Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive163

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Obsidi[edit]

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

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

Appealing user 
Obsidi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Obsidi (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Protection Pending Changes Level 2 of the page Gamergate controversy as can be seen in the Protection Log and the Discretionary Sanctions Log
Administrator imposing the sanction 
HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
[1]

Statement by Obsidi[edit]

This page is currently under Discretionary Sanctions which means that all editors are expected to take extra care that they “comply with all applicable policies and guidelines.”. In this case HJ Mitchell has protected the page in direct contradiction to the Protection Policy which states that Only what is known as "Pending changes level 1" should be used, which is labeled "Require review for revisions from new and unregistered users". Pending changes level 2, or "Require review for revisions from everyone except Reviewers", should not be used at this time per WP:PC2012/RfC 1. I have asked the admin to reconsider their actions, but he refused citing Ignore All Rules. There is nothing in the arbitration decision that suggests that it is appropriate to ignore the current protection policy, and even if there were The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. If even the Arbitration Committee does not change policy, why should the actions of this one administrator, acting alone without community consensus, do so? If this case is a proper exception, I ask that reason be explained and that we get community consensus that we should use PC2 in those situations. Until such time, I ask that the page protection level be raised to Full Protection or lowered to Semi-Protection.

@RGloucester These are not "political positions," they are policy positions. The policy position currently taken by Wikipedia. And they have relevance as to why PC2 is not currently allowed by policy unlike most other protection levels. It is not the letter of the rules that is important it is the principles. I was trying to express the very principle upon why PC2 is not allowed but in this case is being violated. I am not "filing this appeal to make a point", I am appeal it to get the protection level changed. I requested that the admin change the protection level himself, he refused. I would prefer not to have to appeal this at all. There is nothing in the "ArbCom sanctions regime" that even suggests violating policy in this way. --Obsidi (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by HJ Mitchell[edit]

Can I just copy and paste what I said on my talk page instead of wasting more time on this non-issue?

I'm keeping the situation under review, but I consider this to be a legitimate invocation of IAR—"if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". That's policy. There are very few legitimate invocations of IAR (I can count on one hand the number of times I've invoked it to justify an admin action, out of some 40,000 logged actions), but where we have unusual situations, it can be applied to slightly unorthodox solutions. In this case, the intention of PC2 is to keep BLP violations and other crap out of the article, and reviewers are under instructions to let everything through that isn't grossly inappropriate, even if they decide to revert it afterwards. Semi-protection alone would be insufficient given the sheer number of good-faith but inexperienced editors and bad-faith editors with sufficient determination to make ten edits and sit out for four days who are and have been active in the topic area, and I suspect the very application of PC2 will act as a deterrent to the latter. Especially given the high-profile nature of the article, I think concerns for the real lives of real people discussed in the article far outweigh our internal policy wonkery.

I'd just add:

  • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy—we don't enforce policy for its own sake, though ironically both IAR and NOT are policies (compared to a suggestion in the protection policy made as the result of an RfC which reached no clear consensus).
  • I believe this to be a necessary measure to prevent and deter drive-by BLP violations while keeping the article open to editing. Given the nature of some of the edits to this and related articles (many of which have been RevDel'd or even suppressed), I believe extreme measures are both necessary and justified.
  • Long before Obsidi's complaint, I offered guidance to reviewers on what to accept, including the instruction that all legitimate edits should be accepted, even if the reviewer decides to revert them as part of the BRD process. I've even pitched in with the reviewing myself to keep delays in acceptance to a minimum.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Risker: With the greatest respect, that's not my intention behind the PC2 (and it would be the same with semi-protection alone, tough not with full protection). You're quite correct that a lot of edits are being reverted as being against consensus, or being controversial, or being problematic in other ways. My intent is to prevent defamation and other grossly inappropriate material from reaching the readers, and I would (again respectfully) suggest that it's doing a decent job of that. I'm keeping a close eye on things, and I'll fully protect it if needs be, but I'd rather keep it open to legitimate contributors as far as possible. I guess we can agree to disagree on the philosophy behind it, but I think it is working as intended. Or at least as I intended it, for whatever that's worth. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Risker: Interestingly, there haven't actually been any of the sorts of BLP violations I had in mind when I enabled pending changes. Not on the article itself anyway. I don't think pending changes is being used the way you say: a lot of edits are being reverted, but in most cases after acceptance, so the pending changes protection is having relatively little effect on good-faith editors. The reverting and editing against consensus is a separate issue, but I don't think it's any worse here than on any other controversial article. Full protection would, in my opinion, unnecessarily impede the development of the article. Of course, we can disagree as to its effectiveness in good faith. I respect your opinion, I just think this is worth trying. If it turns out that it's an unmitigated disaster and I should have listened to you in the first place, we can fully protect it, and at least we can say we tried something to keep it open to editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by RGloucester[edit]

This is an absurd request, as I said at Mr Mitchell's talk page, and is exactly the type of bureaucratic nonsense that Wikipedia discourages. As I asked the filer at that talk page "Is there any reason why it shouldn't be used in this particular instance? That's the better question. Why should this particularly policy be enforced in this particular instance? If it is just for policy's sake, that's bureaucracy hindering the encylopaedia's improvement, and a waste of time". PC2 may not have consensus for general usage, but in this very specific and unique case, with an ArbCom sanctions regime behind him, Mr Mitchell made the right choice. As I said at the talk page, "WP:IAR applies. If a perfectly good tool is available for use, and an ArbCom sanctions regime gives an administrator the power to do whatever he needs to do to halt disruption, there is no reason for him not to use it, old RfC be damned". We're all aware of the disruption that has surrounded this article, and of the unique nature of its circumstance. If a tool that has not been tried before is available to stop disruption, it should be used. I'm really saddened by the filer's behaviour, because he is filing it to make a point. As he said at Mr Mitchell's talk page, "It shouldn't be used because it adds to stratification among editors. It says that those with the reviewer right are first class wikipedians who get to decide what the content of the article is and everyone else just makes suggestions". These kind of political positions, which he has taken, have no relevance in this particular case. Preventing BLP violations is an imperative, as is curtailing disruption. Let's not start attacking the people that keep our encyclopaedia intact, as was done during the GG case. RGloucester 22:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem[edit]

