Spudst3r clearly has an unhealthy interest in this topic and would be well-advised to broaden his editing interests. Cailil's comments were fairly conclusive in leading me to the opinion that Spudst3r's edits are problematic. The greatest cause for concern is the addition of op-ed style commentary to encyclopaedia articles, which appears to be based on novel synthesis of published material and reach conclusions that aren't fully supported by the literature; edit-warring to restore such content is also concerning, and a sign of a problem editor. I don't have a strong opinion on what the remedy should be if we decide this is in our scope. I'd like some more admins to weigh in first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(speaking in a personal capacity, not for the Committee as a whole) I don't think that the entire topic of the men's rights movement is within the intended scope of the Gamergate sanctions. Disputes and controversies involving the men's rights movement could be covered if they are gender related, e.g. a controversy about an MRM figure's allegations of bias against men would be within scope, but controversy about that figure's allegations of bias against Christians would not. I have not looked at the diffs and hold no opinion about the merits of this request. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody please trim the complainant's submissions? It is too long and administrators are not expected to read all that. AGK [•] 13:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The notice log at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation shows that Spudst3r was notified in March 2014 of the community probation on Men's Rights Movement. Not everything related to MRM may qualify as part of ARBGG's remit, but gender-related issues presumably do. All the diffs 1-10 listed at the head of this complaint are about gender-related issues and they all occurred since he was notified of ARBGG on 13 February. So in my opinion this is a valid complaint under ARBGG. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the discussion of proper jurisdiction to others, as I am perfectly comfortable taking action on this topic under either ArbCom discretionary sanctions or under community general sanctions. And 'perfectly comfortable taking action' seems like an appropriate summation of my feelings as to this request. I agree with Cailil's excellent summation of the major issues (though I think I would quibble with the purported NPA violation – I don't think it is serious enough to fall under the 'casting aspersions' guideline; and with diff6 – I can't really see what's wrong with that one but perhaps I'm just missing something). The original research issues raised are serious and valid, as is the edit warring generally. At this time, I am leaning towards a short (<2 month) topic ban along with encouragement to seek out another topic area to get a better appreciation of Wikipedia's content and conduct policies. Thoughts on that course of action? Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that this is within the jurisdiction of ARBGG, Bbb23 any comments? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't recall ever receiving notification of HJ Mitchell's ping on the 19th, or I would have responded then. Second, it appears that Spudst3r stopped contributing to the project over a week ago, for what that's worth. Of course, he's never been a consistent contributor. Third, I fully endorse the editor's comment above that Spudst3r should take lessons in "terseness". Finally, with respect to the substance, I have trouble accepting Callanecc's assumption of jursidiction. At bottom, my view is that this is an attempt to shoehorn the very broad GG sanctions into the MRM area. It's not that I can't see how the two may intersect, but it still feels like an oblique attack. Therefore, I would suggest taking this to a community noticeboard, although any uninvolved administrator may act without community endorsement. A topic ban pursuant to the MRM sanctions would certainly not be unreasonable given Spudst3r's conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonicyouth86: in the American legal system, there's a principle that the narrow trumps the broad. Although we may have jurisdiction pursuant to GG to sanction Spudst3r, I still think it makes more sense to do so pursuant to the probation sanctions. Those sanctions don't need to mention "explicitly" OR for them to apply. The list you refer to is preceded by "including but not limited to" and the comments later on clearly indicate that an administrator has significant discretion to sanction any disruptive editor, no matter what the specific kind of disruption is. I do tend to agree with you that ANI is not ideal for this kind of issue, but, as I stated, it doesn't have to be taken to ANI. It can handled by any uninvolved administrator who believes that sanctions are warranted. For example, NuclearWarfare stated that he felt a topic ban was in order and he didn't much care whether it was based on GG or community sanctions. At the same time, he appeared to want a consensus from others as to the precise sanction. FWIW, I would endorse a 3-month topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan

Filer blocked for sock-puppetry; no action against respondent at this time, but no prejudice against a future report. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Parishan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Steverci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and a lengthy block :

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

February 14, 2015 Following 4 are violations of WP:3RR
February 14, 2015
February 14, 2015
February 14, 2015

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14 February 2007 First time blocked for 3RR
20 February 2007 Second time blocked for 3RR

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. [7]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Parishan has recently violated the three revert rule by edit warring on the Shusha article:
[8][9][10][11]

Parishan has also shown a tendency to stalk and edit ware my edits on the Khaibalikend Massacre, Shusha massacre, and Shusha. articles.

Parishan has even more recently violated 3RR on the Blue Mosque, Yerevan by harassing two other users, User:EtienneDolet and User:Ninetoyadome:
[12][13][14]

According to WP:3RR, violating the rule guarantees a block.

He has also been edit warring User:NiksisNiks's contributions across several articles, usually without explanation:
[15], [16], [17]

Parishan continues edit warring across multiple articles and exhibiting a battleground mentality and making controversial edits without reaching consensus with other editors. He has made multiple reverts in violation of 3RR on a range of highly sensitive articles, and has previously been blocked for violating the 3RR on Armenian-Azeri articles not once, but twice. Because he continues to violate the 3RR, I believe it is time for him to be disciplined for the rule once again. --Steverci (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE Parishan has accused me of breaking the 3RR on the Shusha article. I would like to point out that the 03:08 edit was not a revert in any way, and the 03:28 edit was me fixing an error of his. Thus, he remains the only one who violates 3RR. --Steverci (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Parishan

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 EtienneDolet

Seeing that I am mentioned in this case, I feel that I have to make a comment to further elaborate as to why I've been mentioned. I will also comment on a few things to help further inform those involved with this case.

I have found myself at talk pages with Parishan several times. During these discussions, the user displays an aggressive tone that is almost always unnecessary. Above all, his belligerent approach to these discussions often gets personal with discourteous remarks. In this recent discussion, Talk:Araksi_Çetinyan#Ozgur, Parishan was quick to say "You are inventing grammar as you go along, which makes me seriously doubt the level of your command of Turkish" and that "it is quite legitimate on my part to express concern with regard to your understanding of that language." I find these remarks as bad faith, and I really don't understand how these comments can help the discussion. I felt as though I'm viewed more of as an 'unintelligible opponent' rather than someone he can work with. Other discussions where I have concerns was at Talk:Kars#Azeri_presence_in_Kars, where bad faith assumptions were made against me just because I made a late response, even though I apologized for it beforehand.

As I can see from his contributions, the user has been displaying an increasingly disruptive editing pattern, particularly on Armenian related articles. Almost all his edits either:

a.) publicize the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh's unrecognized status or that Armenians occupy the land ([18][19][20][21][22])
b.) remove, at times, any sort of mention of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in related articles ([23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31])
c.) remove Armenian presence and history in Armenian populated villages, sometimes deleting them in the form of a redirect ([32][33][34][35])
d.) add strong POV wording or claims that are not backed by RS sources ([36][37][38][39])

The diffs I provided highlight the user's vehement determination to make a WP:POINT: that Armenians occupy Nagorno-Karabakh, or that the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh is unrecognized. Wikipedia, as we all know, is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, nor is it a venue to promote the personal opinions. At any rate, given that I did not have much time to formulate my comment, I merely had to present the diffs I happen to come across. Most of his edits do not contain edit-summaries, making it even more difficult to pinpoint concerns found beneath them. I've also refrained from adding diffs pertaining to the recent problems at Shusha, Khaibalikend Massacre, and Shusha massacre since they're already being discussed in detail in the related cases above.

As for Sterveci, I really don't know much about his editing pattern. But I do see that he has engaged in edit-wars himself. But this is without to say that Parishan hasn't been edit-warring at Shusha massacre, for example. The Revision history of Shusha massacre looks like what a talk page should be, but in the form of edit-summaries. The reverts appear problematic on both sides, and I think action should be necessary for both users. Given that Parishan has been topic-banned for similar behavior, while continuing to display a tendentious editting pattern I highlighted above, I personally believe he merits a more extensive ban. As for Sterveci, I think 1RR on all topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan seems more appropiate. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AE enforcement Parishan received was a 1RR restriction on topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan (see case here). As you can see, the case is similar to the one that has now brought him here, suggesting that the user is continuing the same disruption since then. Also, no one here is arguing whether the Republic of Karabakh is recognized or not. But to stick the word 'unrecognized' in multiple leads and infoboxes across multiple articles would be a clear sign of a tendentious editing pattern. After all, as I previously mentioned, the Wikipedia project is not a venue to right great wrongs, even if you find them to be self-evident. As for the rest, I don't think the other points were convincing, but I'll leave that for the admins to decide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even after such a lengthy response, I believe Parishan still fails to address the core problems at hand. On the one hand, he has admitted that there's a general consensus to have both de jure and de facto in articles related to villages in Karabakh. But then does edits like this, where the de facto status of Karabakh is entirely removed. I do not understand how one could blame other users for this. He then states that some of these villages fall outside the Republic of Karabakh's boundaries, but that still doesn't mean it's not under the de facto governance of the Republic of Karabakh. Removing such information, as he did here, renders the village as solely Azerbaijani, without provide any inkling of fact about its de facto Armenian presence. Changing Nagorno-Karabakh Defence Army's name to simply "Armenian forces" is also another attempt to conceal the independent status of Nagorno-Karabakh's army [40]. To top it all off, the removal of native names of villages mostly populated by Armenians is also deeply troublesome [41]. In any case, the diffs are plenty and one does not have to dig deep into his contributions to find a problematic editing pattern. However, if anyone involved with the case still needs them, I can provide more. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does Parish remove the word Karabakh from these articles, but he also removes the de facto Armenian presence of such and such village controlled by Armenian armed forces. He admits that Armenian forces do control areas outside Karabakh, but his editing pattern shows that he removes that too in its entirety. This makes it appear these villages are entirely Azerbaijani, and that there's no Armenian presence in them. He removes native names claiming that they've been spelled 'wrong', but doesn't bother to add the correct spelling (might I add that the spelling was initially correct). Nor does he make that obvious in the edit-summary of the edit in question ([42]). As you may have noticed, these edits don't contain edit-summaries for the most part. I've observed that controversial and problematic edits either don't contain edit-summaries, and when they do, they're simply deceptive. And again, one does not have to dig deep into his contributions to uncover many other similar problems. For example, this nationalist editing pattern is not only limited to Karabakh, Parishan has removed large chunks of information from other separatist movements found within Azerbaijan ([43]). In this particular edit, he deletes the entire The National Talysh Movement section because it's unsourced, even when there are four other CN tags in the article dating as far back as 2008. At any rate, I feel that I have said enough, even though there’s still much more to be said. But to sum it all up, what I see here is a consistent POV stemming from a desire to maintain the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan within Wikipedia. As documented above, this is most obvious in the form of edit-warring, tendentious editing, removal of Armenian native names, and other forms of disruptive editing. In light of all this, I expect admins to come to a fair and balanced judgment. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI is unrelated to the problems and issues I have outlined here. As we all know, the misconduct of other users shouldn't excuse the misconduct of another. This means, specifically in this case, that the results of that SPI should not be an excuse any user to edit-war. It's also important to note that the users blocked for socking weren't even the accounts Parishan has engaged with. Bottom line: I don't believe we should be conflating the two. As for Parishan's comments: he continues to blame other users for his edits, and claims that he simply reverted to the original version before NiksisNiks edited. But, in one such example, if he wanted to revert to an original version, he could have easily reverted to this version ([44]), which indeed was the original version right before NiksisNiks edited. But he didn't. Parishan removed more than just NiksisNiks' additions. Please keep in mind that the original version included a reference to an Armenian military presence, whereas Parishan removed that too in its entirety: [45]. Also, the removal of Armenian native names are not limited to that article alone [46]. I really don't see any harm in leaving Armenian native names in the lead, especially considering that they're Armenian populated today. Parishan also states that his edits aren't guided by Azerbaijani nationalism because he's a Canadian national. But Azerbaijani nationalism is not limited to Azerbaijan, and neither is it inconceivable in Canada. Someone in Canada can make the same edits than, say, a nationalist in Baku. His userpage states that he supports territorial integrity, and opposes irrendentism, but in view of his more recent edits, I don't see any of it being directed against Quebec. It's the territoriality of Azerbaijan which provokes him to delete, censor, and manipulate separatist movements found within the country. No need to go over again as to how and why, I have already outlined it above. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see these edits by Parishan exemplifying a good faith effort to improve various articles in the AA2 topic area, and I haven't retracted any of my aforementioned reasons as to why. I also have not reduced my reasoning to just two diffs, as he claims. All my comments above should be taken as a consolidated inquiry concerning the user's concerning editing pattern. His rebuttals still haven't been convincing for me, and they change with every response. With this recent example, in regard to this edit, he initially stated: I did not add any content. I reverted back to the original version after a bad-faith editor had removed mention of Azerbaijani personalities born in the village. However, when I raised the issue about him deleting information about the Armenian military presence from the original version, he refurbished his response by saying he deleted that original sentence only because its source contained a dead link. This new explanation for his edits were never included in the initial response here at AE, or in the edit-summary of the edit in question, which leads me to believe that his responses are filled with half-truths, and that the counterclaims were not and still not made in good faith. Besides, an editor who has been editing for eleven years should be aware of dead link or CN tags (and evidently so [47]). Instead, the user seems to employ flimsy excuses (i.e. dead links) to delete information not suitable to his POV, while displaying a disregard of Wikipedia policy which strongly prohibits you from doing so. He'll delete unsourced information when it doesn't suit his POV, but will add a source when it does. On that note, it is of course the admin's inevitable decision as to whether these edits were made in good faith, and not of a user who seems to push a certain POV in a spirit that is contrary to the basic tenets of the project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parishan

I admit I was, perhaps, a bit too vigorous in reverting, but I do not consider the very first revert of User:Hayordi an example of engaging in an edit-war. A newly registered user with barely 100 edits appearing on the article and removing (without a word on the talkpage) sourced information that has featured there for at least five years, has survived the most heated discussions without being addressed once and included in the consensus version of this article - this can be viewed as vandalism, especially given that the removal was one-time and the editor never reappeared on the article. Reverting vandalism, as I know, does not count within the reverts that violate 3RR. Concerning the other diffs claiming that I violated 3RR on Shusha and Blue Mosque, Yerevan, I had a total of three reverts in each and not more, and the rule of WP:3RR states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period", whereas it was User:Steverci went overboard with four reverts: [48], [49], [50], [51]. His ill-intention motivating him to push his POV becomes obvious from the fact that soon after the article got protected, he ceased participating in the discussion on the talkpage - once the article was not 'revertible', he was no longer interested in it. The user is talking about being stalked; whereas note him referring to my reverts as 'harrassment' and using a block record from eight (!) years ago in an attempt to prove that I have habit of breaking rules.

