Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive169

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

Contents

MarkBernstein (2)[edit]

MarkBernstein blocked for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning MarkBernstein[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Starke Hathaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
MarkBernstein (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):

Dreadstar: [1] "Due to your continued comments about other editors [2], I'm imposing upon you a 90-day ban on all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 15 March MarkBernstein links to an article on his personal blog. The article contains discussion of gamergate. His comment regarding "Sea Lions of Wikipedia" also refers to the gamergate controversy.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 3 Jan Block for prior violation


Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
It seems clear by now that this editor has no intention of abiding by this topic ban. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not at all clear to me why MarkBernstein expects to be given latitude to violate his topic ban on a talk page when DungeonSiegeAddict510 (who is subject to the same topic ban as MarkBernstein) was blocked for a month for little more than writing the letters "kia" on a talk page. It's not as though MarkBernstein would be unaware of this as he commented in support of that very enforcement action. I would also respectfully suggest to MarkBernstein that the "hounding" will stop when he stops violating his topic ban.
I am very aware that I face the possibility of retaliatory sanctions for bringing this action, especially in light of the difference in the level of scrutiny applied to editors who bring actions here depending on whether they seem to fall on one side or the other of a particular controversy-- compare the treatment of EncyclopediaBob, who was indefinitely blocked for being a sock after bringing an enforcement action against NorthBySouthBaranof despite no one at any point adducing evidence of such, with the absolute lack of any scrutiny of PetertheFourth, a self-admitted SPA, when he brought the aforementioned enforcement action against DungeonSiegeAddict510. It is becoming increasingly evident that the rules are not being applied evenly to those who are perceived to be pro- or anti-gamergate, but I'll risk not being able to edit any longer on the possibility that this isn't in fact true. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom:@Masem: Has it not occurred to you that the words "Masem's talk" in fact refer to Masem's talk page, rather than some shadowy lecture he's given to people you call Gamergaters? Indeed, if you look "below the reply" linked by TheRealVordox, you find... links to discussions on Masem's talk page about sourcing. I suggest you redact, and an apology would not go amiss. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[3]


Discussion concerning MarkBernstein[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 MarkBernstein[edit]

An editor left a pointer on my talk page to a satirical piece he had written read, concerning this very page.I complimented him and pointed him to something I'd written on the same topic. It’s an essentially social interactionm and considerable latitude is allowed and necessary on talk pages.

The topic of my piece, incidentally, is not Gamergate, but Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee and it's recent ruling on my own Arbitration Committee Request for Clarification. I think it not unreasonable that PeterTheFourth, who has been editing Wikipedia since December, would assume that he might mention my own ARCA request on my talk page. Why not, if it's a topic of mutual interest, and where else shall he mention it? Of course, Starke Hathaway knows better from his vast experience of editing Wikipedia since...December. But Starke has one advantage: his first Wikipedia edit outside his own talk page was a statement for ArbCom.

Ought I to have replied to PeterTheFourth by email? Perhaps. But Wikipedia policy encourages discussion of Wikipedia editing on wiki, and generally discourages such discussion off-wiki. Besides, we don’t all have 4chan, 8chan, KotakuInAction, and WikiInAction to use for our discussions!

Wikipedians might also give some thought to how this unremittingly vindictive hounding looks out there, out in the real world. So, please take your time with the WP:BOOMerang here, because it'll reinforce my argument so effectively.