I see no reason to remove the current use of pending changes/semi-prot on this article based on past behaviors all around per the ArbCom case. The GG situation will continue to remain a hotbed for some time, and given there continues to be evidence of off-site organized attempts to affect this article from multiple areas, this maintains reasonable order. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Avono[edit]

The protection should stay per WP:IAR as the it intended to prevent disruption and is more practical than a fully protected article.Avono (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AtomsOrSystems[edit]

I agree with everything said above by RGloucester, Masem and Avono. The article is still a source of considerable interest from a variety of sources, both within and outside Wikipedia. It seems to me that full protection would be overly restrictive, while semi-protection wouldn't offer enough, well, protection. PC2 appears to offer a good balance.
I think it's also worth noting that I personally have had no sense of "stratification" among the editors of the article based on the implementation of PC2 (or anything else, for that matter). AtomsOrSystems (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Parabolist[edit]

I agree with the majority here about the PC2 protection on the article, but I feel this might be a good time to ask: With PC2 doing this good work, do we really also need it to be under 1RR?

It hasn't exactly been a problem yet, but considering that one of the big factors in this whole debacle has been the nigh-endless horde of gamergate supporters ready to throw themselves into the grinder, it seems like 1RR could end up being a hindrance to a minority of legitimate editors.

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Obsidi[edit]

  • A few factual notes here.
    • There are, at this writing, over 7700 individuals with permissions that allow them to "review" pending changes. This encompasses the majority of Wikipedians who were active editors at the time pending changes was first adopted for its trial run, all administrators, and anyone who has been granted the permission since the first trial.
    • Any of those individuals can accept changes, and none of their edits require pending changes review.
    • Several of the individuals recently sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee in relation to this topic area hold permissions that will allow them to edit without being subject to pending changes review and can also accept/decline pending changes.
    • Although PC2 is essentially not permitted by policy, there have been a few very specific exceptions to date. To the best of my knowledge, they have all been discussed at an appropriate noticeboard and the exception has received consensus. Although in this case there has not been such a discussion, I think it is probably reasonable to assume that if such a discussion was held, there would be community approval for this application. After all, the community had already approved exceptional action in this topic area long, long before the Arbcom case.
  • My own opinion is that, while it may restrict some accounts from directly editing the article, we already know that editors who hold the necessary permissions have been sanctioned for their actions by Arbcom, community sanctions, or other processes in relation to this topic area. It also invites any editor with the necessary permission to review the edit and accept it, whether or not they have fully reviewed the talk page for consensus, or are aware of the subtle and creeping nature of some of the changes that have been proposed. Remember that essentially only vandalism or obvious BLP violations can be flat-out rejected, under the pending changes policy; the vast majority of edits being proposed through PC should actually be accepted. I would actually prefer seeing full protection of the article over PC2, so that it does retain the high level of control that is probably needed at this point; PC2 just isn't strong enough, because it still allows a lot of editors to make modifications without requiring consensus. Risker (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Noting that there seems to be some concept that PC2 is "working" on this article. Looking at the revision history of the page, there's actually some pretty good reason to believe it is not actually helping anything; there are a huge number of reverts of "good faith edits" and edits done outside of consensus, and just above we've seen an editor sanctioned for making edits that were acceptable through PC2 despite consensus and content discussion on the talk page. Some evidence that it is actually changing behaviour in relation to this article should be expected by this point, but it seems quite the opposite is happening. Risker (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell, it may be being used in the way you personally intend it to be used; however, in the last two pages of the history none of the edits reverted from the PC acceptance screen were BLP violations or vandalism. They were all strictly content edits. Given that it is very much against accepted policy to do that (the instructions are "accept the edit and then revert if you disagree with it" to paraphrase), and the majority of acceptances are from editors who have been very active in the article (i.e., they are not being done by neutral third parties), PC2 is not being used the way that the community intended PC to be used. Posting "instructions to reviewers" on the talk page should never be necessary, and is never appropriate because the reviewing interface doesn't take the reviewers there. No, what's happening here is content control; it's not being used to prevent BLP violations or vandalism. Risker (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Isotalo[edit]

I would gladly support full protection, but only when or if all-out edit war breaks out. I'm not a fan of preemptive protection, especially with articles that are being watched by so many experienced users. Peter Isotalo 12:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Roger Davies[edit]

  • Hi Tim. page restrictions mentions types of page protection rather than allows or disallows them. And while that could be more explicit, it is specifically mentioned in the sanctions available for this topic. On the broader points, the protection policy page says "In addition, administrators may apply temporary pending changes protection on pages that are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention)" (my emphasis) which is the situation here.  Roger Davies talk 08:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Obsidi[edit]

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

I am inclined to accept HJ Mitchell's statement and decision in this case. It appears not to have been taken lightly, and at first glance HJ Mitchell seems to be putting in a dedicated effort to make pending changes work with this particular article. Balancing the desire to leave as many of our pages open to contributions from as many people as possible (the first sentence, after all, of Wikipedia:Protection policy) with the strict requirement to prevent the publication of defamatory, harrassing, or otherwise damaging content about living persons (WP:BLP) is sometimes quite difficult. HJ Mitchell's choice seems to strike a balance for this specific unusual circumstance; it's an application of WP:IAR in the way it is intended.

Beyond the philosophical objection, is there evidence to indicate that PC2 is not working correctly or is being abused in some way? Looking at the logs, PC2 has been in place for five days now; has it made things better or worse than they were before? Obviously I would support lifting PC2 (or converting it to some other form of protection, now or in a future appeal) if there were evidence to indicate that it was detrimental. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has been presented to demonstrate how removing PC2 would benefit the article or the encyclopedia. Months of contentious editing, general sanctions, and a hotly disputed ArbCom case have proven that the normal way of doing things is inadequate in this case, so merely saying "we're not supposed to do this" is insufficient here. Besides, as ToAT said, is there any evidence that it's not working or being abused? Given all of this, I see no reason not to support HJ Mitchell's action here. Gamaliel (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I see bureaucratic arguments in favour of removing the protection, but not pragmatic ones (other than Risker's argument). Is it hurting the project? Is it helping? Guettarda (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Decline appeal. Apart from the beaurocratic reason to grant the appeal I see no reason to remove PC2, regarding Risker's point if PC2 does end up working then it can full protected later at the moment I'm not seeing a justification for it. One thing I will say though is that I don't believe that invocations of IAR should not be protected as discretionary sanctions but rather should allow other admins to modify them if they don't believe that there is sufficient justification for them, however that is person opinion and not a reason to decline the appeal. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 13:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oddly enough, WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions allows only "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)", which doesn't include pending changes. While the PC2 protection is probably a valid invocation of IAR, it is not currently an allowed discretionary sanction. That said, its omission from the list is probably an oversight, as I don't seem to remember any discussion related to this (pinging Roger Davies to confirm). We may want to request an amendment from arbcom to allow pending changes protection as a DS. T. Canens (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That's interesting, because WP:ARBGG##Sanctions available, point vii, says "Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted"; that's what I based this on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Or an amendment to add "or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project" (as is in individual sanctions) to page restrictions? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett[edit]