As for the claims of User:EtienneDolet, I do not see a 'personal attack' in questioning someone's level of command in a specific language (especially if it is not mentioned on his userpage, as it is on mine) if that person takes up the task of interpreting academic sources written in that language and that his interpretation, on which he vehemently insists, seems far from being perfect from the point of view of someone who does have some knowledge of the language. Similar in the case of Talk:Kars: when a user silently reverts a page and appears on the talk page for the first time only two days later, he or she must understand that given the ongoing discussion (following reverts on both sides), such behaviour is counter-productive and can be initially interpreted as meatpuppeting, regardless of whether he or she apologises afterwards or not.

EtienneDolet's claims of me having 'bad faith' are baseless if we take a closer look at his arguments:

(a) Nagorno-Karabakh is unrecognised and it is occupied by Armenian forces; this is not my invention, and this wording features in the consensus-based neutral version of dozens of articles, such as the one I provided above. It is much less POV than something like this [52].
(b) The mention of Nagorno-Karabakh was removed from the villages where its independence was not proclaimed, or where it simply does not belong. Examples: the Topkhana Forest is not mentioned in Armenian sources, and being under threat in the 1980s, it may even not exist any longer, so there is no evidence to say that it is "located in Nagorno-Karabakh"; and "Republic of Artsakh" is not acceptable wording for any AA2 article.
(c) The mention of Armenians was not removed in the first and fourth diff, while the second and third diffs were obscure articles consisting of a single line of unsourced information lingering for five years.
The first two cases listed in (d) are reverts to the original versions; I did not add a word of my own, so claiming that I was making "a very strong POV statement" in inaccurate. In any event, the word 'occupied', for instance, is nowhere near as POV as 'liberated' in the case of Armenian-controlled Azerbaijani villages. The third and fourth cases were citing a source provided thereby.

Finally, I have never been topic-banned, as EtienneDolet claims, hence this argument cannot serve as a basis for bad faith on my part. Parishan (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must apologise; I assumed that since we are on an arbitration page, I did not need to be overly specific in justifying my actions for every diff that has been provided here. However, since I have been told that my addressing of those issues did not seem convincing, I will take the time to treat each of them in a separate manner. EtienneDolet's selection features cases where most of the changes, in my opinion, were reverts of bad-faith edits of one specific disruptive editor. Certainly, when fishing for discrediting evidence on a user without taking a moment to look at what the article resembled just prior to that revert and what exactly prompted it, it would not take much effort to present every contribution as 'bad-faith'. With this biased strategy, it would be possible to find 'examples of disruptive behaviour' for every user who is involved in this case. Let us take a closer look at EtienneDolet's diffs:

(a) "Publicising the non-recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh"

[53] - I did not add any content in the article. I reverted an edit by User:NiksisNiks who had removed information under the pretext of it not being sourced. I restored the information and provided a neutral source to back it up. Note also the malicious unexplained removal by NiksisNiks of the sourced information about the existence of a public school in the village.
[54] - I did not add any content in the article. I reverted back yet another edit by NiksisNiks who had removed a statement on the de jure status of Nagorno-Karabakh from the lead of the article Nagorno-Karabakh, ridding the lead thus of any reference to the region's relation to Azerbaijan whatsoever. I leave it to the admins to decide if NiksisNiks was indeed motivated by good-faith and NPOV in doing so and if I was wrong in reverting that.
[55] - I replaced the awkward wording "a village in the Hadrut Province of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Azerbaijan put it in the Khojavend Rayon" by NiksisNiks by the wording "a village in the Khojavend Rayon of Azerbaijan (de jure) or the Hadrut Province of the unrecognised Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (de facto)". I do not see anything wrong in the use of the word 'unrecognised' in this case; if anything, it would spare the reader from wondering why there are two countries listed for the same village. Note that I did not revert the page back to the version that mentioned the village's occupation.
[56] - The user had redirected the article under a POV name used only by Armenian sources. I did not add any content, but I did remove an unsourced statement added by NiksisNiks whose lack of good-faith had already been obvious to me.
[57] - I did not add any content. I reverted an unexplained edit which rid the article of any mention of Azerbaijan back to the original version. I fail to see how EtienneDolet considers the use of the word 'unrecognised' tendentious and makes a point of it during arbitration, yet he does not mind it at all when someone removes every mention of Azerbaijan from an article about a landmark de jure located in Azerbaijan. If there is bad faith here in this specific case, it is certainly not on my part.

(b) "Removing mentions of Nagorno-Karabakh"

[58] - The village of Zülfüqarlı is located in the area outside of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, thus not covered by the 1991 Nagorno-Karabakh independence referendum. While it is still controlled by the Nagorno-Karabakh military forces, the latter consider this region to be in the Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Hence it was up to the user who added "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" as the village's location to provide a source which lists this village as located within the boundaries of the self-proclaimed state.
[59] - I did not remove references to Nagorno-Karabakh; they are found all throughout the article. I removed one from the lead where it was mentioned that the Topkhana Forest was a state reserve. The forest is, in fact, considered a national reserve, but only in Azerbaijan; no Armenian source makes any mention of the forest under any status, so saying that this state reserve was located in Nagorno-Karabakh would not be accurate. In any event, I find this wording much more acceptable than the wording "an imaginary forest claimed to have been located near Shusha" left by the previous editor.
[60] - Again, I did not remove a reference to Nagorno-Karabakh. I simply precised its pre-war status as an autonomous entity. The region was officially and uncontestably known as the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast of the Azerbaijan SSR at the time of Arkadi Ghukasyan's birth.
[61] - I did not add any content. I reverted back to the original version after a bad-faith editor had removed mention of Azerbaijani personalities born in the village.
[62] - I shall let admins decide whether it is right to consider the wording "the Republic of Artsakh" NPOV. If you ask me, the edit that I had to revert falls under every possible AA2 restriction.
[63] - I reverted yet again the same bad-faith editor NiksisNiks who had removed every reference to Azerbaijan from the information box.
[64] - I reverted an edit where not only references to Azerbaijan had been removed, but the village had been referred to as being located not just in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic alone, but also "in Armenia"; a gross violation of AA2.
[65] - I reverted an edit of the NiksisNiks who had stipped the article of every mention of Azerbaijan, including the DEFAULTSORT template and even the stub tag at the bottom of the page, replacing it with "Armenia-stub".
[66] - Stepanakert was a city in the Azerbaijan SSR at the time of Serzh Sargsyan's birth; the Nagorno-Karabakh Oblast was not a Soviet republic and did not subordinate directly to the Soviet government, with Azerbaijan occupying the intermediate position in the hierarchy. I felt the need to precise that.

(c) "Removing Armenian presence"

[67] - The village of Gülüstan is located outside of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is controlled by Azerbaijan both de facto and de jure, and since the break-up of the Soviet Union has never been under the control of any other state or military force, recognised or otherwise, except Azerbaijan. Its status is undisputed, unlike the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions. Claiming that is it located in such-and-such province of Nagorno-Karabakh (when it is not from any point of view) would require at least a source and a word on the talkpage. It surprises me to see that refusing to accept such controversial statements at their face value constitutes an example of bad faith. Note that contrary to EtienneDolet's claim, I did not remove mention of Armenian presence in the village - it is still there.
[68] and [69] - These two articles were started back in 2008 by then-newly registered user who created about a dozen articles on villages in the non-disputed Azerbaijani region of Nakhchivan, but under their Armenian names. Not only were these articles forks (for most of those villages, articles already existed under the official Azerbaijani names), blatantly POV (accompanied by the category "Villages in Armenia") and badly worded in English, but they also consisted of only one or two short sentences each and without any source, not even a partisan one. I redirected most of those articles to the ones that correspond to the said villages nowadays. For what was claimed as villages in these two diffs, I did not find a modern equivalent, so I redirected them to the page of the region where they had supposedly been located. The user reappeared two years later, undoing my redirect, but not improving the content one bit, and not even bothering to replace the red-linked obsolete category. The articles about villages whose existence could not have been attested anywhere thus remained unattested for for the next five years until recently when I redirected them back to the articles about their respective present-day geographical region.
[70] - The Armenian spelling and transliteration are given in the lead, and I did not modify that part. I also kept the Armenian name in English letters in the information box above the Azeri one, simply removing the spelling in the Armenian alphabet, because it had already been given in the introduction, making it redundant and not much useful for the bulk of readers who cannot read Armenian, and had already been taking up too much space in the information box.

(d) "Strong POV wording"

[71] - I did not add any content. I reverted an edit by NiksisNiks who used the POV wording "liberated" with regards to a village that passed under the control of the Armenian forces during the war.
[72] - I did not add any content. I reverted the page back to the original version which NiksisNiks changed without discussing, claiming that he "did not find the information in the source". When he was given the exact reference in the source, instead of taking it to the talkpage, he reverted again, saying "the author was biased". I wonder why EtienneDolet tolerates such a frivolous editing habit, but critisises me for appealing to an academic source which uses the word 'unrecognised'.
[73] - I did not add any content. I reverted the page back to the original version, distorted by NiksisNiks in the manner described above and a claim that "all sources were biased". Note that the discussion concerning the neutrality of the sources was touched upon on the article's talkpage, and those considering it biased refrained from pushing this issue further and let the article feature this wording back in 2007. How acceptable is it for a user to appear and, in lieu of making a good-faith attempt to add his/her two cents to the discussion, to go ahead and take trouble over the content, and not neutrally (placing a reliability tag, for instance), but in a blatantly POV manner - by removing information?
[74] - I simply expanded the text with a quotation that was found in the already cited third-party source. I did not add a word of my own. Parishan (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to EtienneDolet's response to the above comment, where he claims that before making this revert I should have understood that "it's under the de facto governance of the Republic of Karabakh": honestly, I do not believe that this is not how Wikipedia works; good faith is one thing, but taking bold statements in sensitive articles at face value is another thing. The burden was on the user who added that highly controversial information to accompany it with a neutral source stating that Zülfüqarlı was "de facto located in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", because according to the sources cited in the article Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, everything that falls outside of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and the Lachin corridor is regarded by the Armenian side as the regime's 'security belt' to be passed "to the control of Azerbaijan in exchange for Azerbaijan recognising the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", meaning that the regime does not claim sovereignty over villages like Zülfüqarlı. I believe this is enough evidence to at least doubt that the wording on the "location of this village within the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" would be accurate.

The wording "Armenian forces" in this edit is not POV; in fact, this is the wording used by third-party sources, such as the United Nations and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and even the word 'Armenian' in the title of the article Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh suggests the same. Note that I linked the phrase 'Armenian forces' to the article Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army, and not to the Army of Armenia, hence the argument about me ignoring "the independent status of Nagorno-Karabakh's army" is baseless.

The removal of the Armenian name in this edit was motivated by the fact that there had not been any source provided for the given spelling, which would be expected for a village that is uninvolved in the conflict; Armenian sources appear to feature varying spellings, including Գուլիստան, Գյուլյուստան, Գեուլիստան, which are all different from the spelling inserted by the editor. In addition, there has not been any Armenian population in the village in the past quarter of a century and, unlike the Azerbaijani villages in the Armenian-controlled zone, the status of this particular village is undisputed, rendering the name irrelevant from the point of view of the village's current population. By that logic, the once majority-Azeri capital of Armenia should get an Azeri name in its lead. It is especially strange to see this accusation coming from EtienneDolet who himself has been making a go of removing Azeri names from articles about cities which currently have a large Azeri population. EtienneDolet also refuses to acknowledge that the same user who added the unsourced Armenian toponym had earlier redirected a page about an Armenian-controlled Azerbaijani village under its recently invented Armenian name used only in the Armenian media. Nor does EtienneDolet raise the issue of bad faith on the part of NiksisNiks involved in most of the above disagreements, when the latter removed en masse all alternative names of villages in Armenia that sounded Azeri [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80] (this are just a few examples of many, see the user's edits from 13 February). I think it is quite obvious that EtienneDolet's criticism of my contributions stems from his personal take on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, hence the fact that controversial edits which conform to his POV remain unnoticed, ignored or even justified, whereas a logical response to these edits aimed at preserving NPOV is presented as 'bad faith' and 'tendentious'.

He claims to have more examples of my "problematic editing pattern". I must say I am very curious to see those, hence I would kindly ask EtienneDolet to please cite some.

Additional note to administrators: In the course of my participation in this project, I have created a number of good-faith articles (unrelated to the war) about the historical presence of Armenians in Azerbaijan, such as this one and this one. I have also contributed substantially with good-faith edits to already existing articles about Armenians in Azerbaijan, such as here, here and most recently here. Therefore I view attempts to portray me in this arbitration case as a contributor with nonyielding anti-Armenian bias - as unsubstantiated and seemingly motivated by factors alien to Wikipedia's community spirit. Parishan (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latest comment from EtienneDolet confirms that he has been unable to pick and gather much from the rest of my edits to blame me for POV. We went from "displaying belligerent approach" down to "not using edit summaries" as an argument to have a sanction imposed on me. When other users on the same page make much more substantial and controversial edits without using the edit summary, EtienneDolet does not see a problem in that; he only sees a problem when a controversial edit is reverted back to the original version. The argument of me "not bothering to add the correct Armenian spelling" here does make much sense in light of me wondering till now exactly which of the four spellings was correct and why I had to trust EtienneDolet and User:Tzir-Katin who had not provided a single source for the spelling they had proposed. Removing three lines for which there has not been any proof for over six years does not constitute violation of Wikipedia rules either, and blaming me for 'nationalism' for that edit (what nationalism are we talking about here, given that I am, in fact, Canadian?) is yet another example of bad faith on the part of EtienneDolet. Parishan (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the behaviour of certain uses does have directly to do with my edits because had it not been for their disruptive interference, EtienneDolet would have not raised the issue of 'POV' and 'nationalist wording' in the articles in question, for some of which I never made a single contribution of my own; for which the said wording had been part of a consensus version or had featured for as long as seven or eight years. The evolution of EtienneDolet's criticism of my activity on Wikipedia here speaks for itself: from over 20 diffs that he originally provided as evidence of my allegedly tendentious editing, he is only able to comment on my rebuttal about two of those.

In this article, I removed any additional text besides the location of the village because the source provided to support the village's being under the control of military forces since 1992 led to a dead link, which was likewise removed.

In this article I did not remove anything either; I simply reverted an unsourced bad-faith edit erasing references to Azerbaijan back to the version by Ali al-Bakuvi which, unlike NiksikNiks' edit, mentioned both entities in the infobox: [81].

My contributions to articles about Quebec separatism are not quite as active because users editing those articles manage to remain remarkably NPOV and balanced, which is not the case in the domain of AA2 articles, even in this very arbitration case. In any event, I do not believe I should explain myself as to why I choose to edit a series of articles on a certain topic, and I do not believe that my interest in the given topic suffices to refer to me as a 'nationalist'. Parishan (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly always easy to say one has not been "convinced by someone's argumentation" while sparing oneself the trouble of precising exactly what did not sound convincing. EtienneDolet's concentrating on insignificant reverts in one specific article, in turn, does not seem as a very convincing way to argue that I deserve 'an extensive block', as he requested earlier.

I did not use a 'flimsy excuse': I stand by my original statement that I reinserted the names of the village natives that NiksikNiks had deleted. The source leading to a dead link was not removed by me, but by NiksikNiks himself [82]. I simply did not restore it because all it referred to was a dead link that I could not replace with an NPOV source (I suggest EtienneDolet run a Google search looking for neutral references on the occupation of Asgaran), and I do not see a violation of rules in that. EtienneDolet's argument does not make much sense: if I were a 'bad-faith editor', why would I maliciously delete references to Nagorno-Karabakh in an article about one village, but add them in an article about another village (that he provided as evidence)? I fail to see a 'bad-faith' pattern in these seemingly contradicting cases. Parishan (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grandmaster

From what I see, a lot of edit warring concerns the statements regarding the status of the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, but de-facto controlled by separatists. I see that there are attempts to remove any mention of the de-jure status, like here: [83] I don't see why the legal status of the region should not be mentioned in every article concerning the region, as otherwise it creates an impression that it is some sort of a internationally recognized country. I think there should be a certain formula agreed by the wiki community for the de-facto regions, which should be enforced. In that case a lot of edit warring over de-jure/de-facto status would be eliminated.

Here an edit war started because of the insertion of a totally inappropriate category: [84] Same here: [85] Note that the region in question has never been a part of the state of Armenia, nor it is now, so the category clearly did not belong there. Yet Steverci inserted it and made numerous reverts to keep it there. That is the problem with this user. He adds inappropriate content, and when other editors disagree, he keeps reverting to keep that content in the article. Of course, Parishan should have shown more restraint. I think that Parishan should be strongly warned to demonstrate more restraint and take any problematic issues to the appropriate forum. But considering that he has no history of blocks for 8 years, and that is 8 times longer than the user who filed this report has been here, I do not think that any stronger measures would at this point be really necessary. In fact, the equal punishment might be even seen as an encouragement for the party that was adding the inappropriate content. Grandmaster 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the editing restriction mentioned by EtienneDolet, and it dates from around 6 years ago. I don't think that block logs and sanctions from so many years ago have any relevance now, as the AE report form requests only the warnings made within the last year. Grandmaster 13:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this request needs to be closed in light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steverci, as Parishan has been baited into an edit war by a sock account, and this request was made by the same sock account as well. Grandmaster 22:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Parishan

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

Two blocks for edit-warring from eight years ago do not provide any great cause for concern. The edit-warring is concerning but the article was fully protected, so there's nothing actionable on that front. EtienneDolet's evidence of POV pushing is concerning, and I don't find Parishan's rebuttal to be very convincing. I'd like to hear from other people who know the topic area well, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above comment by User:EtienneDolet about the recent history of the Shusha massacre, I can see the logic of restricting both User:Parishan and User:Steverci. For Parishan to remove from articles mention of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, as here in EtienneDolet's diff, sounds to me like nationalist POV pushing. In a previous AA enforcement case, somebody had replaced mention of 'Nagorno-Karabakh forces' from a newspaper report and converted it into 'Armenian forces' in the article text. I have not yet determined whether Parishan's efforts to make the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic disappear are quite that blatant. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell and EdJohnston: I just resurrected this from the archive so it could be closed properly. Are you two happy for me to close this without any action, you guys know the background better than I do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DungeonSiegeAddict510

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 DungeonSiegeAddict510

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#ArmyLine.2C_DungeonSiegeAddict510.2C_and_Xander756_topic-banned :

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

February 21st Unprompted reference to a Gamergate discussion forum ('Kia') on my talk page.
February 21st Continues to discuss this forum on my talk page after making a statement on this request.

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 was initially unsure of what the comment related to, but I've been informed that Kia is a discussion forum for Gamergate. I'm not sure why he saw it pertinent to bring up on my talk page, but it's not welcome or relevant to anything I've been doing. Searching for 'kia gamergate' returns it as the first result, and I don't know what else it could be reasonably concluded that he was talking about.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[86]

Discussion concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510

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 DungeonSiegeAddict510

I really shouldn't edit Wikipedia in the dead of night. I'm UTC-8 after all. Maybe I confused OP for someone else. Moo --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 18:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: the term is subreddit. Am I not allowed to correct others? --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 00:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should apologize. It was very late at night and I wasn't thinking straight. I will restrain myself from night editing talkpages, from now on. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 00:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a thing written up soon, however, I have some other business to attend to so I can't write a thing right now. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

KiA (the final "A" is capitalized") is KotakuInAction, a reddit subforum where GamerGaters organize their attacks. (It is also the acronym for "killed in action"; the coincidence might conceivably be accidental.)

Here, for example, is a thread (currently 98 comments long) about whether Anita Sarkeesian’s Twitter statements can be excluded from the Gamergate article:[87], a topic being actively discussed at the moment on the talk page. . Various commentators discuss strategy (adding tweets from Gamergate supporters) and tactics (topic-banning me, bringing complaints against Gamaliel, calling me names, etc). At least 11 tweets in my Twitter stream this morning are sea-lioning this particular thread. The originator of this thread, shares a name with one of the topic-banned parties in the ArbCom case, but surely this is a coincidence.

Brianna Wu recently published [88] a call for Reddit’s CEO to close down the forum. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avono

To be added to Evidence: [89] subject also referring to 8chan & ArbitrationGate controversy Avono (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite

This edit alone needs a serious explanation or a one-way interaction ban between this user and PeterTheFourth. It appears to be pure, unprompted talk page harassment. Hipocrite (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

Considering that this mention links to the car Kia, not the GamerGate messageboard, it seems like a pretty trivial misstep. I'd feel differently if there had been a substantial remark about the controversy but this wasn't one. I think the apology from the editor should be sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeterTheFourth: I didn't look at the entire conversation and DSA510 shouldn't have been on your talk page participating in it. But I still think it was a marginal participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: I think I will just bow out of the discussion at this point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: Hello. Regarding you correcting others on my talk page- your topic ban means you shouldn't be talking about the topic at all, and I'm not impressed that you've decided to continue to do so on my talk page after I've filed this report. I initially filed it because you were discussing it for seemingly no reason on my talk page. I'm not a fan of unwarranted questioning about Gamergate as you did, especially given that I haven't interacted with you before.

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: Would be perfectly okay with accepting an apology, but I'd like to know what it is you meant to discuss and why with me? I'm not a user of the KiA forums. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: His further statements on the matter make it clear that he wasn't talking about the car manufacturer, despite his initial link to it. If I had to guess, I would say linking it would either be a joke or a means of plausible deniability ('I really only meant to ask you what trade secrets you were keeping about automobiles!') PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thing is... he kind of started the discussion. He wasn't so much a participant as the person who brought it up (still don't know why.) As an aside: Should I be pinging every time I respond to something, or is it sufficient just to ping once? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strongjam

Maybe this is stale by now? Seems to have been overshadowed by other reports. I'd say block DungeonSiegeAddict510 for 3 days or so for violating his topic ban. They're productive editing KDE articles, but for some reason Gamergate brings out the worst in them. They need to take HJ Mitchell's instructions to avoid the topic space like the plague seriously. — Strongjam (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Frosty

I don't understand the big deal on this one. You aren't dealing with an editor who spends 100% of his time doing things like this. I will agree that he did break his restrictions, but what he has been doing doesn't warrant any serious action. In fact it barely warrants this discussion. You know how this should have been handled? A friendly but firm reminder of his editing restrictions or at the very most a 1-3 day block for being a pain in the neck.

He received no attempt at a warning after ArbCom made it's decision. A simple: "Hey don't do that" would have nice, if he kept doing it then I'm all for coming to this page. —Frosty ☃ 23:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DungeonSiegeAddict510

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

This doesn't seem like that big of a deal. I think a trouting would do. - the Great Lord Gamaliel 00:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
There was substantial support for banning this editor in the arbitration decision itself, based on his failure to abide by his topic ban, but the Committee, with my concurrence, decided to give him a final chance. His behavior since the case closed has been unimpressive, and I perceive his edits on PeterTheFourth's talkpage as blatant harassment. I would impose a siteban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This post by DSA510 is indeed a violation of his topic ban from Gamergate. I suggest a one-month block, instead of the indef that might also be considered. Arbcom did entertain a motion to indefinitely block him as part of the case. The Committee made a Finding of Fact:
3) DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in soapboxing on talk pages (e.g., [5][6][7]) battleground conduct ([8][9]), broken their topic ban twice (block log), and has provided inappropriate commentary during the case ([10][11]).

We assume that Arbcom hoped that his behavior after the case closed would show he was on a better path, but I don't see that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a violation of the TBAN the most we can do is a one week block for the first offense (that is, this is the first time they've violated the ArbCom TBAN), alternatively we can bump this over to ARCA and let ArbCom decide what action is best to take. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? The standard enforcement starts at up to one month. T. Canens (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plus, it's not a "first offense" by any reasonable standard – the Arbcom-imposed topic ban is a continuation of the previously imposed discretionary topic ban, and he had already been blocked twice for breaking that even before the Arbcom finished. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point, don't know what I was looking at. Fut.Perf. I guess that's something that whoever enforces needs to consider, that is whether enforcement before it became an ArbCom sanction counts as a violation for the standard enforcement provision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a violation of the topic ban, and DSA is obviously not taking the advice and instruction he's been given by multiple people to leave the topic area alone. I think a permaban is a little over the top, but if DSA carries on as he has been it won't be long before we're at that point. I recommend a one-month block, which is the maximum allowable for the first enforcement action arising from the remedy. We could justify a longer block with an invocation of discretionary sanctions or IAR, or do it as an ordinary admin action, but I think a month is long enough to make the point, and any future violations will likely be met with a much longer block. DSA has exhausted the slack he has been cut, and we should come down hard on persistent offenders who don't heed the advice they're given, especially when that advice is backed by an arbitration remedy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with everything you've said, including that a month would be enough. Remembering also that we'll feel the same regarding coming down hard if there is a next time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtul

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 Ashtul

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :

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

12:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC) revert removes paragraph
11:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 1RR violation -- removes a paragraph again, <24 hours after the first time

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Previous block notice for 1RR violation: [90]
I/P topic ban: [91], subsequently lifted by HJ Mitchell, [92]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Report originally posted at AN3; moved here on suggestion by another editor.
Ashtul continues to insist (on ever more bizarre grounds) that the edit violating 1RR was okay. This does not bode well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re Ashtul's claim not to be a POV-pusher -- since other admins have already noted that POV-pushing is exactly what is going on here, perhaps it's not necessary to specify it, but just in case: consider this edit, which adds a claim (co-existence, side-by-side) that uses a source not meeting WP:RS and another one (Y-net) that does't support the text. The POV is that the occupation is good for the Palestinians -- they don't mind it, they benefit from it economically, they work "side by side" next to Israelis in "co-existence" -- and yet the only source that supports those claims is one that quotes the head of a settlement regional council. The claim to this effect is nonetheless added without attribution, as if it were fact. This sort of editing is pervasive in this editor's contributions -- and so the claim that he is not a POV-pusher is especially troubling because it shows unwillingness to own up to what is perfectly evident. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[93]

Discussion concerning Ashtul

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 Ashtul

A lot more to consider

Preemptive quick resolution

The edit in question is completely insignificant and was returned by Nishidani only due to the massive rollback he has done to other changes. Before getting into a long discussion, I asked Nishidani to comment on it which can resolve this AE request quickly with none of us wasting any additional time. Ashtul (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Long dirty road

I have asked Nishidani to admit the text in question should have been removed but he dodged the request claiming it is 'irrelevant'. I will demonstrate why it is and later the background for this.

The text removed has been on Wikipedia in some form since at least 2010, not added by Nishidani.
The text removed is completely outdated and false as Beitar Illit is by now a city and the other content is redundant due to recent addition.
The article has recently went through massive addition and needed a lot of work (9k->14k). The rewrite was done in a rush and obvious issues such as duplicate sections (History vs. History and today) were left which is where the text in question is located.
Before any of the changes took place, 100s of word of discussion were written here and on Talk:Community settlement (Israel). Nishidani was impossible to argue with , Cptnono wrote 'Regardless, have you taken a look at Ashtul's reasoning, Nishidani? I don't know enough about those details but it is intriguing enough that merely blowing off is not the best thing to do'.
The change in question was done as two series of with the first including 16 changes, all step by step so other users can follow the logic and revert a single change if they disagree. The first series took over an hour to compile (11:22, 22 February 2015‎ to 14:27, 22 February 2015 with an obvious break in between). Nishidani made a quick WP:ROLLBACK revert (kept one change and added some content) with the cheerful description Failure to read the sources or if read, misinterpreting them. Describing as WP:OR statements in the sources, etc. General incompetence. Please note, the revert in question isn't referred to neither there is't an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page as demanded here. In a way, it can be called WP:Vandalism as Nishidani revert included return of WP:OR, removing new source and removal of content that seems redundant.

So to summery, this 'revert' is eliminating old content during a rewrite of an article with obvious need for love. In a duplicate section - old, false, redundant content was removed for the second time after a massive, careless revert by Nishidani.

I will publish very relevant background in a bit. Ashtul (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I was blocked then topic banned, then blocked for breaking the topic ban then pardoned. HJ Mitchell demanded I will 'keep a respectful distance from Nishidani'.

Nishidani admittedly was aware of this requirement as he was pinged to the page. "Naturally" his instinct was to WP:HOUND me in order to get in my face and provoke me by massive edits to the two pages I recently edited, Community settlement (Israel) and Barkan Industrial Park. I know I should WP:AGF but with WP:POVPUSH statements such as 'Israeli-occupied West Bank', 'in the Occupied Territories' and elimination of my edit 'At Barkan Industrial Park, thousands of Israelis and Palestinians coexist and work side by side in many of the factories', which was already eliminated before twice by other members of the pack Nomoskedasticity and Huldra, it has diminished (I'll touch on the pack practice later).

Nishidani has since apologized and admitted for possible wrongdoing (20:26, 23 February 2015), which was after the original WarEdit complaint was filed by Nomoskedasticity (14:09, 23 February 2015). Yet, it didn't occur to him to ask Nomoskedasticity to drop this complaint.