Three admins have opined that this is stale (that is, the comment is too old to be sanctionable). Normally, I'd leave a request open longer, but I'm closing this before the heat-to-light ratio deteriorates further. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Eric Corbett[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Eric_Corbett_topic_banned :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 1 February 2015
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 25 January 2015 Most recent block for violating the same topic ban.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Eric_Corbett 25 January 2015].
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[2]


Discussion concerning Eric Corbett[edit]

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

Statement by Eric Corbett[edit]

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

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

Statement by ChrisGualtieri[edit]

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

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

Statement by Ironholds[edit]

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

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

I'd suggest that repeating them word-for-word here is probably an extension of the same problem, Chris, while I recognise that you're trying to be helpful ;p. Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @MONGO: what? The initial remedies were nothing to do with article space, so that's a moot objection. If you're objecting to the remedies, well, first, we don't get to decide what ArbCom decided, and second, discussions about the kind of environment we create and the processes it follow have a tremendous impact on the article namespace because they impact the kind of people we attract, the environment they exist in, and how they behave - it has systemic bias implications at a minimum. The mainspace is not a standalone kernel. And, have you ever seen Eric take warnings as a reason not to repeat the same behaviour? Because mostly I see him treating warnings as a platform to soapbox from. Ironholds (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    So in other words, "I can't argue that this isn't a valid enforcement of the arb remedy, because it is, I'd just like to try for jury nullification". Glad we've worked that out. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO[edit]

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

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

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

Possible AE torture device to be reserved solely for naughty boy Eric Corbett!--MONGO 18:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Giano[edit]

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

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

Comment by Gamaliel[edit]

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

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

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

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

Statement by EChastain[edit]

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

  1. [3] initiated 24 January 2015 by Lightbreather, resulting in a 48 hour block of Eric Corbett
  2. Eric Corbett (2), [4] initiated by Rationalobserver, long comment by Lightbreather on 28 January 2015[5]. Case closed and deleted shortly after. EChastain (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


Please look at the previous block, which was controversial and opposed by the majority of admins commenting:[6]

It led to a Clarification request: See this Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling [7]

particularly this part focusing on Eric Corbett[8]

and this ammendmend request:[9]

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

Result concerning Eric Corbett[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • It appears to me that the comment is near the ill-defined outer edge of the topic ban. Whether it crosses the blurry line boils down to semantics and speculation about motive. I'd be inclined to discuss this if the comment had been made today or yesterday, but it's nearly a week old now, so unless there is evidence of other potential violations in the meantime, I think this should be closed as stale. Failing that, there are two questions that I think should be answered, given that there is scope for debate about whether the comment was a violation: Ignoring everything else, could Eric have made the comment without realising he was encroaching on his topic ban? And was the comment, or the effect of the comment, disruptive? The answers to those questions are likely to be significant mitigating or aggravating factors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The sanctions were put into place to prevent disruptive editing. While if we construe broadly enough it may be a violation I don't think we need to be that broad. The comment was not disruptive to the encyclopedia and frankly this report seems like more of an attempt to get Eric blocked than to help the project. Given the staleness of the report and other factors I described above I don't think action is needed. Chillum 18:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Gamaliel: My sincere apologies, I did not realize this was being reported by proxy. Even if this was your idea it was a failure of AGF on my part, I have struck that comment. I just woke up and I appreciate you pointing out my faux pas. Chillum 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I suggest the request is closed quickly because it is stale and it is not clear, despite what some may think, that it violates a restriction so broad that almost anything could be considered covered by it. If any action is deemed to be necessary, I suggest that the only action is that a statement is made that reports done by proxy in future should never be accepted because they could be open to gaming of the system. (I make this comment without intending to criticise anyone up to the time of this report here.) I also suggest that a recommendation be made that people should spend more time on adding content.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
No, lets keep it going and let everyone see what sad individuals these people obsessed with gender gaps are. Giano (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect[edit]

Closing with the filer's consent. If this issue needs further discussion, ANI is probably the most appropriate venue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Collect[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons :Collect warned of DS on BLPs
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Collect removes infobox religious affiliation category as well as “Jewish” from the phrase “Jewish neoconservatives”, removing the aspect that makes the religious affiliation blpcat notable.[10]
  2. @MrX: agrees that sources meet blpcat and notability in terms of relevance.[11]
  3. @Nomoskedasticity: agrees that sources meet blpcat.[12]
  4. Nomoskedasticity indirectly warns Collect against reverting against consensus[13]
  5. Collect claims that blpcat policy overrides consensus between the three editors commenting on the thread.[14]
  6. MrX adds sources and queries Collect about collaborative editing.[15]
  7. MrX asks Collect if he intends to restore categories, etc. removed in this edit, which Collect had initially reverted and after which further sourcing was provided and the above-mentioned consensus reached.
  8. I repeat blpcat notability and ask him to abide by consensus.[16]


Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
  • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

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

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

  1. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.
Here, when Collect objected to material being included, it was removed, and when sources supporting inclusion garnered "local consensus" categorization and text were re-added, in accordance with blpcat, but reverted on what two editors found to be obstructionist grounds.
  1. Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
Collect has refused to collaborate, simply acting as arbiter, saying "nope", and belittling the import of the discussion. The statements after his last revert were seen to be as pointy and not in good faith.