Now I want to explain 'The Pack' which I've mentioned earlier. It is quite a fascinating phenomenon to see users Nomoskedasticity, Huldra, Nishidani and Zero0000 keep on popping on the same pages, reverting the same content. It seems like a great system that prevents anyone for making a case for a WP:WAR Examples can be found here, here, here (around 21:38, 17 January 2015), here (around 19:29, 18 January 2015‎), and here. I am not sure if I'll go as far as blaming them for active WP:Canvassing, but it happened enough times around me to shows a pattern.

Another claim of WP:WAR was raised by Nishidani for Karmei Tzur. It is completely bogus and part of this witch-hunt. I have deleted three stories that I thought weren't notable enough. A claim for POVPUSH will be completely false as one of them was about stone throwing where nobody died. I've then realized an image was related to one of those and thus deleted it as well. Nableezy disagree over the importance of two of the stories and returned them along with the picture. The only issue is, the picture is related to the story he chose to leave out. I haven't noticed it at first, but once I did, I removed it. I have asked Nableezy to comment on this matter.

I think at this point I have wrote everything I have about why the revert in question (and the one second one) weren't WP:WAR, WP:1RR but rather the duty of an editor to correction of a mistake done by the previous revert where opposition is unlikely.

If this isn't enough of an explanation maybe Nishidani is right and I have notable problems. Since my topic ban was lifted I opened an RfD (which concluded with consensus in a few days and effected tens of articles) and RfC (so far, the two answers support my position - 'rampant POV-pushing and totally unacceptable') exactly to eliminate this type of conflicts.

If this does sound reasonable, I would like a mechanism to be put in place so The Pack won't gang on me again.

Cheers, Ashtul (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over 36 hours after this request was submitted and the editor who actually did the changes in question, Nishidani, hasn't bother to comment though he was fully aware of it. This was a great stunt aimed to waste my time. Ashtul (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nishidani for an elaborate response. Some of these are legitimate content conflicts or correction of bad judgement of another editor. Yet, you haven't touched on the 'revert' in question in which the content was redundant, outdated and in duplicate section (History vs. History and today) due to your new contribution. You should have removed it yourself after the rollback. To go after me b/c of it with AE complaint is #@$%*&#%@#$ and bad faith!!! Ashtul (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It all comes down to a simple question, Nishidani, Do you think the material in the revert should have been removed? or was it your mistake (or simple lack of attention) putting it back in?. The revert was not WP:WAR or anything even close to that.

Karmei Tzur isn't even 1RR not to mention once again remove a picture which referred to text that was left out by the reverting editor. Nableezy seems to be on wikibreak but I have no doubt he would confirm it. Ashtul (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Nishidani complaint about my allegations

I have wrote on your page within hours of this request, asking you to admit the material should have been removed. You went in circles and wouldn't do it because this of course will dissolve this whole request. All was left was to tell the full story.

Let me ask you again, should the material removed be included in the article? Ashtul (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'Ofra-Likud' edits - whoever read the text understand the Likud government helped Ofra in 1975 but this is impossible since Likud won elections only in 1977. This is beyond dispute.

What I said in length on HJ Mitchell talk page was that the sources you have chosen to work with will be confusing b/c CS and WBS are two different animals even if they have a lot of historical and current relations between them. The sources you introduced talk mainly about WBS and touch on CS in a way that even myself, as an Israeli would probably have issue distinguishing when they are talking about what. Thus the removal of your sentence was justified and not POVPUSH not to mention I wrote it myself once there was a clear source that stated it.

About Galilee and Palestinian state -

Lets start with the fact you didn't put a source next to it before I took it all out..
The 3 sources you write about proves my previous point - you (or the source) aren't clear of WBS vs CS. Obviously he speaks of WBS as CS exist also in Galilee which the int'l community doesn't see as future Palestinian state.

You claim I wrote the grabbed sentence "monitoring may have a particular shared ideology, religious perspective, or desired lifestyle which they wish to perpetuate by accepting only like-minded individuals" but in fact it was you. I merely deleted the statement before.

So to sum this up, in a click of a button you rolled back 16 changes I have made. The one in the diffs for this AE request was your mistake and you don't even have the decency to say it out loud and lets us all put this ridicules waste of time behind us. Ashtul (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to EdJohnston

Both revert were correction of mistaken edit by another editor. WP:3RR is part of WP:Edit warring which clearly states - "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". Since there is no content dispute, there is no WP:WAR and thus no 1RR.

In hundreds of words by Nishidani he never argued the content belongs in the article. Not once! He know it shouldn't and this whole AE request is an attempt to eliminate an editor with different opinions. Ashtul (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claims for my POVPUSH or WAR

I do have a strong POV but I don't push it. Some of my statement might need moderate work but I believe I contribute more on that field then do damage. Much work is needed on many pages.

An example for a change I've done recently is this. Two following sentences from the same source but the date is attributed only to the second part. As of September 2010, only a small minority among them is violent. - ridicules. I haven't followed who put it this way to begin with but it is an obvious POVPUSH which I have corrected.

On Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015, I have tried to bring some NPOV to the table but Nishidani wouldn't hear it. If you compare the lead to that of Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 you can see the lead grew from decent NPOV to a political manifesto with multiple sources criticizing Israel. Two pro-Israeli sources introduced to lead for WP:DUE were removed by Nishidani b/c "(3) removed false and unnecessary lead tags". I have asked him about items on the list that doesn't fit the category at Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015#Confiscation notice but over a week later he didn't even bother answering. A great source by Shin Bet I introduced with talk page entry was move to the very end of the monthly lead stating "This is a useful source and I will use it on a monthly basis. However unlike every other source, it has no details" but a simple look shows the first part is by no-name group that provides even less details then my source, not to mention, detainees aren't covered by the definition in the lead.

Blaming me for POV discrepancy when Nishidani is in the picture is nonsense. I didn't go to war over those b/c he took control over those pages and won't hear anything from new editors. On Skunk (weapon) he would resist any change until Cptnono just chopped of one third of the article. His rollback on CS is exactly the same behavior. He didn't even go through all the changes to check whether they should stay in or not. Returning the part on which we all spending our precious time here can be considered unintentional WP:VANDALISM but in hundreds of word and 2 days Nishidani didn't even stated once that he disagree with my action of removing it and as I stated before, I can't see how 1RR rule can be applied when there is no WP:Content dispute. Ashtul (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Let look at an RfC on a content conflict lasting over a month now between me and yourself, Nishidani and Nomoskedasticity on Carmel, Har Hebron. The 4 replies as for now support my position and here are parts of them -

Those editors who argue in favor of it because it shows a contrast between Carmel and the ruins are actually arguing that we should push some POV with this image.
is rampant POV-pushing and totally unacceptable
the tangential POV laden picture does not belong in this article as outlined above
that does not belong in an encyclopedia

As per PMW, there are 7 results about them. This one list major media outlets which use their translations. Even the one you pointed at concluse if it used by 3rd RS it is OK, which I provided. This isn't even an opinion piece but a translation. If there is any doubts about that, please prove it. The fact they choose to translate pro-Israeli material doesn't make them unreliable. To top this all, I actually contacted them after I couldn't find the original and I added the link they send me as well. Then I invited you to question this on WP:RSN.

So let's sum this up, while 4 editors used some strong language on your editing on Carmel, I facilitated a conversation, provided a source, a 3rd party unarguably RS and the original in arabic then invited you to use WP:RSN. You really got some Chutzpah. Ashtul (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:,@Cailil: and @Callanecc:, please note my comment above. Ashtul (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more to consider

4 days after...

No editor made a claim that a content dispute exist. Without it, there is no WP:WAR thus 1RR doesn't apply. Ashtul (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I'm on my iPad so copy-pastie is torturous but I invite you to check 1RR,3RR and WAR ( they are all on the same page). It is all about content dispute. I didn't make the rules. And it is pathetic for The Pack trying to eliminate me b/c of a massive, partially unjustified rollback of a member. Ashtul (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: this is very convenient. You forgot the sentence that leads to it. Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, Ashtul (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: That isn't what wp:3RR says. You wrote earlier I didn't discuss other changes but I did here. So I can't be blamed for not trying to sort it out. So much was written about the difference between WBS and CS including a sketch I made and uploaded. I was extremely forth coming!!! The 'revert' in question wasn't discussed as one doesn't have to be rocket scientist to figure it doesn't belong and Nishidani was at faults for putting it back. He doesn't argue differently. Ashtul (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested HJ Mitchell who placed the previous topic ban and block to comment on this case. Please wait for his feedback. Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A final word

I was confused all along as for why Nomoskedasticity went for a 'revert' which was not part of any content conflict as I have made total of over 20 edit in two series and how come I mixed up the time. It finally came to me -

I worked on the article in two sessions. The first until 12:00 where I have made numerous changes to the content Nishidani added and a second session from 14:01 none of which was sections Nishidani wrote. In between I edited several other articles (TaxiBot, ‎Palestinian stone-throwing, Bil'in, Wikipedia:Third opinion). There are more then 24 hours between the edits I have made on Nishidani's edits and the revert in question is material that Nishidani doesn't even claim is content dispute, basically admitting him putting in back in place was a mistake. I truly believe I have done everything to keep the rules. Nomoskedasticity have filed the 3RR request within 1 hour of this uncontested 2nd revert and posted on my request to HJ Mitchell in a short time as well. Obviously he is trying to eliminate me as an editor. This isn't just WP:Hound, I think for this a new policy need to be call WP:hunt. Ashtul (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, WP:HUNT actually exist. "A witchhunt is an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred". I think this is more than enough to dismiss this as Nomoskedasticity is obviously after me, sorted through dozens of edits in which he wasn't involved and immediately filed a request as if he just won the lottery. Ashtul (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:,@Cailil: and @Callanecc:, HJ Mitchell have decided to sit this one out so I guess it is time for your decision. I have hidden much of the conversation and left the main points which are -

I have waited 24 hours between my edits on Nishidani's work.
I'm NOT POVPUSHer.
Nomoskedasticity timing is clearly WP:HUNT and the 'revert' in question isn't 'already obvious that such has occurred' but required digging and hairsplitting. (This is how an obvious one looks like).

I would like to ask you to refer to these points in your final decision. Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to claims about my POV practices

@Nomoskedasticity:, we all introduce some more material that supports our points but at least I use language that is NPOV. You have also failed to mention there was a discussion on the talk page on the matter with another editor thinking it was in the sources. Nobody claimed the Palestinians enjoy being under Israeli ruling but that doesn't change the fact they work together with Israelis and have great working relationships. I actually worked there a few years back and know if for a fact. The source support it and if you think it is all hell, bring a source that supports that. On the same page, Nishidani's contribution included the word 'Occupied' 3 times and his section about pollution sounds as if only Palestinian villages suffers from it. Near you guys I am Mother Teresa (as Carmel article shows).

For example, I saw a new report that fits 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. As I was looking to add it I notice the number of dead reporter was wrong at 13 instead of 17, so I fixed it and provided a source as well as added the original material which I wanted to add. This is bad for my POV but it is the truth. (I guess you might say I'm a blood thirsty murderer who wanted credit for extra 4 reporters).

If anything there is a lot of cleaning required. This edit for example fixed a case where 'As of September 2010' was attributed only to 'only a small minority among them is violent' but not to 'Many settlers desperately want to be regarded as part of the Israeli mainstream' even thou they are from the same source. Whoever wrote this has an advanced degree in POVPUSH engineering. Ashtul (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have guts. I will give you that. You write about POVPUSH and immediately delete Druker recanting b/c 'this is an opinion article'. It is his opinion about what he said earlier. Incredible!!! Ashtul (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: LOL. You lecture me. Those are two attempts of bringing wiki to NPOV. "and deserve to be" is in the source and attribution of the fact most settlers are law-abiding citizens is ridicules but instead of getting into a fight over attributing or not, I added a few names. I guess you think most settlers are rapists. I even added before While settlements are illegal according to international law... so it is clear we aren't talking about the conflict but about regular law. In my book this is exemplary NPOV!

My favorite fixing of your POVPUSH is this. You change Israel Maintains into Israel sought to justify. 'Maintains' is NPOV. 'Sought to justify' is POVPUSH as would be 'praises itself' (to the other direction). I wrote in length before about Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 and the political manifesto you made the lead into. Ashtul (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I'm afraid we're pass the point of acting as if any WP:AGF exist between us. First you need to admit this is WP:HUNT over a revert of yours, part of which (the part this request is about) was a mistake, then apologize for various beautiful comments such as While I am convinced Ashtul has notable problems, blaming me of 'totally garbled English' over a contribution you have made (on this request) or writing about me 'General incompetence'. The list can go on... You have treated me without a shred of respect for a very long time. Talking about 'approach to fellow editors' is pathetic.

As per your question about the B'tselem stats, I haven't change the numbers so why are you asking me about it?

About Barkan, I didn't oppose attribution but the ^{[failed verification]} tag which is false. And how does the 'labour unions report' contradicts them working peacefully together? Are we living a world of black and white? Do you have any RS to claim differently? This is absurd!

And now that I answered your questions would you do me the honor and answer the YES/NO question that is hanging over this request - Was your revert partially mistaken? Should you have left the part about Beitar Illit out? Ashtul (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

As I said over at the AN3 report in response to the user saying their timezone settings made them inadvertently revert before the 24 hours were up, the user appears to be waiting for the restriction window to end. They did so without discussing the edits in the meantime. It's gaming to just wait for the instant the 24 hours are up. To quote WP:3RR for the sake of the user, not the reviewing admins: Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashtul: 1RR always applies, even if the revert was on a different topic, it's still a revert. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashtul: The Pack? Anyway, WP:3RR is clear that it does not need to be about a content dispute. To quote: There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of other editors. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit wars are over content disputes. 3RR is a bright line regardless of the natures of the edits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashtul: The 3RR is independent of edit warring. I myself found this out the hard way. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IjonTichyIjonTichy

It seems Ashtul has learned almost nothing from his blocks and topic ban, and is repeating the same behaviors that led to the blocks and ban. He is gaming the system and editing in a highly partisan way. He appears to have made an effort to familiarize himself to some modest extent with the letter of WP policies, but his understanding, and more importantly his acceptance, of the spirit of the policies are very poor. He still does not understand or accept the culture of WP. He still does not have a clue. Ashtul's disruptive editing significantly reduces the work output of productive editors.

Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe an interaction ban is a good option. To Ashtul's credit, it seems he has made a few edits that are neutral. But regretfully most of his contributions are not neutral. Ashtul appears to (not always, but almost always) edit in a highly partisan fashion, and exhibits battleground behavior. He seems to behave as if Wikipedia is an ideological war zone, and as Nishidani has shown (in two specific examples out of many) Ashtul has twisted, slanted and warped citations from reliable sources in order to serve Ashtul's own ideological bias. We all have personal biases but most of us are able to set-aside our biases most of the time and edit neutrally based strictly on what reliable sources say. In contrast, Asthul does not yet appear capable of setting aside his biases and thus he is not yet able to edit neutrally - his own ideology is far too powerful to allow him to accept the evidence provided by, and the views expressed in, reliable sources which strongly disagree with Ashtul's personal point of view. IjonTichy (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Ashtul, while depicting me as some hounding monster, part of a hunting pack of POV pushers (the sprawling defamatory screed above after my attempts to keep this polite violates WP:AGF), insists I renege on my undertaking not to comment here. All I can see is any comment I might make being an occasion for a massive expansion of erratic counter-charges. Of the huge wall of text and embedded charges above I'll give but one example of how unreliable his reportage is.

Nishidani made a quick WP:ROLLBACK revert(kept one change and added some content)

What did I do in that innocuous edit?

(1)I retained an important item Ashtul had added.
(2) Resupplied a source for a passage that read:

also in the Galilee as part of the aim of establishing a 'demographic balance' between Jews and Arabs, and thwarting the development of a Palestinian state.

This had been removed by Ashtul with the edit summary: 'Removed WP:OR statement in the lead which is WP:EXCEPTIONAL)' These are both spurious. I introduced 4 academic sources, three of which say this in various ways:

(a)Weizman pp.81-82,pp.120-124, immediately before his specific section on 'community settlements' writes of a double planning policy to incentivate massive settlement in order to normalize the occupation and make it permanent, while ‘placing every conceivable obstacle.. in front of Palestinians attempting to develop their lands’.

(b)Farsakh p.50 wrote:‘The growth of settlements . .paved the way for carving up the West Bank and disrupting the territorial continuity necessary for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state’.

(c)Efrat p.97 wrote:‘Apart from limiting the possibilities for urban and economic development through the seizure of land, the main impact on the Palestinians of the settlements in this strip is the disruption of the territorial contiguity of the Palestinian communities situated along the strip'.

That West Bank settlements, most of which are community settlements were designed to hinder a Palestinian state is known even to Blind Freddy and his dog. Ashtul won't accept that.

(3)I had first made the edit: ‘by 1989, 115 had been added'. Ashtul erased this on the pretext that:'Source say clearly the figure includes kibbutzim and moshavim which are DIFFERENT.'

That was a false edit summary (Kibbutzim and moshavim were not mentioned in that source). But I made an accommodation to his point, and reintroduced the section with more specific data and sourcing by writing:

‘by 1987 they (comminity settlements) numbered 95,(Kellerman) and two years later most of the 115 settlements established were of this kind'(Farsakh).

(4) I had written:-

The design of these principles arose out of a perceived necessity of impeding Palestinian Israelis from residing in such settlements

This was based on the source wording:

'The community settlement’ was conceived in this way to avoid the possibility that Palestinian citizens of Israel might make their homes in these settlements.' ( Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation. Verso Books, 2012 p.126)

Ashtul had rewritten this in the following unrecognizable terms:

and monitoring may have a particular shared ideology, religious perspective, or desired lifestyle which they wish to perpetuate by accepting only like-minded individuals.<ref name="Weizman" />

(a) This sentence is totally garbled English. 'Monitoring', cannot be a (human) subject with qualities like a shared ideology: it is a process exercised over people, etc.(b) it radically alters the source language that clearly states the community settlements exclude candidates for residency on ethnic grounds by denying Palestinian citizens of Israel their legal right to live in them, by a euphemism that makes the object of exclusion (Palestinians) into a subject for inclusion 'like-minded individuals'. Whereas the source, and my edit, state Palestinians are excluded, Ashtul twists this into a principle of inclusion, making an ethnic discrimination (against Palestinians) into an ethnic affirmation (of Jewishness). That's typical of his editing all over these articles. He makes Palestinian realities disappear in the face of sources that describe them. His edit summaries are deceptive, his reference to relevant policies incomprehensible, and his respect for the wording of highly reliable sources indifferent.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtul. I'm not going to be dragged into an argument by you. If any admin thinks my editing is problematical, they are welcome to ask me to explain. I can't see you managing to grasp the policy and practice issues raised in explanation I have provided at numerous talk pages, including admin talk pages. So it is pointless for me to continue, other than to note you were asked by an admin not to follow me around as a condition for returning to edit, accepted not to do so, and now have immediately followed up a comment I made on an extremely obscure page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Binyamin Meisner) by giving your opinion. Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono. I appreciate your suggestions. I think any editor who's been around the I/P area will have a list of many editors who have found them 'frustrating', not to speak of the hundreds of IP or brief stagers who enter dramatically, cause fuss, and are quickly sent off. I've never had any problems, as you can see in my record, dealing with editors who have a thorough knowledge of the rules, respect WP:RS, look to WP:NPOV and who would thoroughly disagree with me in private. I have exercised restraint from December, I think, by asking an admin (EJ) or two (HJMitchell) to have a word with Ashtul over Skunk (weapon) and other articles, and I've called on your good offices to help out twice (here and here]) at Carmel, Har Hebron. Despite my frustrations, I preferred administrative persuasion rather than recourse to sanctions for infractions (that were multiple), Ashtul is one of only two people I've reported in 9 years, and he's no where as hostile as many I've ignored. His problem is, (a) an insouciance to mastering even the elementary principles of policy and (b) a capacity to cause a major needless inflation of work for fellow-editors because of that. That is what disturbs me. I made no opposition when he asked to come back soon after a suspension; I made no report when I saw further formal infractions. I made one slip, and apologized, in editing with him.

Indeed, yesterday, when I saw Ed's suggestion, I opened this page to request a halving of the suggested sanction. When I did so, I saw his screed. On my page he was being amicable, on this page he wrote out an incomprehensible denunciation of my behavior, and saw a conspiracy afoot among other editors.

I'm still amenable to a reduction of the suggested period. I don't think an interaction ban workable, since it would mean neither he nor I could edit many I/P pages, and it would imply I am half the problem. The problem is simple: this time, he needs a serious rest from the topic, so that, editing other pages, he can learn how to edit, how not to misrepresent sources or policy. 3 months is lenient in this area, but fair. I've sat out that (imposed or self-imposed) on a few occasions, and if Ashtul is committed to working here, it's a strong enough warning to ensure that this area requires scruple in rule observance, care with precisely sourced information, and balance in perspective. Above all he has to learn that we are dealing with two realities, not one.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtul. Your additions to me are as incomprehensible as most of your edits or rewrites. I could have made a very long statement taking each of your edits to pieces. I've explained one such example. To avoid WP:TLDR, I'll give another, typical of your 'cleansing' of the text.

10:00, 22 February 2015 Edit summary Ofra is mentioned above. Likud apply to WBS not CS.)

What this removed;

The first community settlement, Ofra, being established only in 1975, and four of the first five were unauthorized.(ref=Kellerman) The reevaluation and recognition of such settlements as cooperative associations was based on the ascendancy to government of the Likud party, which seconded the rapid growth of closed exurbs in which religious nationalists played a dominant role.(ref=Gorenberg)(ref=Kellerman)

The edit summary is absurd, since as my statistics showed, most settlements were CS, and Ofra is alluded to earlier, not discussed. You eventually 'rewrite this' as

From 1977, the Likud led government supported expansion in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and in a few years, community settlements were the most common localities in those regions

I.e. you (a) removed the documentary basis for the text's assertions or facts (b) cancelled reference the date of Ofra's foundation, where you have a WP:COI since your sisters live there (c) erased the fact that 4 of the first 5 such settlements were unauthorized, (d) removed the reference to such closed exurbs as dominated by religious nationalists and (e) in a totally ineptly phrased reworking wrote: 'community settlements were the most common localities in those regions,' confused a settlement with a locality, and worst of all, explicitly state that Israel's community settlements (115) were more common on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip than the several hundred Palestinian villages, which, in this formulation, are, again 'disappeared'.

All of your attempts to rewrite articles show this insensitivity and incompetence, and that is why I wait till your collective edits are done, and revert the damage. To take each edit seriously would mean a huge workload. You keep pestering me to explain an edit, and yet when I show edit after edit, what is wrong, you don't reply but push on.Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtul. This has nothing to do with a content dispute, or personal animus to get rid of someone, despite your efforts to make it into one. It is to do with the manipulation, inadveretent perhaps, but consistent, of content and sources to achieve a POV, which is what you did in both the examples I provided.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Igorp (a) if you can't see Weizman stating the Galilee on p.126 then I suggested you reconsult the page or an optometrist. Other than this I can't help you, unless by indicating it is the 56th word in para.1 (b) This is a lead (WP:LEDE) with summary style, and (c) you apparently haven't read the thread above, where the sources amply documenting (as the body of the text illustrates) the reasons behind community settlements, and settlements generally, are provided.

Generally, I am impressed by the amount of niggling examination of details flourished in arbitration as opposed to the disattentive negligance shown in the use of sources during the process of article drafting and talk page discussion. If people learnt to use the scrutiny they display here in the work they contribute, there would be no need for arbitration. I've said enough. This is not about me.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Keerist, Igorp! If you had actually followed my editing, and looked at my last edit to the article in question, you would have known that I had based my actual edits from Weizman, also regarding the Galilee on, Eyal Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation, Verso Books, 2012 pp.125-130, i.e. meaning also p.126. If you look above, you will se3e I cite Weizman twice, the second time on p.126 with a bloody link. Stop this ridiculous barrel-scraping pettifogging.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Igorp. Don't keep asking questions that I have already replied to. Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Igorp. Please reread my comments. I never put anything into this encyclopedia without carefully consulting the source, often the sources, at my elbow. I repeat: the answer to your crazy speculations is already provided above. If you can't see it, drop an email to blind Freddy's dog. It stands out like dog's balls.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, rather than pass to your boorish "style of communication", I only repeat here my specific question about Galilee what you have not answered below:

"I do not see there any expression similar to your and "thwarting the development of a Palestinian state" addition (at least, on p. 126, it seems to me that at 125-130 - too). Please point to a specific place if I'm wrong.
Otherwise, Ashtul was right making his 10:47, 23 February 2015: edit after his 1st such one (09:44, 22 February 2015 ) . --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)"

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtul. I've been abroad for some days. On returning the first and only edits of yours I looked because they were on a bookmarked page (Israeli settler violence) are all disputable, beginning with justificatory editorializing. This is an egregious example of POV pushing for example

like this, where you are grossly violating NPOV by having the text assert as a fact that Israeli settlers deserve(d)(sic) to be part of the Israeli mainstream (apart from the poor English) is this

where you consolidate the received text,

According to B'Tselem 49 Palestinians were killed by Israeli civilians between 2000 and 2010 is settler-related. (Statistics source =B'Tselem)

To obtain the run on line

The majority of them (sic) is (sic) settler-related as a significant portion of the dead were killed while attempting to infiltrate settlements or attacking Israelis. (Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians in the Occupied Territories, 29.9.2000 - 31.7.2010 source=B'Tselem}

Apart from the ineptness endorsement of the use of significant portion as a gloss on 'majority,' and the incoherent grammar, the first link is not specific, and the second for me does not load the names. Did you check the sources for this statement? The statistics 2000-2008, in any case, give 45, not 49 (4 more deaths presumably in two years), and do not bear out the gloss that has been added, in so far as it is grammatically comprehensible.

Can you show us where in those links that change of text, attributed to B’tselem is warranted? Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'I guess you (think) think most settlers are rapists'. Again, if you have this approach to fellow editors, you are frankly in the wrong area of the internet. Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'I guess you think most settlers are rapists'. Again, if you have this approach to fellow editors, you are frankly in the wrong area of the internet. Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply illustrates the problem. I asked you two questions: you reply 'LOL' and then ignore policy by (a) defending the presentation of a POV as an objective fact, and (b) ignoring the second request.

The second request highlights the strong probability that you rewrite texts, many of which are defective, without clicking on the putative sources to ascertain whether what you rewrite is source- based or not. The first link fails verification, since it is a generic page with no mention of the data, as does the second, which offers a prospect of a list, but for me, that list does not appear. As far as I can ascertain (I went through the statistics from 2000-2008) 23 of the 45 settlers killings were of unarmed Palestinians. Whoever wrote that text did a piece of WP:OR and attributed it to B'tselem, which then your rewrite endorsed. If that represents the same proportions in the unaccessed data for 2000-2010, then you readjustment is deceptive in pleading a cause, rather than simply presenting the reader with facts. Thirdly, it is apparent from another declaration here that you do not understand NPOV. Worse, editors who encounter just one edit like that, are, if they are careful in their work here, forced to waste 45 minutes searching for the appropriate data not yet available from the page, analyzing it, and then figuring out whether the assumption made is correct or not. 45 minutes of close labour told me it wasn't. In that time you can make a dozen edits. I for one, can't keep up.

I tried to show how you were presenting on wikipedia a single statement by an interested party, the head of the settler council, saying Palestinians and Israelis work in peaceful coexistence, as if it were a statement of the reality, rather than, an opinion. Extensive negotiations followed, which failed to drive home this elementary Wikipedia policy. That is an opinion, the (legitimate) POV of settlers. Why couldn’t you see this when it contradicts what Israeli labour unions report, which I have duly cited?

As far as I can detect, the reason is in what you now state in remarking Nobody claimed the Palestinians enjoy being under Israeli ruling but that doesn't change the fact they work together with Israelis and have great working relationships. I actually worked there a few years back and know if (sic) for a fact.

The massive sprawl of walls of texts with 3 months of grievance and countercharges, quickly hatted, has made this discussion impossible to read. Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Cptnono)

Wouldn't an interaction ban be sufficient instead of a lengthy topic ban? It looks to me like Astul is trying but having a hard time working with Nish. Since no one has offered to mentor the user, maybe give the two an extended break from each other. No reverts. Maybe no talking even.

I also still believe that Nish should have been more open to Ashtul's suggestions about settlements but it is hard to collaborate when everyone is off on the wrong foot. Ashtul could bring something good to the project and separating the two like school children (or how about prize fighters) might be all that is needed. Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Astul doesn't appear to be a troll inserting the worst of POV. He actually appears to know what he is editing to the point that he brought up points that were surprising to those well versed in the topic area. The problem is that he has gotten worked up about another editor. I am sure I can name a dozen editors who have been frustrated (legitimately or not) at Nish before. Separate those two by not allowing them to revert each other and the problem could be solved.