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

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

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


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[17]

Discussion concerning Collect[edit]

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

Statement by Collect[edit]

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

[18] shows an editor insisting that NNDB is a source for claiming religion in Wikipedia's voice. [19] etc. have the editor explain his rationale as "I don't know whether the characterization belongs in the lead or whatnot as I don't work on BLPs very often, but it isn't even mentioned in the article despite the high-profile he's received in media coverage of the debate. I don't have time to sort out a text for the article.", [20] has a second editor excuse the violation of WP:BLPCAT with "Yes. "Danny Postel is Associate Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies". Jewish is not a pejorative term" and so on. The problem was that the editors were unfamiliar with the policy in WP:BLPCAT. On this current noticeboard page you will see a large number of edits where the aim is to label a person or persons "Jewish." Were WP:BLP to be amended as the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#RfC asks, none of this would have occurred, but WP:BLPCAT is pretty clear unless altered.

[21] shows my prompt request at BLP/N for opinions on NNDB as a source for the claim. [22] expands the statement.

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


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

Appending: The OP here posted:[23]

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

Now the issue to be determined is:

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

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

Is "Jewishness is notable to the controversy"

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


Another source proffered:[24]

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

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

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

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

Note: I just ran across an interesting attack on me:[26]

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

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

Statement by Obsidi[edit]

A few things here:

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

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

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

Statement by ChrisGualtieri[edit]

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

Result concerning Collect[edit]

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ubikwit[edit]

Ubikwit may edit a selection of articles (listed in the log and their talk page) for three months at which time they should appeal their TBAN as well. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Per this Arbitration case, this discussion and your previous warning, I am invoking discretionary sanctions and topic banning you from editing any articles (and their associated talk pages) relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, with immediate effect. Note that any violation of this ban may result in an immediate block from any administrator with no further warning given, as this notice has already explained the sanctions you are subject to and served as sufficient notice. This ban has no expiry, although this ban may be revisited by the community at a later date.
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Deskana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Ubikwit[edit]

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

  • I think that the comments added by Is not a (talk · contribs) below are illustrative of editing in a contentious area.
First, it should be pointed out that the editor is a new account with a fairly high degree of familiarity with WP policy.
Second, Is not a (talk · contribs) casts aspersions on the Talk page and here, where he refers to anti-semitism, apparently linking that to his accusation that I "restored a citation of an attack site". A search of RS/N appears to reveal that the site is not an attack site, but a reliable source falling under news organizations, as I've commented on the relevant Talk page thread of the Kagan article. Is not a (talk · contribs) has attempted to dismiss RS documenting connections to the Project for the New American Century and the The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), reference to which has been completely removed from the article, despite numerous RS readily accessible, online, such as this. In fact, this series of edits sees a plurality of passages that appear to be adequately sourced being removed.
I spoke about being trolled, and the conduct of User Is a would seem to typify aspects of that type of behavior. It is not pleasant, but I have learned to respond in a more cool, calm, and collected manner.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The plot thickens, it turns out that there was a subplot to the subterfuge at the Kagan Talk page regarding the editor with the tricky Wikiname Is not a (talk · contribs) "is a", with this source being purported "attack site", which is on a website hosted by Institute for Policy Studies, to which he was indirectly referring to using the acronym "IPS" (there is no actual mention of that organization or its acronym in the multiple passages he deleted), while also deleting the text sourced to an article from the news organization "IPS" (the only direct reference to "IPS" on the page). The so-called "attack site" piece is a profile that would probably be categorized as a tertiary source, with 24 citations, including many to pieces in the NYT and WP. I don't have time to read the piece itself but would assume it has a liberal POV. I've inquired whether the editor might have a COI regarding the Kagan and Nuland articles. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:34, 05:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Is this trolling? Harassment?[27] It's certainly not engaging in the discussion at hand in that thread, rather, trying to prevent the discussion from progressing in a manner such as to evaluate the sourcing questions at issue. The editor also linked to their post here in that post on BLP/N.
Note that the edit summary is to the IP rant in which that diff occurs, which has been hatted as trolling.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
What is the recommended course of action to stop this type of continual disruption/harassment LaRouche thread aimed at me. Is not a (talk · contribs) has gone from making oblique accusations of anti-semitism to making a not so subtle representation attempting to link me with LaRouche.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to request that the appeal be decided in my favor and closed, with or without a limitation on the scope of articles.
The behavior that I consider to be trolling by Is not a (talk · contribs) is on the verge of becoming a conduct dispute, and I believe that the delaying of a decision of the appeal has emboldened him.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Deskana[edit]

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

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

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

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ubikwit[edit]

Statement by is not a[edit]

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

  • Ubikwit reinserted a meandering discussion of (Jewish philosopher) Leo Strauss,[28] despite Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)'s warnings about WP:BLP ([29], again [30] despite [31], [32] despite [33]) although finally he did respect the BLP-based consensus [34] I am happy to report.
  • Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan [35] [36] despite RayAYang (talk · contribs)'s warnings [37] [38] and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling [39]. Related edits on the talk page of Kagan follow:
  • On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" [40] and linking to this anti-semitic website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek [41]. A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang (talk · contribs) [42], who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."[43]
  • Today Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site, calling Kagan a rightwing militarist [44].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result of the appeal by Ubikwit[edit]