Would you consider a topic ban? The severity of restrictions has increased dramatically in the last few years and he would not have faced such a lengthy ban for cussing out another editor in the past. I understand that it might be a good thing since enough is enough but a more novel approach could work better. Something like a 6 month ban strikes me as something for the worst of offenders. He hasn't even had that opportunity to screw up that bad yet while he is still making steps (as small as they might be). Is banning him good for the project or is it an easy fix to cutting out drama?Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, Can you please explain me where was I wrong. I start to feel like I have lost my mind and if I do not understand, indeed I should not be allowed to edit at all and be blocked indefinitely.

How can there be 1RR violation with not content dispute and WP:WAR? Nishidani doesn't argue the content belongs there. Ashtul (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't revert twice in a day. It doesn't matter that Nish didn't see talk (it looks like an edit summary was used at least). I'm not saying that was the best way to go about it but the rule was put in place to reduce the once prevalent edit wars. This may not have been an edit war but things would have been calmer if the talk page was used instead of reverting. Just don't revert twice in a day in this topic area even if it feels like no harm is being done.Cptnono (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is at best a 'partial revert'. Nishidani and I have conversed in length here (I believe ~20k out of ~30k in the thread). Then I waited for 24 hours which were miscalculated b/c of local time (I have fixed that). If there was a 1RR on anything which constituted a content dispute I would say - 'sorry, I f***ed up. Ban me indefinitely' but that isn't the case. This is not Carmel case where I made a mistake. It was a content dispute and I broke 1RR. Ashtul (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what it was a best. You fucked up. Man up to it and give the community an assurance that you will respect the process of using the talk page in the future. I totally agree with you that your revert was within reason. However, the process is in place to assure that things are done at a slower and more collaborative pace. Can you show us that you give a shit (I know you do) and lay out how you could have done it better? Or not. Take the 6 months and come back a better editor.Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

You need to have a steep learning-curve if you are to survive editing in the Israel/Palestine area, and Ashtul is behind the curve, so to speak. Besides the 1RR violation, he inserts material from clear activist sources, without stating that it is from an activist source. Over on Barkan Industrial Park he insert material from Palestinian Media Watch. Ashtul claims here that the consensus from WP:RSN is that "There are several conversations regarding PMW with the majority concluding it is WP:RS thus I state 'consensus seems to be'." A quick search of the archives gives me this: "PMW is an Israeli organization dedicated to "exposing" the evil of the Palestinians by careful selection of material from Palestinian media. In other words, it is a political organization not a news organisation," and this. That he wants to pass off material from clear activist sources without attribution, shows to me that he still lacks a basic understanding of editing in the area. Huldra (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Igorp lj

Nishidani, can you please explain what RS approve this text from the head, quoted by you?

also in the Galilee as part of the aim of establishing a 'demographic balance' between Jews and Arabs, and thwarting the development of a Palestinian state.

I do not find something about Galilee in RS what you placed below your quote. --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd suggest not to jump to conclusions, as it has been not so long ago (:) As far as I can see nobody here insists that the disputed paragraph should be in the article. Then the 1-3RR violations' question itself is questionable too. Therefore, I'd ask someone neutral to check out other arguments against Ashtul.

Now, to the question of "persecution". Not sure that these accusations are true. Any article may be in WatchList of any party, but ... it's no secret that cooperation with Nishidani isn't easy, especially when it concerns the fact that contrary to his personal POV, which for some reason he is considered neutral. I've already mentioned his didactic tone towards beginners and other things that might just discourage anyone to desire & to do something in Wiki.

I think that a problem - isn't Ashtul, who still has the patience and desire to break through the current, not healthy situation. IMHO, it may be a perfect remedy to stop administration in those cases when parties expressed different points of view, but (!) to require from them not to add to an article any text, which wasn't previously agreed on an corresponding Talk page. I'd propose to check this decision for ~ some months' period and after it to see if / how it works.. --Igorp_lj (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani: "I suggested you reconsult the page or an optometrist", "If people learnt to use"... (17:12, 26 February 2015)

That's the pity, but this is exactly what I've wrote above about Nishidani's style of "cooperation".

Somebody wants to use the formal reasons here. Ok, I simply remind: what you mentioned above is (a)Weizman pp.81-82,pp.120-124 (Nishidani, 16:49, 25 February 2015), not p.126

"Galilee" was mentioned only once - in article's head. One may check the version before Ashtul's edit (09:44, 22 February 2015) : "Galilee" not appears in its body.

"I've said enough. This is not about me" (@Nishidani) :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani (20:47, 26 February 2015, mentioning his 13:08, 22 February 2015: "Failure to read the sources or if read, misinterpreting them. Describing as WP:OR statements in the sources, etc. General incompetence" (sic! See above about his "style) --Igorp_lj (talk)) edit)

A pity that I spent my time watching pro-Palestinian product of Weizman, but ... I do not see there any expression similar to your and "thwarting the development of a Palestinian state" addition (at least, on p. 126, it seems to me that at 125-130 - too). Please point to a specific place if I'm wrong.

Otherwise, Ashtul was right making his 10:47, 23 February 2015: edit after his 1st such one (09:44, 22 February 2015 ) . --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Nishidani (11:11, 27 February 2015) "Don't keep asking questions that I have already replied to."

It only means that Ashtul's was right about your wp:OR. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ashtul

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

If this was a first offence it might be closed with no action. But Ashtul has been previously blocked as long as two weeks for violations related to ARBPIA. I propose a six-month topic ban from everything covered by WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree with Ed here. A six month topic ban seems appropriate here--Cailil ^talk 20:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now gone through the edit history of Community settlement (Israel). There is a definite 1RR violation there. There's no obvious 1RR at Carmei Tzur. Ashtul has an evident POV on these matters, which he is entitled to have if he is willing to edit very carefully. I'm not seeing an adequate level of care, or enough patience in his reading of the sources. So I agree with Cailil that a six-month ban of Ashtul from the scope of ARBPIA will help assure the goal of having these articles be neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on the 6 month TBAN, the POV and refusal to follow the rules leave us with little choice really. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to sit this one out. I have mixed feelings, and I think the issue is best handled by admins who have come to it cold. I'm not sure about the 1RR violation (what edit was Ashtul's first edit reverting?), but there do seem to be other issues here as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein

MarkBernstein was blocked for 24 hours for repeated personally directed comments; the consensus of uninvolved admins appears to be that this was sufficient, and that no further action is required at this time. Any new requests should be based on diffs which post-date the closure of this request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning MarkBernstein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Recidivism
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions
MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indef topic banned in November 2014 and it appears that his behavior avoided scrutiny. During the ArbCom case, he was blocked multiple times for an Indef Topic Ban violation in January 2015. It appears that these actions saved MarkBernstein from direct ArbCom sanctions. After the decision, the indef topic ban and the block were lifted on promises that he wouldn't return to the behavior that led to the sanctions. Since then, he has returned to the exact same behavior and has been blocked for exactly the same issues. Per the case, enough is enough.

Participants in the case were sanctioned with this remedy for arguably less disruption. Per below, it doesn't appear that MarkBernstein will abide by the rules put forth in the ruling despite numerous promises, excuses, and breaks.

While the enforcement section allows and indef block, MarkBernstein will most likely cease disruption with the standard Topic Ban outlined in the case.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Scope of standard topic ban(I)

Please enforce the rulings in the case with the Standard Topic Ban.

@Guettarda: It's not about his latest block. It's about his entire history of not being able to follow civility rules and the ArbCom ruling. The latest block is a culmination of all the other items. How many editors would come of a topic ban, a 1 month block and then return to the contentious topic and be warned multiple times and blocked again within two weeks and not have the topic ban restored? 2 days, a week, then a month block followed up with 2 warnings and another block within 2 weeks of having the block lifted early on a good behavior promise. --DHeyward (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda:I chose only to list those comments that an admin deemed warnable or sanctionable and only since the TBAN. The questionable edits are embedded in those links below as part of the ban or block notice. I didn't go and search for additional evidence as most editors in that topic area have come across w bit sniping. I did this for three reasons: 1). it's highlighting a pattern severe enough that admins are attempting (and failing) to correct; 2). I don't follow GamerGate enough to correctly categorize every slight so I relied on Patrolling admins; and 3) if I were to bring a myriad of diffs from actual behavior it would be like bringing the GG talk page here. The pattern of conduct is what is disturbing with all the warnings and a block coming 2 weeks and it's noticed. He has 8 "official" warnings, bans and blocks related to specific topic areas and he has been able to accomplish this in less than 3 months and despite being Tbanned and/or blocked that entire time. --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda: It seems you must not see the links in the admin comments. Also your dates are wrong. He was blocked until Feb 12, which was about two weeks early. All the below comments were since then and identified by admins as problematic, not me so please refactor your casting aspersion. This is simple documentation of what admins have already said and the aspersions belong to them.

edit warning
edit warning (also discusses his research into another editor)
edit block

In addition, he characterizes other editors, though broadly [94], WP is battleground, choice is between an MarkBernstein or a barbarian horde of internet trolls. And that's just from his talk page. Other editors have articulated further. And since this is a cumulative list of behavior that resumed almost immediately after his block was lifted, previous history is very relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Strongjam: The ARCA request was closed and MarkBernstein was given the benefit of the doubt. Since then he's been warned and blocked. Everyone seems to have said to take these issues to AE as the proper venue so here we are. --DHeyward (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: Please note that I was not against you lifting your topic ban which is clear from your talk page. Nor do I want to see anyone restricted based on ideology or "sides" or what not. It's as simple as what kind of editor is constructive for the topic area. If they are more disruptive than helpful, intervention is necessary. MarkBernstein, so far, hasn't demonstrated that he understands how to collaborate. A block two weeks after an indef topic ban and block for the same reasons as those given for the TBan and the previous 2 blocks on a topic covered by ArbCom sanctions means it shouldn't surprise anyone that it is at AE. No one is looking to put his head on a pike but he seems bent on putting it there himself.

@Gamaliel: Which editor are you referring? I saw one that had a clean block log and no warning (not that it is required) and it was also an account that seemed to focus solely on GG. If admins are topic banning before an AE request, all the better. There's been no request to unban the editor I am aware of. This issue isn't that too many TBans of disruptive editors. Bring it here if you do not wish to perform the block yourself. --DHeyward (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: Also, please re-read the ARCA request. The committee did not weigh any evidence about MarkBernstein during the proceedings despite his TBan and block (or perhaps because of it). Either way, they simply didn't review it and said AE is the proper venue. He wasn't "vindicated" in the ARCA request. --DHeyward (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, Dreadstar, Guettarda, HJ Mitchell read MarkBernsteins response[95] to this and please review WP:CIV, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. When he assured you of his behavior upon return to get his ban rescinded and block ended, was it really a promise to fight "barbarian hordes?" Again, it's demonstrated that he can't work and play well with others. The ultimatum of essentially "let MarkBernstein edit GamerGate so women aren't physically assaulted" is rather extreme view of what the encyclopedia is. Jimbo's comment carries the view of the encyclopedia and it isn't MarkBernstein's. --DHeyward (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that these are only the violations he was warned about. Four separate admins have issues either topic bans or blocks regarding GamerGate conduct by MarkBernstein.

Nov 28, 2014 Indef topic ban for personally directed comments
Jan 3, 2015 Blocked 1 week for topic ban evasion.
Jan 24, 2015 Blocked 1 month for topic ban evasion
Feb 7, 2015 Indef discretionary topic ban ended while block still enacted based on "promises."
Feb 12, 2015 Unblocked early with "promises" of no more personally directed comments
Feb 18, 2015 Another final warning about personally directed comments
Feb 22, 2015 Another personally directed comment gets another warning.
Feb 24, 2015 Blocked for 24 hours for yet another personall directed comment.

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)

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I didn't bother with diffs showing his awareness of sanctions as it is more than obvious that he is.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified of discussion.[96]

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein

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

Statement by MarkBernstein

Before this cunningly-contrived midnight trial in absentia concludes, perhaps I might review the choice that is offered here. On the one hand, you have an editor whose poor vocation as a knowledge seeker should be plain from his eight years of work here and his publications elsewhere. On the other, you have a barbarian horde of nameless trolls, openly colluding for months to exploit Wikipedia as part of a public relations campaign to threaten, shame, and punish women in computing.

“Next time she shows up at a conference we … give her a crippling injury that’s never going to fully heal … a good solid injury to the knees. I’d say a brain damage, but we don’t want to make it so she ends up too retarded to fear us.” -- Simon Parkin, “Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest”, The New Yorker, 9 September 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest

Wikipedia's official response has been ineffectual and infamous.

“I (and Wikipedia) neither support nor oppose [software developer Zoe] Quinn. Wikipedia is not a battleground.” – Jimmy Wales

Impartially to support or excuse a conspiracy notable only for threats of assault, rape, and murder, is to support those threats. Wikipedia can be a hobby or an entertainment, but for those against whom Wikipedia is weaponized it is neither. They cannot drop the stick and walk away; they can only submit to its repeated blows and hope that you will eventually raise your hand to restrain their assailants.

That’s the choice you have. But it’s not your choice alone: there are higher courts than yours, and in one tribunal you have already been taken to AN/I and sternly censured. With thought for Wikipedia's defenders and care for the damage Wikipedia has done, you can resolve to amend your behavior and return to productive membership in the community of ideas.

This is, of course, entirely consistent with -- and indeed mandated by -- Wikipedia's core principles. We are building an encyclopedia; we do not, and should not, employ that encyclopedia to attack blameless individuals, to intimidate people considering a potential career, or to improve the image of a so-called “movement.” Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public-relations platform for the use of shadowy and shady causes. We are neutral, but that neutrality never extends to promoting falsehoods or excusing -- much less abetting -- criminal mischief. We follow sources; we never seek (as so many have been seeking on these pages) to "rebalance" them in light of an imaginary and universal conspiracy among the media. We seek consensus, which is incompatible with repeating the same failed proposals incessantly for months on end in the vain hope that something may have changed from the previous week, and with the fervent quest to sanction the five horsemen -- and me, and anyone else who stands in their way -- for defending the Wiki.

The problem is not insoluble or even difficult, but it does require resolve, hard work, and thorough sweeping. It’s time for you to choose. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

Although I found Mark Bernstein's participation problematic before the ArbCom ruling on Gamergate, I believe that his contributions have been generally positive since then. Yes, he is forceful in defense of our BLP policy, but certainly such diligence is justified because of ongoing disruptive trolling of this group of articles. Any mistakes he has made recently seem minor, and should be corrected by a few words from other editors, rather than more serious sanctions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeterTheFourth

I've been nothing but impressed with how stringently Mark Bernstein applies wikipedia's policies in editing articles. My interaction with his has been after his banning and subsequent reversal, and has been pleasant. I do note that there are editors who have directed rather pointed comments towards Bernstein since his ban from directing comments at other editors[97][98]- that Bernstein has received prickly behaviour such as this and been as stoic as he has is admirable to the utmost extent. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

Enough is enough. MarkBernstein clearly feels very strongly about protecting women in computing, but that is no excuse for repeatedly casting aspersions on other editors. This recent diff shows bright as day that MarkBernstein has no problem attacking and assuming the worst in other editors, therefore contributing to a hostile editing environment in spite of repeated warnings, blocks and a topic ban. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for those of us who aren’t part of the secret society, what was "Masem’s Talk"?

[99] It could certainly be construed that the "secret society" includes Vordox, Orlando (otherwise why is this post on on Orlando's talk page instead of Vordox?) and Masem. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda: - please read through Bosstopher's statement, which provides diffs on the MarkBernstein's history of casting aspersions. He sees a vast conspiracy by established editors and even an admin to attack women in computing. I think Masem, Orlando and myself (there may be others as well) have contributed enough to Wikipedia that being grouped as part of a conspiracy or "secret society" is plain insulting. We're not redlinks. If MarkBernstein has a problem with established editors, he can come up with the evidence and report us right here. Otherwise, he needs to stop talking about established editors as such. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 23:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guettarda:

There is no remaining NPOV issue, merely a vocal group of POV pushers, openly collaborating a campaign on 8chan to make this page more favorable to GamerGate

[100]

this is precisely what one small cadre of editors, aided by off-wiki organization, insists we must do

[101]

some of our number appear to be in a desperate hunt, coordinated on-wiki and off, for any source anywhere that casts the misogyny in a less vivid light

[102]

MASEM ... : (Do you have a bunch of good rape jokes you'd like to share with us?)

[103]

Hate to be a sourpuss, but I'm not sure that I join with MASEM in thinking Wikipedia should be "amoral" when it comes down to raping game developers.)

[104]

MASEM and his (fortunately shrinking -- DSA is about to be topic banned for last night's escapade) band of merry editors try to insinuate that Zoe Quinn's sex life ...

[105]

With respect MASEM, I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the pattern of your edits on the page in question which ... (c) have facilitated a coordinated POV attack on this page and its talk page which is known to be coordinated offsite, and where your aid is specifically cited as an important asset.

[106]

... you might have been supporting more favorable coverage of the planning to rape and beat women in computing because you personally support it, or for other reasons. That some editors are colluding is certain; your own part is not clear to me at this time

[107]

... in the course of a Wikipedia discussion orchestrated to deter women from pursuing careers in computer science

[108]

kthxbye

[109] in response to another editor saying By spreading rumours about wiki-editors online, while using minimal evidence, you raise the potential of exposing them to an angry mob that could try to exact vigilante justice. I hope you reconsider the extreme accusations you are making against wikipedia editors, and try to tone it down a bit.

From an 8chan thread ostensibly planning ArbCom strategy and coordinating how to deploy Orlando, DSA and Logan but largely venting at me

[110]

I supposed that TheRealVordox referred to something of a similar nature that Masem had delivered. ... I see Vordox is active on Twitter, where they have 129 tweets to their 3 followers and conversations with TotalBiscuit, Masem, CH Sommers,and SargonOfAkkad ; say hi for me!

[111]

Of all these accusations, where is the evidence against myself, Orlando or Masem regarding collusion? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Guettarda: - look, I'm sorry for wasting your time. My second post wrote about the "history of casting aspersions". I thought you were asking for diffs on that, which is why I provided those. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thargor Orlando

I fully endorse this request, along with the diffs that have been provided. I'm still puzzled as to why he was left out of the initial ruling, why his topic ban was ever lifted, and why he was ever unblocked early given his continued behavior. Hopefully this can put an end to this continued abuse. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda: if this were an isolated incident, you'd be right. The fact of the matter is that this is a pattern of behavior, both before and after his lengthy block and topic ban, and if he's not topic banned from a space he is unable to remain civil and collaborative in now, it's inevitable that it will end up here again in the future. Warnings don't work, blocks don't work, so we're here. No, the behavior is not as bad as it was when he was first topic banned, but the basic intent (casting aspersions, trite dismissals, disruptive commentary toward other editors) persists. Enough should be enough. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher

I agree with Thargor insofar as I dont get why he was left out of the Arbcom decision and had his topic ban lifted. HOWEVER, now that his topic ban has been lifted, I'm not sure it has yet reached the point where he requires a new one.

These are the kind of commments MarkBernstein got topic banned for originally: accusations of being pro-rape,[112] false accusations that an editor (no indication could be found of Thargor's participation at all) was coordinating against him on 4chan and threatening his life,[113][114] and accusing Masem of being some kind of GG mastermind offsite.

Compare this to the lackluster comment that finally got Mark blocked this time round,[115] I cant imagine anyone other than Mark being blocked for a comment like this.

I think there is no reason to topic ban him based on his recent block and his comments have been toned down since his original topic ban. BUT, (and this is a big but) keeping his past behavior in mind, some of his recent comments have been veering dangerously close to his old ways. This includes comments implying Orlando is part of some offsite collusion[116][117], as well as implying that THE BOSS User:Masem, is the evil mastermind behind everything.[118] This was merely someone tweeting at Masem and not a conversation (Mark corrected his comment on request).[119]

So while I think the recent block against Mark was unfair (if admins had topic banned/blocked him for earlier comments instead of giving him a final warning I would have been ok with it), he should probably at the very least be given a 1 way interaction bans with Thargor and Masem. Bosstopher (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strongjam

Dr. Bernstein has been productive in the topic space. His presence has only been made disruptive by other editors who insist on make much ado about every edit. Editors who re-add warnings that Bernstein has removed from his talk page, and who's goal on their talk page seems to be to get as much admin attention as possible. Claim rather mundane comments are "vitriol", then when hatted, repeatedly refactor the hat over Bernstein's comment (leaving other editors signatures on the reasoning.)

The talk pages of Dreadstar and Gamaliel have plenty of examples of editors talking about MarkBernstein, and there has already been an ARCA. At some point this has to be considered WP:POINTy behaviour.

@Bosstopher: If there is an interaction ban with Thargor it should be two-way in my opinion. — Strongjam (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, DHeyward's collection of diffs that violate this sanction or remedy include 0 edits by MarkBernstein. — Strongjam (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite

Dr. Bernstein is being held to a standard of behavior that the people doing the holding could not reach in their best of days - that he reaches the standard on any day is a miracle. Wikipedia is offered here the choice between a bunch of brand new sock puppets and ressurected accounts who are members of a mysoginistic hate movement and a dedicated professional with decades of experience. Don't make the wrong one. Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other side, however DHeyward does appear to have a pointy, harassment, civility problem. He's taken to harassing Dr. Bernstein on his talk page by reinserting comments legitimately removed by Dr. Bernstein, and calling users who tell him to stop doing that "Daft." Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kaciemonster

I agree with those who are pointing out that Dr. Bernstein is the only editor being held to this higher standard of behavior. While I can understand how past behavior might put his edits under greater scrutiny, we should consider that he's also made productive contributions, and brought valuable insight to the Gamergate talk page.

If I'm remembering correctly, an editor was banned from talking about Dr. Bernstein, and considering the open hostility he's faced from other editors I think he's handling himself pretty well. He's already been blocked for 24 hours, and from the looks of this request, no new evidence has been offered up. If he continues the personal attacks after he's unblocked, maybe a topic ban is something to consider. Right now, I think anything else would be excessive. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

While Mark Bernstein can appear zealous at times, it is always to uphold Wikipedia policies like WP:BLP. He has edited fairly and engaged in productive discussions on article talk pages in the face of off-wiki harassment and on-wiki baiting. Right now, editing in the GamerGate area, we have a balance of editors with different points of view (that one might crudely identify as pro-GG, neutral and anti-GG) and the loss of Bernstein's participation would mean that newly created accounts promoting GamerGate as a ethnically neutral "consumer movement" would dominate the discussion.

Bernstein has a POV but so does everyone editing in this area or they wouldn't have ventured on to these talk pages. If Bernstein crosses the fuzzy line of civility, he, like any other editor, can receive limited time blocks. While no one editor is indispensable on Wikipedia, I think without Bernstein's participation, the articles could easily slide into smearing the good names and reputations of living people who are involved with this controversy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope admins weighing in look at the dates of some of the examples of Bernstein's comments (some of which are not provided with a diff!) and see if they occurred before or after his topic ban was lifted. Some of these examples are stale indeed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO

With all due respect...perhaps nine lives only applies to cats? Or shall we change the rules depending on which side of the coin one sits?--MONGO 19:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EncyclopediaBob

I'll reserve direct comments about Mark's behavior until he's able to respond.

@Gamaliel: In defense of your initial decision to lift his topic ban you offer assurance to concerned editors that a reasonable mechanism exists to ensure his positive contributions:

He will be closely watched by many people when he returns to editing, so I am confident that if he steps out of line again he will be quickly dealt with by myself or another administrator.

I've made it abundantly clear to Mark that he will be closely watched by a large number of people, including myself, and that I will be the first one in line at the block button should he engage in further disruptive behavior.

I'm having difficulty reconciling these statements with your apparent criticism of exactly that mechanism here:

Mark Bernstein is being watched by everyone: friends, enemies, administrators, the press. This campaign to get rid of him is doing more damage to the atmosphere of collaborative editing than Mark Bernstein himself possibly could.

Further you state:

If the edit histories of those other editors were subject to the same hyper-scrutiny that is applied to Mark Bernstein, they would not do well here.

but those other editors are not subject to the very specific condition on which HJ Mitchell removed his block:

Hi Mark. As we discussed by email, I've unblocked you with the sole condition that you avoid personally directed comments

which the diffs above show he was unable to abide.

The pattern here seems to be that we give this editor leeway contingent upon special scrutiny but when an attempt is made to apply that scrutiny it's criticized for being special! I'd hope instead for general and consistent application of policy, especially in such a contentious space. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drseudo

Based on the preliminary comments from admins below, I'm hopeful that this request will be seen for what it is: an attempt to drive Mark Bernstein from the project at any cost, for any or no reason. Issue him a ban on discussing other editors, if you must, and then send this request back whence it came. drseudo (t) 21:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

Enough is truly enough. An editor who feels compelled to describe those who disagree with his edits as, variously, "the armies of Mordor," "a barbarian horde of internet trolls," and "a barbarian horde of internet trolls" (again) and Wikipedia as "a battleground when they tell you it's a battleground" cannot and should not be accomodated in a contentious topic area.

What, short of actual sanctions, is going to dissuade this user from his current behavior if warnings from no fewer than four admins will not? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

As the editor who initiated to ARCA request recently, I accept that the committee didn't take my view of the case history and the situation surrounding MarkBernstein. I don't have a horse in this (GG) race; I'm here because I see an editor being continually disruptive.

I think problems are clear. @Dreadstar:, if you can't support a topic ban for MB then why did you say One more comment about another editor on the article talk pages and I will ban you from all GamerGate related articles??? Less than two days later he's back at it, so you decide a 24-hour block is sufficient.

I sort of agree with Hipocrite (and others) that MarkBernstein is being held to a standard higher than others; but there is a significant difference: Those others have not had a topic ban removed on the assurance that personally-directly comments would not reoccur. Those other editors have not been warned One more comment about another editor as you did here and I will sanction you. Period. Those others have not been warned One more comment about another editor on the article talk pages and I will ban you from all GamerGate related articles. Those other editors haven't made a gentleman's agreement to avoid personally directed comments.

The problem (or at least a problem) here is that admins want MarkBernstein to stop making personally directed comments but aren't willing to use the tools to make it happen. So far this month, he's given Gamaliel assurances by email; made a gentleman's agreement with HJ Mitchell; given a 'final' warning by Dreadstar; and given another warning by Dreadstar (what's the point of a final warning if you're going to follow it up with another warning?). When it finally becomes clear that none of these warnings is going to do anything, what's the result? A 24-hour block. What earthly good is that going to do anyone with an editor who ignores warnings, gives assurances then goes against them, makes agreements then goes against them? GoldenRing (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to disagree with DHeyward here; MarkBernstein's response is the perfect example of BATTLEGROUND. He is not here to work collaboratively and says so. If this is his avowed attitude, how is it not siteban time? GoldenRing (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (anonymous)

@Cullen328: You say: Although I found Mark Bernstein's participation problematic before the ArbCom ruling on Gamergate, I believe that his contributions have been generally positive since then.

Quite frankly, I'm boggling at this. Exactly which contributions do you have in mind? It seems to me like his edits are overwhelmingly in talk space. He has also repeatedly claimed (example) to be explicitly WP:NOTHERE, except to WP:RGW. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I decided to dive in, and on the very first article space edit I examined from MarkBernstein, I found that it flat-out misrepresents the source material, even while the relevant quote is right there in the source. It asserts that "the threats claimed to be affiliated with the Gamergate controversy", but the article refers to two threats and only connects one of them to Gamergate. The edit replaced perfectly valid phrasing that accurately represented the article's phrasing; and gave the matter undue weight by moving it to the beginning of the section when only one, less significant source talked about this second threat. I'm willing to WP:AGF when it comes to motivations here, but this cannot reasonably be called quality editing. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guettarda: If violating an explicit warning from an admin doesn't merit a topic ban, exactly what response does it merit?