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

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

  • No blocks within 2014 is promising. Would you say that you got into any editorial disputes since your last block? If so, could you please link to and describe them? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The required notification of the sanctioning admin is still lacking.  Sandstein  22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear from the sanctioning admin, but this looks reasonably promising. The sanction was imposed a long time ago, Ubikwit recognises the error of their ways and states that they've changed their approach, they've been active in other topic areas, and they haven't been sanctioned recently. Certainly on the surface this ticks all the boxes that we look at when deciding appeals, but I haven't yet done a deeper review of their recent contributions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Ubikwit: How would you feel about having a relatively narrow range of articles to edit in the ARBPIA topic area for a few months, after which we could re-evaluate with a view to lifting the topic ban if you don't get in to trouble during that time? I'm keen to give some leeway because I don't like the idea that topic bans are forever, especially if the sanctioned editor abides by the ban and edits productively elsewhere, but I have to agree with Deskana that your opening statement doesn't fill me with hope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Given the other user with whom Ubikwit was clashing has stopped editing I'd be inclined to hear this appeal further. It is disappointing (as Deskana) points out that their statement focuses on blaming other people rather than taking responsibility however I can see past that. It like HJ's idea, something like giving us some articles they wish to edit and after a few months coming back here to decide whether to lift it outright or not. Given edit warring was a concern another possibility would be to replace the TBAN with 1RR and see how that goes. I'm not convinced which of these options I prefer at the moment, going to consider it for a bit. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Israel-Palestine articles are under a blanket 1RR, so an editor-specific 1RR would be redundant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I got the I and the P round the wrong way.
      Having thought about this some more I'm moving towards thinking that we should just lift the TBAN completely (especially given it's been 2 years with no major issues) but make it clear that there will likely be a fairly low bar to placing it again if need be. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite continuing to edit in contentious areas, Ubikwit seems to have avoided trouble over the last year, and appears to have gotten better at staying cool in heated debates. Since I don't see any barrier to re-imposing it should things to awry, I'm in favour of lifting the topic ban. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd still be happier if Ubikwit started off with a few articles or a relatively narrow subtopic so that we could evaluate how they get on there for a few weeks and then lift the ban completely if there were no issues, but in a choice between absolute acceptance or absolute rejection of the appeal, I'm more incline towards acceptance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not too difficult to TBAN them very quickly again if any undesired behaviour occurs, and if we do allow a small subtopic it's completely likely that it won't be enough to see whether the type of behaviour which will characterise their edits to the broader topic. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Is not a: I don't believe those edits violated the ban. The ban was from the Arab-Israeli conflict, and precedent at this board is that that doesn't include edits about either Israel or Palestine/Arabia unless explicitly stated, only the conflict between them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ubikwit: So we can get this moving along can you give a sub-topic (or some articles) you'd like to edit for a few months. Once I've got that I'll add it as an exemption so that you can show that you can edit constructively in this topic area. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ubikwit: How does this sound an exemption to make any edits related to the geopolitical aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict (including political ideologies, and edits related to the International Criminal Court and United Nations)? Other admin comments welcome... Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I dislike fuzzy sub-topic exemptions like this. They are difficult to get right, and hard to enforce. I'd rather see Ubikwit propose a list of some specific articles, and consider granting an exemption for those articles (and their talk pages). T. Canens (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
This make sense to me also. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, gents, but I think the point is that the exemption is a test: if it results in disruption or wikilawyering about scope, we can rescind it. If it results in constructive edits, improvements to articles, and none of the problems that led to the original topic ban, we can lift the topic ban altogether. In other words, Ubikwit has nothing to gain and everything to lose by pushing the limits of the exemption. That said, I'd be happy with an exemption for specific articles if that's what it takes or this appeal to regain momentum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone got an objection to the seven articles Ubikwit has proposed? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • New timestamp to postpone archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

Removing BLP violations is exempt from the topic ban. In an ideal world, somebody would do it, but in practice BLP prevails over just about every other concern. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
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 NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
AnsFenrisulfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=646479745 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=646479629 NbSB removes a link in the talk page, cites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

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

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

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

@NorthBySouthBaranof The reason I have no article space edits, is because I chose to start conversation instead, letting more experienced users than I deem what is worth doing. Inexperience is not a crime on Wikipedia, especially when the user actively avoids fumbling the ball. Also, I am not an SPA. I have actively moved my view elsewhere, I just have not yet felt comfortable in my knowledge to Be Bold. You can even find my last edit for change was to the Oshkosh, Wisconsin talk page, and i haven't even touched the GamerGate Controversy article since my first attempt and ensuing Bite.

To anyone who might look at this case. I am not above saying I have misunderstood BANEX, though I currently hold this does not appear to fall under it from my understanding.

I find it highly strange that NewYorkBrad chose to vote no based not on what was done, but by who posted it. I acknowledge I am a novice account, but surely your duty is to base your decisions on the evidence, not the person? Note, I am not saying voting no is strange, if it was a no vote based on evidence it would be entirely understandble.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

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


Discussion concerning NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

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

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

The link in question is a flagrant violation of BLP, and in fact was removed from the arbitration case evidence page for that very reason. It is a wholly-anonymous, self-published personal blog which makes a number of allegations of wrongdoing and attacks on living people — as such, it is categorically excluded from being included anywhere in the encyclopedia, including talk page space. If the policy is to have any meaning, it must be enforced. That the list of source links contained within it might be useful is neither here nor there — I have not removed that list of links. Among the entirely-anonymous allegations it makes, besides those mentioned by EvergreenFir, are claims of some sort of shadowy conspiracy by named living people to commit fraud and financially damage a competitor.

The editor who inserted the link stated that i think the dossier is good background reading (for editors) which calls into question their competence, because a categorically-unreliable self-published blog which makes allegations of wrongdoing about living people is absolutely not good background reading for editors on Wikipedia and in fact cannot even be linked to on Wikipedia, by foundational policy.

The reporting user is an obvious single-purpose account with not a single articlespace edit and 99% of their talk page 38 out of their 39 total edits being related to Gamergate. I suggest this is a WP:BOOMERANG candidate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • What is well beyond "borderline disruptive," Thargor Orlando, are the continued attempts to use Wikipedia pages as a platform for character assassination through patently-unreliable sources making flagrantly-unacceptable claims about living people in contravention of foundational project policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]

The link in question was full of serious accusations and frankly libel. Examples of statements made on the linked page are:

  • Naming an individual as a trans woman and saying they intended to raise money for sex confirmation surgery
  • Creations of black lists
  • Conspiracy by journalists and corporations
  • People accepting gifts for favors in a professional setting
  • A metric crap ton of WP:OUTING

NBSB was correct to remove it and within that right per WP:BLP and WP:BANEX. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AtomsOrSystems[edit]

I was an editor engaged in discussion in the topic when NBSB redacted the link. Had I been thinking straight, I would have redacted it myself; however, I didn't notice that the hyperlink above the collapsed section was a link. (In my defense, it was something like 6AM local.) Either way, I think it was a good catch by NorthBySouthBaranof. It seems like a clear example of my understanding of WP:BANEX -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 22:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Retartist[edit]

Good grief, I'd be happy to have the link retracted IF i could find any BLP violating material. 22:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me on the talk page so retract it whatever --RetΔrtist (разговор) 22:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem[edit]