@Gamaliel: The fact that other editors under topic bans during the case were sanctioned by ArbCom proves that this theory is inaccurate. It does no such thing. It merely suggests that policy may have been applied unevenly. Which, you know, is a thing that not only is known to happen on Wikipedia on a regular basis, but is explicitly endorsed in multiple policies and essays (I am particularly thinking of IAR, OSE and POINT). Also, I don't understand how you can hold yourself free to comment in the section "for uninvolved administrators only" when you are the one who lifted the topic ban in question. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "explicit NOTHERE claim" diff I provided above as evidence, I would also to note that the discussion in question was in reference to this diff, wherein we see MarkBernstein claim that A group of supporters of a fringe movement openly have coordinated to silence their Wikipedia critics and to take control over the process of revising pages concerning their movement and those it seeks to target. This is presented as though it's not in reference to Gamergate (as he even claims I write this most reluctantly as (a) I am topic-banned from GamerGate, which is a subtext here (as, it seems, in much of ANI these days), but which I have taken care not to otherwise allude to at the end) - which I honestly can't interpret as anything but disingenuous, given his well-known series of blog posts on the topic referring to Gamergate in the same way, and the absence of any other plausible "fringe movement" that could be referenced here. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OccultZone

I am hopeful that MarkBernstein has the ability to find himself out of the sanctions, only if he would really want to contribute again. For now I would endorse this request. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by USchick

I am uninvolved in Gamergate and only became aware of it through news articles. I see this issue as one article that spilled over into real life as a result of a bigger festering Wikipedia problem that was allowed to happen simply because the bullies go unchecked and no one cares about content, especially not ArbCom. If it escalated to this point, what's next? Right now it's only threats, are we waiting for crime statistics before we start enforcing policy? Unless the original problem is addressed, the community can expect more of the same. This article happens to be about gaming, what if the next article is about international terrorism? Is ArbCom prepared to handle a threat like that? None of this is Mark Bernstein's fault. The people making these decisions need to look in the mirror and then have a meeting with board members, the Foundation, and Jimmy Wales. These are the people who set the standard for Wikipedia. When it spills over into real life and real people get hurt, you can't say you had nothing to do with it. USchick (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HalfHat

Can I just point out that he is continuing to make vague unsubstantiated attacks is his statement. '"you have a barbarian horde of nameless trolls, openly colluding for months to exploit Wikipedia as part of a public relations campaign to threaten, shame, and punish women in computing."' He has made it quite clear how deeply involved he is and that he is here to right wrongs, I'm assuming that diff has been supplied.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

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

@Starship.paint: - What's the problem with the link you provided? I'd be very curious about a brand new editor making a comment like that. Guettarda (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Starship.paint: - Diffs? Guettarda (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Starship.paint: Umm...what the heck? You provide a 12 diffs and 11 of those 12 are from before the topic ban was lifted? So, other than wasting my time looking at a pile of irrelevant diffs, what are you trying to convey? That you're acting in bad faith here? Guettarda (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @DHeyward: - Can you point to some diffs showing a pattern of violating WP:CIV since the topic ban was lifted? Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Dreadstar's warnings and blocks, I suppose "the new editor must think we're morons" (to paraphrase MB) is, in fact, a violation of Dreadstar's "don't comment on other editors" warnings. But I fail to see how that warrants a topic ban. Guettarda (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Complaints not backed up by relevant diffs (i.e. post Feb 7) demonstrating the behaviour being complained about would seem to amount to "casting aspersions". Which isn't acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I can't support a topic ban for MB; in my view, all he needs to do is quit talking about other editors on the article talk pages. Dreadstar ☥ 15:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: yes I did threaten a ban, but after further consideration I decided the best course was to start with a block, then escalating from there if warranted. I am hoping the block is sufficient to deter MB from making further comments about others on the article talk pages. I echo the concerns raised by Gamaliel below, which factor into the change to my approach. Dreadstar ☥ 15:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have to address the mistaken idea that Mark Bernstein somehow "escaped" ArbCom sanction by being topic banned during the proceedings. This was rejected by the Committee last week. The fact that other editors under topic bans during the case were sanctioned by ArbCom proves that this theory is inaccurate.

Bernstein has voiced complaints to me that comments about him by other editors have gone unsanctioned. I have told him that he should strive to move on and attempt to treat those other editors as collaborators. It is apparent that those other editors are in need of the same advice. This is part of an incredibly disturbing trend by those editors and others to get Mark Bernstein sanctioned for absolutely anything they can. When I lifted the topic ban, numerous editors demanded, cajoled, and insulted in order to get him sanctioned, regardless of policy, precedent, or the fact that he hadn't even made any new edits yet. Mark Bernstein is being watched by everyone: friends, enemies, administrators, the press. This campaign to get rid of him is doing more damage to the atmosphere of collaborative editing than Mark Bernstein himself possibly could. If the edit histories of those other editors were subject to the same hyper-scrutiny that is applied to Mark Bernstein, they would not do well here. Gamaliel (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One would also hope for the general and consistent application of policy when it came to deciding which editors to file grievances against. Note that another long-standing editor on these pages was topic banned yesterday for openly insulting other editors. Instead of constantly demanding action against this editor in every talk page and noticeboard available, there was silence from the usual suspects. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm chiming in with Dreadstar and Gamaliel. That latest block, on the surface, seems harsh, but I suppose Mark Bernstein had been warned--I'd hate to make that kind of block, though, since the comment in itself wasn't all that bad. But that's neither here nor there, and I'm happy to see that Dreadstar is their usual objective self, who isn't looking to rake an editor over the coals. And they're perfectly right: no topic ban is warranted for anything presented here. I myself think that Bernstein, whom I don't think I know very well, seems to combine gravitas with levity in a topic matter that's lacking in both, though in different places of course. (Wait--Gamaliel, I'm reading over your comments again: Bernstein is celebrity? maybe I'll finally get tweeted!) Really, I think we're done here--no arbs or admins have posted since Gamaliel's comment, and that's indicative of one thing only: no interest in enforcing anything. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Lourde

Indefinitely topic banned by Dreadstar. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Ghost Lourde

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

23:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC) - Explicitly stated WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality regarding GamerGate
19:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC) and 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC) - Extremely long, tendentious, unclear, and forum-like comments on Talk:Gamergate controversy
22:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC) and 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC) - Posting and reposting (after removal by another user) Youtube link determined to be BLP violation by Dreadstar

Repeatedly posting a link that multiple editors removed as BLP violations. It's unclear to me, personally, if this link is indeed a violation, but persistent reposting of link is an issue itself:

Acute case of WP:IDHT (examples below, but see entire section Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Soapboxing)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

01:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Blocked by HJ Mitchell for BLP violations[reply]

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

Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 01:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User Ghost Lourde has been engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on Talk:Gamergate controversy. As evidenced by their comment on my talk page, they view this topic as a battle:

My, you're quite the formidable opponent--in my estimation, anyhow. That's quite the education you've amassed there. What irony, then, that you appear to be just about the only person who said anything even vaguely positive about my suggestions. Considering your ideological predilections, that's quite surprising. I came here only to note that I am not so easily dissuaded from action, no matter how venerably educated my detractor(s) happens to be. Your opposition shall not go unchallenged.

Given the user's contributions in other areas of the project, it seems that they are only unable to productively edit on Gamergate topics, but are able to be a productive member elsewhere. Given their behavior these past 24 hours (and especially its resumption after a lull overnight) and given the explicit declaration of battleground mentality, I feel that their behavior has crossed the line to unacceptable and that this AE is warranted.

For note, a discussion regarding that link repeatedly added and removed was stated by EncyclopediaBob at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gamergate_controversy_.282.29. My thanks to them for starting it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: See Bosstopher's comments about WP:CANVASS below as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [120]

Discussion concerning Ghost Lourde

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 Ghost Lourde

I'm not at all pleased that we've decided to take issues to this magnitude--nor do I claim responsibility for having galvanized this.

Battleground mentality? Well, I suppose--if we're looking to be hyperbolic. I'm not exactly remiss in characterizing debates as involving proponents and opponents, am I? Were I to be substantially refuted, I would desist--you have my word. Perhaps such a declaration was unwarranted, however. If you will it, I shall redact it. Moreover, I have made honest efforts to stay any and all vehemence from escaping my lips--no small feat, considering the topic being discussed. A feat which, might I add, certain editor's apparently haven't felt the desire to reciprocate.

On the contrary, I believe the persistent deletion on patently unfounded grounds is the issue here. As you've stated, it's quite questionable if the article violates any guidelines at all. As such, all deletions should be stayed until the fact that violations have actually been perpetrated has been firmly cemented. I have requested that this be the case--a request which, quite impudently, has not been obliged, for the very same dubious reasons adduced above. To me, that is questionable behavior.

IDHT? We're discussing the merits of potential revision to the article. I have countered the arguments against this with perfectly valid ones of my own. Presently, this dispute remains unresolved. Further debate shall be necessary in order to achieve the desired clarity.

It seems I'm being treated quite maliciously for deigning to civilly extend my sentiments regarding the status quo of this article. Threats of blocking, arbitration enforcements, frivolous warnings--it's beginning to approach the end of the pale. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As I recall, I did not repost the link to that video--indeed, before this, I was unaware that it was even removed. That it violates BLP guidelines, I actually concur. I addressed this when I cited it, in fact: I was merely adducing it in order to demonstrate the more salient information that it contained. In any case, I do not consider the deletion to be objectionable--unlike some deletions that I can name.

Statement by Jorm

I was on my way here to open this issue myself and found that it was already open! Fortuitous. So I'll just paste what I'd already started writing.

Ghost Lourde's behavior on [Talk:Gamergate controversy], it has become apparent that the editor is clearly not here to create an encyclopedia. Several instances speak to battleground mentality and refusal to listen to other editors about the use of a "source" that Ghost Lourde is repeatedly re-inserting a link to a source which contains fairly significant BLP violations.

I don't think Ghost Lourde is here to help. They are here to push an agenda. I strongly believe we've spent enough person-hours on this editor and would like to see sanctions imposed.--Jorm (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

At first, I thought this account was a satire -- and I'm still not entirely certain it's not. But the editor in question is extremely prolific -- to the point that it has become difficult to answer their questions without multiple edit conflicts. Their writing is impenetrable, their arguments unconvincing. Their effect is literally disruptive, though I’m not sure they intend to disrupt. I think a time-out and a mentor might be helpful, perhaps along with an inscribed copy of Strunk & White. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher

There's many reasons why Ghost Lourde should be topic banned, but since I dont feel like posting them all, here's the most obvious one. Ghost Lourde has readily admitted that he is orchestrating a pro-GG 'Operation Veracity.' As it says in the description ' Ultimately, the project is predicated upon the belief that doing so will benefit gamergate as a whole. ' He refuses to acknowledge that this 'operation' counts as POV pushing and canvassing. [121] Bosstopher (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

I'm not discounting the other points made, but I will challenge the notion the link added in is a BLP violation on a talk page - it would fall within BLPTALK (barring other issues) The specific article linked has no BLP violations at all (it mentions one name as the article outlines an analysis, but makes zero claims about this person). However, it will likely never be usable as a link in mainspace due to it being hosted on a site that is otherwise a major BLP problem, in addition to the poor quality of the source. BLPTALK does not prevent people from posting links on talk pages that might contain BLP information, as long as the BLP factors are not being discussed. Other behavior is problematic here. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−

Statement by Ghost Lourde

Satire? If it is, I burnt it. Anyhow, my prolificness is purely circumstantial--I'm afraid that, in order to preclude my arguments from being buried beneath a mountain of rebuttals, I've had to respond in as swift a fashion as I possibly could. If your problem is with prolificness in general, I would advise that you voice that concern to more individuals than only I. Furthermore, that my arguments are 'unconvincing' is not only a personal opinion, but utterly impertinent to the matter at hand. If I had a nickel for every ineffectual argument made on this site, I'd be a billionaire. If I had a nickel for every time someone was sanctioned for doing so, I'd be destitute. Additionally, that you perceive my writing to be--let's break out the scare-quotes here--'impenetrable' is yet another immaterial personal opinion.

Furthermore, I have already addressed these allegations of possessing a 'battleground mentality'--see above.

I'm not here to contribute? I'm here to push an agenda? My, those are some weighty allegations. What luck, then, that they're also utterly frivolous.

I shall not deny that I am biased towards gamergate--I have stated my support for it frequently. However, that does not constitute an 'agenda'. Just because you, say, oppose anarcho-syndicalism, and Wikipedia has an article upon anarcho-syndicalism, does not mean that you have an agenda concerned with destroying that article. Once more, I'm afraid this is all quite circumstantial.

Furthermore, I am discussing the merits of the article, as well as simultaneously suggesting improvements. That *is* what you're supposed to do on 'talk' pages, yes? I don't exactly see what your complaint is predicated upon. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Drseudo: Once more, I'm very dubious about these 'battleground mentality' allegations. I wouldn't call that canvassing--but hey, of course I wouldn't. Otherwise, I'm not exactly sure what the issue is here. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: My, those are some very pejorative remarks that you've made, there. Once more, I maintain that your objections are superfluous. Moreover, in citing the guidelines, you've done my work for me. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadstar: For posterity, I state that your judgements have been both deleterious and misguided. Your rapport with me has diminished considerably, and I'm thoroughly dubious that it shall ever return to its original state. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: ....I reluctantly concur, sadly. It appears I have no other choice. My eternal resentment towards this entire affair. Ghost Lourde (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drseudo

Per Masem. I don't know enough about the current status of BLPTALK to agree that there's any specific violation with respect to the link that GL repeatedly posted to the talk page. However, the WP:BATTLE, WP:TE, and especially WP:CANVASS issues are enough to arrive at the correct decision on this one. drseudo (t) 22:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

Given this exchange it is obvious that the editor either lacks the competence to be editing in such a sensitive topic or is here merely to be disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ghost Lourde

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

I've indefinitely topic banned Ghost Lourde per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Dreadstar ☥ 23:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict; this may be moot, but it should still be read) I will address this enforcement request unconventionally. I find Ghost Lourde's editing about GamerGate to be extremely problematic; it could warrant a topic-ban, although a warning or lesser restriction might be tried first. But—I have read Ghost Lourde's self-disclosure essay on his userpage. In it, he displays candor and self-knowledge: "The implications of [my] intellectual nascency [are] inexperience, parochialism, and untempered alacrity--which, I shall admit, describe me rather effectually." I need to be careful about what I say next, and I don't want to patronize this editor, or any editor: I too was once an intellectually nascent, inexperienced, parochial, overalacritous newcomer wherever I went, albeit in the pre-Internet age, and I resented anyone who suggested I was, in any context, pushing too hard and moving too fast, or not working and playing well with others. But it must be said: The GamerGate topic-area on Wikipedia has been an almost unparalleled miasma, into which many longtime editors and administrators understandably choose not to tread. And Talk:GamerGate may be the worst possible page on all of Wikipedia for an inexperienced editor to seek out his sea-legs, even given the best goodwill and the greatest interest, intelligence, and alacrity in the world. Ghost Lourde should not leave Wikipedia, but he should surely leave editing about GamerGate. I strongly urge him to voluntarily step away from editing on this topic, rather than have this thread continue and culminate in a sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[3] Coston, Bethany M.; Kimmel, Michael S. (2013). "White Men as the New Victims: Reverse Discrimination Cases and the Men's Rights Movement". Nevada Law Journal: 376. Retrieved February 20, 2015. Warren Farrell's 1993 book, The Myth of Male Power, has become something of a Bible to the Men's Rights followers. While early in his career Farrell seemed to ally with feminism—he convened NOW's Task Force on the Masculine Mystique and was thrice elected to the board of New York's chapter of NOW40—and he believed that men could benefit from women's liberation, saying that if she could refuse to be a "sex object" he could just as easily refuse to be a "success object"—some of the inversions in his book are worth noting, because they anticipate many of the more hyperbolic claims made by the Men's Rights activists (MRAs) today. According to Farrell, men's power is, well, a myth. Farrell has explained that power is not earning money that someone else can spend and dying earlier so they can get the benefits.

[a]

[b]

[1]

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