Unrelated to the BLP issues, but on seeing NBSB's activity on the GG talk page, I see that NBSB is also contributing at a GG-related discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales [45] [46] (plus revisions), prior to this BLP issue. This appears to be after JzG started to run into trouble ([47]). --MASEM (t) 22:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway[edit]

Perhaps an RfC might be a more appropriate venue for a issue like this, but it seems to me that even if BANEX permits NBSB to remove the material in question he is still prohibited from editing to make comments to Gamergate-related pages as he did here, here, and here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando[edit]

Ban exception or not, this continued activity appears to be a clear attempt to see how far the edges of the topic ban goes by someone who has otherwise written themselves off the project. It's borderline disruptive, and even if it is within the letter of the topic ban, his activity is well beyond the spirit of it. He's disrupted the space enough to get topic banned, so this continued disruption is not helpful. Actual BLP violations can be and are being handled by other people not in the topic space who are actually trusted to be there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • An AE report in the GamerGate area, by a novice account with only a handful of edits, is deeply unimpressive. I vote that no action be taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke[edit]

Gouncbeatduke offered informal advice/guidance on their talk page. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
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 Gouncbeatduke[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
WarKosign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 08:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Gouncbeatduke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified


Discussion concerning Gouncbeatduke[edit]

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[edit]

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

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

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

Statement by WarKosign[edit]

@Gouncbeatduke: Your statement is misleading on many points:

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

Plot Spoiler[edit]

  • @Callanecc, it does not appear that Gouncbeatduke is a "relative newcomer." I asked Gouncbeatduke if s/he had ever editing under a different username, and s/he stated, "I decided to WP:CLEANSTART"[48]. As a single-issue editor, Gouncbeatduke does not seem to be abiding by the recommendation that "it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start." Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Gouncbeatduke[edit]

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

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

Retartist[edit]

Topic-banned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
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 Retartist[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Retartist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

Discretionary sanctions for BLP violations.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. February 9 — Inserts a link to a patently-unreliable anonymous, self-published attack page which makes an array of allegations of wrongdoing, conspiracy, outing, etc. about named living people.
  2. February 10 — After this link is reverted citing the BLP policy, reinserts it and claims "i dont see the BLP vio"
  3. February 10 — Inserts an array of patently-unreliable and unusable source links which attack living people who have been targeted by Gamergate, including personal self-published blogs, Breitbart-published attacks, alleged IMGUR screencaps, anonymous screeds and alleged "archives."

The policy-violating material is also in their sandbox.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Participated in the Arbitration case and was notified of the results here.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This user is blatantly violating BLP in the context of Gamergate, adding links and putative "sources" that they well know make unsupported, anonymous and unacceptable allegations about living people and flagrantly contravene the letter and spirit of the policy. One person here is using the encyclopedia as a platform to try and attack living people, and it's not me. Either this project is interested in protecting living people from anonymous libel and slander and preventing its pages from being used for a character-assassination campaign, or it's interested in policy-lawyering. Either way, take a stand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Here.

Discussion concerning Retartist[edit]

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 Retartist[edit]

Ok, I didn't know that some of the links contained BLP vio's (there is 121 of them) how about ALL the links get removed, then i submit ones that i think will be productive to the talk page. If one reads the discussion i was trying to make a good-faith discussion about what GG thinks is wrong with games journalism and i added an indiscriminate list of sources that GG has used to support this claim. North, i don't think you have Assumed Good Faith on me, Nowhere have i said that i want to cast aspirations on living people, I just want to have some background on "ethics in game journalism" --RetΔrtist (разговор) 23:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to apologise for trying to help and i won't submit 121 links again --RetΔrtist (разговор) 00:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: You seem to be referring to the first link which i only re-added because i couldn't find negative claims against the 5 people i checked, once the specific claim was brought to my attention i was happy for it to be removed. I just want to say that i did check a portion of those links for BLP and I made a brief lapse in thinking that 121 links was appropriate, but i did have a change i wanted to discuss; namely the addition of gg's arguments for unethical journalism. --RetΔrtist (разговор) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


How about i just have a 1 month topic ban from gg then I can't put links in talk without a specific wording change? Actually I'm requesting a one month t-ban anyway so i can get back into my anti-vandal, newbie-welcoming editing pattern. --RetΔrtist (разговор) 03:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: you may want to include my ALt (User:Retardist) in any decision --RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AnsFenrisulfr[edit]

Right... I am willing to concede my understanding of BANEX may be wrong... but this seems like a BLATANT violation of a topic ban.

On the subject of the case, the first diff I agree with, the second one is cherry picked, since the user himself said that he sees the issue and agrees with it being redacted after someone pointed it out, and the second one goes from that. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact NbSB's statement keeps growing to underscore the almost explicit statement "You are ether with me or against me" says far more about his intentions with this, than it does about Retartist's actions. Above this, he accuses me of being an SPA, having obviously not read a single one of my edits since I have explicitly said I am not. He Also claimed I had made no edits outside of GamerGate Controversy.. then sneakily changed it to 99% (The actual number is 72%) with the last one (Not counting today's snafu) being January TWENTY EIGHTH. I will not pretend to know how to deal with him, but this request is in bad faith at BEST, and utterly malicious at worst. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It is amusing that out of everyone, it is NbSB who is the one performing Character Assassination. All my user talk page edits were to learn about the workings of Wikipedia in general, so that I could become a better editor IN GENERAL. So I could contribute to more than just a single article. If you were not trying so hard to perform the very actions you claim to decry, you could see that. And again, no edits prior to today on that article for the last 13 days. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Since I failed to make this clear. I support action against Retartist for these, as they do infringe upon BLP, my issue above is with NbSB going against his topic ban to stay involved in an article he was removed from specifically for being disruptive and for the battleground behavior he has put on full display in his comment section here. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by drseudo[edit]

Retartist's defense—that he didn't bother checking the links he posted for WP:BLP violations because there were so many of them—is in a sense more damning than anything in NbSB's (admittedly overheated) comments. It does not take a leap of logic to conclude that recklessly and indiscriminately linking to WP:BLP-violating content is exactly the kind of behavior that discretionary sanctions are intended to curb. drseudo (t) 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]

Retartist has brought a number of different sites to a talk page in the hopes that other people would evaluate them for inclusion in the article. In doing so, he failed to check them for BLP, and when notified that they had violated our BLP policies attempted to maintain the presence of these links on the talk page even after being informed of such. I do not believe this editor understands (or has chosen to ignore) the importance of avoiding BLP issues, despite his comparatively heavy involvement in an area which requires a very strict adherence to our policies on BLP. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Woodroar[edit]

@HJ Mitchell: yes, this had been an issue (one I thought had been resolved), where Retartist would add BLP-violating statements and, when they were removed or redacted, reinstate them or generally be uncivil about their removal. In August, we had this rev-deleted edit, which was reverted, after which Retartist warned Bilby for censoring and added a slightly nicer accusation that didn't name names. In September we had this and this added in the same discussion, which NBSB redacted intwo edits, leading to this drawn-out conversation where Retartist was repeatedly told about BLP and civility. Woodroar (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]

Reiterating (copy-pasting from above enforcement request for NBSB) the problem with the link:

The link in question was full of serious accusations and frankly libel. Examples of statements made on the linked page are:

  • Naming an individual as a trans woman and saying they intended to raise money for sex confirmation surgery
  • Creations of black lists
  • Conspiracy by journalists and corporations
  • People accepting gifts for favors in a professional setting
  • A metric crap ton of WP:OUTING

Thank you to East718 for revdeling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by the determinedly uninvolved Ryk72[edit]

With respect to the more experienced Wikipedians who have provided statements, if this relates to edits to article talk pages which contain links but no actual contentious material, then it appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding & misapplication of the WP:BLP policy.

WP:BLP applies everywhere, but its application is dependent on the situation & location of the edits; links to sources that we might not use to support contentious material in article space are explicitly permitted in article talk space.

WP:BLPTALK explicitly states that inclusion of links (without repetition of any contentious material itself) is the appropriate method for editors to reference such material for discussion. The material could then be reviewed and a consensus formed as to whether inclusion in the article itself is appropriate w.r.t WP:BLP and other core policies.

WP:BLPEL relates only to "Further reading", "External links", and "See also" sections of article pages, and is therefore not relevant to edits to article talk pages. WP:ELNO, a guideline, is similarly explicitly only for article pages, not article talk pages.

While I am not able to view the edits listed above which have been revdeleted, I am able to view the links referenced as "The policy-violating material is also in their sandbox". Iff the revdeleted edits contain an actual repetition of contentious material contained in the links, as opposed to the links only, there has been a breach of WP:BLP. If they do not, as would appear from the information in the sandbox link, there is no breach, and it would be appropriate to reopen the preceding request.

WP:BANEX states Reverting ... obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree. Given that links to contentious material in article talk pages are explicitly permitted per WP:BLPTALK, I am not convinced that they are an obvious violation of WP:BLP, and reversion of such should be discouraged; in favour of policy based discussion & consensus building.

Removal, reversion & revdeletion of links to contentious material prevents such discussion & formation of consensus, and is inherently contrary to the goals of the Wikipedia Project.

I now return to my gnoming. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Retartist[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Question: Is this part of a pattern of misconduct/poor judgement, or is it an isolated incident? If the former, dated diffs with very brief explanations would be appreciated. In case it doesn't go without saying, please don't quote any BLP violations on this board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I had to revdel today's edits because they were so odious, EvergreenFir outlined why in the section above. I'm also convinced that there's enough evidence here for this to be actionable, given that the user is not a relative newcomer and has been counseled about BLP before. I propose that Retartist be banned from the topic area and from posting links discussing living people for some time. east718 | talk | 03:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The problems with this article have been going on long enough so there is absolutely no excuse for a user who has been editing this article since September and who participated in the ArbCom case to engage in this kind of behavior. The links provided by Woodroar make it clear that this kind of problematic behavior has been going on just as long as they have been editing in this area. How many more hundreds of revision deletions have to be performed before editors stop posting this kind of material? A single edit of this nature might be excusable in an editor new to these articles, but after six months? Given all of this, it is time for an indefinite topic ban. The ban can be reevaluated if the user proves they can edit other less controversial and sensitive areas of the encyclopedia without incident. Gamaliel (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Implicit in the topic ban exception for reverting BLP violations and vandalism is the permission to report the same to an appropriate noticeboard. It makes no sense to allow someone to revert a vandal, but not report said vandal to AIV.

    I agree with the proposed topic ban, at a minimum. We should also remove the reviewer permissions. T. Canens (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by MarieWarren[edit]

Appeal rejected, sock blocked.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
MarieWarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – v/r - TP 03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
"To enforce an arbitration decision and for misrepresenation of sources to push a point of view on the page Abortion Rights (organisation), you have been blocked indefinitely from editing"
Administrator imposing the sanction 
TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by MarieWarren[edit]

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

Statement by TParis[edit]

  • Statement by MarrieWarren copied on behalf of user account per request on unblock template. Nothing to say here. The user had been warned previously and continued to misrepresent sources. The source has a list of unsafe abortion practices that could lead in injury or death. The user claimed that the organization is promoting unsafe abortion practices. The user's only purpose on Wikipedia is to identify which organizations are pro-Abortion.--v/r - TP 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Squinge (talk)[edit]

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

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by MarieWarren[edit]

Result of the appeal by MarieWarren[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Per the information above, and my review of the thread in ANI archive 865, it seems that User:MarieWarren is here on Wikipedia to push a POV on abortion. She does not seem to care about the details of what the sources say. I recommend declining this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that it would be better to keep this user away from Abortion related articles, however if MarieWarren is willing to contribute constructively to other areas I'd be willing to consider granting the appeal and replacing with a indef TBAN from abortion. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Since we can't indef block under DS, the block should be parsed as an 1-year DS block plus a normal indef block, with only the former in AE's scope. Regardless of the technicalities, the source misrepresentation is blatantly obvious, and the claims made in defense makes it doubtful that this editor could ever constructively contribute to any area of this project. Decline. T. Canens (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As I see it, the fundamental problem with MarieWarren's statement is that it shows no acknowledgement at all that there has been any problem with her editing. If she cannot see what the problem is, then she will not be able to avoid making the same mistakes again. She seems to think that the block is just a result of her editing of one article, and says that she will not "edit this organisation again" (presumably meaning the article about that organisation). However, that assurance is nowhere near sufficient, as she has exhibited the same problems in editing a number of different articles, not just one, and avoiding one article will do nothing to prevent her from doing the same on other articles.
For the reasons I have described, I think we should decline the request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  CheckUser note: I would call User:MichaelBLewis72 a  Confirmed sock of MarieWarren, and it appears both accounts are editing similar areas. It may be helpful to evaluate this as y'all evaluate this appeal. Courcelles 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Here are the userlinks:
User:MichaelBLewis72 has been adding papers by 'M.B.Lewis' to articles. For example here. He has stated he is an expert on face recognition and Google Scholar shows that someone of that name is recognized in the field. One option is to leave the indef of MarieWarren in place, ban MichaelBLewis72 from the topic of abortion and ask him to cease adding his own papers to articles as a condition of continuing to edit. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, they are technically indistinguishable. They could very well be different people, but CU brings them back technically identical. Courcelles 04:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a very low opinion of people who misrepresent sources, ad I see no mitigating circumstances here. Even ignoring the possible sockpuppetry, I see no reason to trust MarieWarren to not continue misrepresenting sources if she were unblocked. Consequently we should decline this request. Huon (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I was initially encouraged by MarieWarren's response to a discussion in my talk page regarding her synthesis of these abortion-related sources and how they apply to the organizations whose articles she edited. I later found out that despite the fact she appeared to have understood why her edits were inappropriate, she simply continued to perform them. I'm not very hopeful this time around, so I do not look kindly on this appeal. I think she is here to simply push her POV. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • New timestamp to postpone archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Close soon?: I suggest declining the appeal by MarieWarren since no admin favors it. The other account, User:MichaelBLewis72, has not edited since 13 January. Conceivably this is a different person using the same computer. Why not leave an alert for him under WP:ARBAB but take no other action at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, however given the username and the CU result I believe that there's enough to block User:MichaelBLewis72 as a sock. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Banhammer applied. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Arzel[edit]

Withdrawn by submitter so they can submit a request at ARCA (which they've now done). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
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 Arzel[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Arzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Arzel warned :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. February 12, 2015 "So when Carson is called a hate extremist by the SLPC it is fine to plaster his page with that idiocy, yet when the SLPC retracts the statement it is not fine? Hypocrites." (Personalizing and politicizing a content dispute)
  2. February 11, 2015 "You confuse WP:NOTNEWS with WP:N and do many WP editors wishing to frame a political story. Hell, it is barely 2015 and the silly season crap has started already." (Personalizing and politicizing a content dispute)
  3. February 10, 2015 "Added response to the tripe. SPLC loses respect by the day." (edit summary - Politicizing a content dispute)
  4. February 10, 2015 "Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Al Sharpton.....it is pretty well-known. If anything, it is acting as a propaganda arm of the Obama administration." (Politicizing a content dispute)
  5. January 5, 2015 "Please don't wipe the media mentions from the talk page without discussion. You can't simply whitewash this out of existance. Also, please leave your conspiracy theories elsewhere." (Personalizing a content dispute)
  6. February 4, 2015 "Your answer speaks volumes about your purpose here. There is no evidence that this has long lasting notability, your statement has no weight. The event was political to begin with even if your man is trying to hide the fact behind stupid words and a cluelessness about reality."(Personalizing a content dispute, and a clear personal attack)
  7. February 4, 2015 "Some of your edits appear to be quite transparent in your goals." (Personalizing a content dispute)
  8. January 19, 2015 "If you want to attack Emerson for his views on Islam go do it somewhere else." (Personalizing a content dispute)
  9. January 12, 2015 "You are an admin, you should help reign this crap in, not propagate it." (Personalizing a content dispute)
  10. November 2, 2014 "Why do you feel the need to trash a living person?" (Personalizing a content dispute)
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 

Admin warning on 4 February 2015

Arzel has a long, well-documented history of abusive and disruptive personal comments. Arcom gave a clear warning to Arzel not to persist in this type of behavior, but unfortunately it has had little effect. Arzel spends a great deal of his Wikipedia time reverting other editor's contributions, complaining about liberal bias, and making insulting claims about editors' intentions. He gravitates to controversial political and news agency articles, but does very little to collaborate with other editors to actually try to improve the articles.

There are other milder examples from the past few months. I don't think there is any point filling the page with addition diffs, but will do so if it helps.- MrX 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@ T. Canens: OK, I will re-file it as an amendment request. This can be closed.- MrX 02:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[49]


Discussion concerning Arzel[edit]

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 Arzel[edit]

Mr.X's preferred method of dealing with those his disagrees is drama boards. I try to uphold BLP issues and am constantly attacked by him for it. Arzel (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell[edit]

(Commenting as an involved editor here, not as an admin, due to previous interactions with Arzel).

Regarding Arzel's justification, I don't see how any of the comments cited by MrX are essential to upholding BLP. Instead, they seem like a continuation of Arzel's pattern of ideologically driven battleground editing, personalization, and politicization of disputes. Since he's been previously called out for this by ArbCom (Arzel is warned that continuing to personalize or politicize content disputes is disruptive to the project, and continuing behavior of this nature may lead to further sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project), I think that administrative intervention is called for here. MastCell Talk 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

Most of these diffs are unimpressive, however, two are.[50][51] Perhaps a short block or topic ban is in order here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Arzel[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Whatever Mr.X's motivations, these are clear examples of problematic behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • A "warned" remedy is not enforceable at AE. This will need to go to ARCA so that the committee can make good on its threat. T. Canens (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ritsaiph[edit]

Blocked 31 hours as a normal admin action. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
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 Ritsaiph[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 04:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ritsaiph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
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)
[52]
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Feb-13-2015


Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Addition of a rather disgusting link (NSFW): [53]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notice

Discussion concerning Ritsaiph[edit]

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 Ritsaiph[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Statement by Kudzu1[edit]

Not much to add other than that it appears User:NeilN, User:RGloucester, and I all near-simultaneously opened up incident reports on different noticeboards: [54] [55] -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Ritsaiph[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Comment. Per this, editor appears to have retired.  Philg88 talk 05:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)