Have I been critical of ArbCom and of Wikipedia? Yes, I surely have. Have I laughed at Wikipedia's follies? Sure: someone has to! And once you see how funny this is, Starke is quite correct: it’s hard to stop. Still, WP:MOMHESLOOKINGATMEFUNNY is not a thing.@PeterTheFourth: MarkBernstein (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I believe Wikipedia links are nofollow to deter spamming, so they're hard to see in my logs. And, if traffic statistics for my Wikipedia talk page itself is available to me, I have no idea how to find it. But, seriously, Wikipedia traffic is inconsequential at this point. This little satire has already been retweeted by 34 writers; they have among them 209,000 followers. We've had plenty of people dropping by from Facebook. I've got my little regular audience, which has its own sort of influence. And this is for a little light Sunday satire. I don't care about Wikipedia traffic. It's called making a point. There’s another name for what it’s called: “winning.” Give it a rest. I have explained why I link: unlike Gamergate, I don’t whisper about my opponents behind their back, I don’t pretend to believe they're gay or practitioners of strange sex rituals, I don't call them prostitutes or send them pictures of dead dogs or of their dead sisters. If I have something to say about you, I'll say it to your face and I'll show you the link, and I'll accept your rebukes. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@TheRedPenOfDoom: I’m sorry to disagree with you here, but you're mistaken in calling the calling the decision “insipid.” Give ArbCom credit: the clarification was not bland, and adding Lena Dunham was about as spicy as you can ask. You couldn't make this stuff up. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Rhoark: I agree with the general sentiment, but you're wrong in detail. I cannot be a valuable contributor, in light of an inexplicable and absurd topic ban which extends as far as the eye can see -- to every living woman (except maybe to right-wing extremists), to every gay, lesbian, and gender-queer person, and to every topic the tea party declares to be a controversy and which somehow impinges gender, which is to say the human condition, broadly construed. But, in point of fact, I'd wager that my writing of the past eight weeks will do more to shape the Encyclopedia than my work of the previous two decades, broadly construed -- and that work arguably includes those tabs at the top of this page and the breadcrumbs that guide you to its antecedents. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: Wise, prudent, and judicious. I do think, though, that encouraging off-site coordination is still disparaged by policy, that in theory (if not in the real world into which I am accused of having injected myself upstream on the page) we're encouraged to discuss Wikipedia here and openly, not elsewhere and in secret. Correct me if I'm mistaken -- and also correct the guidance we give to new editors, some of whom might (on rare occasions like this) actually be genuine new editors. Grizzled experts like NBSF and myself find these matters puzzling, while outsiders look on aghast and wonder what Wikipedia can possibly be thinking. In fact, I'm pretty sure the banned veteran editors who don’t find the margins of discretionary sanctions puzzling fall into two categories: (a) those who are now editing through new accounts, borrowed accounts, or sock puppets, and (b) those who have retired completely. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: I’m not willing today to ask for the favor of having what should be mine by right, or to beg this audience to do what they ought to do despite unreasonable and unreasoning malice. But do feel free to ask on my behalf if you like. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coldacid: et al: The satire to which PeterTheFourth directed my attention is, of course, an allegorical parable of sea lions with a beachball. My mother told me that when someone gives you something to read, it's polite to thank them and to remark on its content, showing that you read it and appreciated it. Your mother may have disagreed, but Wikipedia welcomes people from different cultures and backgrounds. Or it used to. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Ah yes, topic bans. That would be
  • The indefensible topic ban for Gamergate imposed by that witty fellow who, in doing so, so far forgot himself as to call me a motherfucker?
  • Or would that be its new extension to Campus Rape, Lena Dunham, and points East?
  • Or perhaps the bankshot extension newly proposed here, which topic-bans reference to off-wiki satires of Wikipedia decisions on gender that were inspired by Wikipedia's foolish handling of Gamergate?
  • Or perhaps the topic ban should apply to my referring to anyone who writes about my writing that ridicules Wikipedia decisions on gender which were inspired (and I use the term loosely) by Wikipedia’s craven appeasement of Gamergate?
Perhaps I should not use links? Does the topic ban also include semi-colons? One of my better-known soundbites holds that “The link is the most significant new form of punctuation since the invention of the comma,” after all. I know it's unfair, my having a place to write and an audience and a modest facility with words other than motherfucker and brony; perhaps I should be required to write especially badly to even the playing field? Or to pretend never to have heard of Donna Haraway or Michel Foucault or Judith Butler.
Now if you want to take some pictures of the fascinating witches who put the scintilating stiches in the britches of the boys who put the powder on the noses on the faces of the ladies of the harem of the court of King Caractacus (or Wikipedia’s credibility)...
... You're too late! Because they've just... Passed... By!
The complaint seeks simply to wield the topic ban in an unending quest to reclaim a failed plan to use Wikipedia as part of another failed PR offensive. No harm or disruption could have been caused by briefly alluding to this satire on my talk page, and in any case no one can possibly know where the ban ends. This complaint lacks the semblance of good faith.
Or perhaps we're talking about a different topic ban entirely? I seem to recall a very recent topic ban on this very subject. I myself have not brought a complaint since then against either Xxxxx Batman or Xxxx Xxxx Robin. But here we are already, back again in our old familiar haunts, brought not by Batman nor by Robin (because that would be wrong!), but – what a coincidence! – by one of The Merry Men, with the usual crew alongside to tell us everything we need to know about sea lions. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Squiggleslash: You are welcome to file one on my behalf. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@HJMitchell: I did not refer to any editor; I was topic-banned, apparently, for alluding indirectly to the well-known fact of collusive editing, which was the topic of the article under discussion. Here, I only violated my topic ban if the broad construction of GamerGate extends to mentioning my own satirical jeremiads against Wikipedia's recent turn to embrace anti-intellectualism and sexism. Unlike some of your correspondents, I am indeed engaged with the real world, and my interest here is to (a) save the project from mistakes which are -- correctly in my opinion -- bringing it into widespread contempt, or (b) if that is impossible, to warn scholars and writers of systemic biases and distortions in order to minimize the harm it does, especially when used as a weapon by wrong-doers. Yes, I could be (and have been) of great service to Wikipedia: when you look back on this, you will find that my contribution to Gamergate may in fact have been crucial to preventing irremediable harm to the project. I think there is no question that the real world, having examined the question, shares my opinion. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: I’m responsible for what I write on my weblog, and for what I publish in journals and magazines. I’m not responsible for satire that someone else writes on their weblog, even if PeterTheFourth tells me about it. I'm not disparaging you at the moment; it appears that some other people are, but like the flowers that bloom in the spring (tra-la!) that has nothing to do with the case. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ched: is simply mistaken in thinking that links from pages like this page have any meaningful impact at all on Google search results or on web traffic. This page, for example, has opted out entirely from the Google index, and also instructs search engines and other automata not to follow outbound links. You can verify this yourself by inspecting the HTML -- something anyone competent in the area would have checked first. In any case, even if every reader of this page followed every link to my weblog, it would not benefit me particularly -- save that people who are interested in knowing more of my work in this area might do so. That’s the point of links. My weblog has no advertising and I’m perfectly happy with my organic audience, the fruit of a decade of writing. In any case, if I were seeking traffic from Wikipedians, I have signally failed: at no time in recent months have wikipedia servers figured meaningfully in my server logs. The Guardian? Yes. Think Progress? Sure. Der Standard? Check. Social Text? Surprisingly so! Facebook and Twitter* have been prominent in referrer logs, which is unusual and interesting. But Wikipedia? Meh. MarkBernstein (talk)
@Callanecc: Wikipedia's policy forbids insertion of irrelevant links. To witness that my links are pertinent we might adduce the witness of the editors of newspapers, magazines, and journals throughout the world. But this is hardly necessary, as both the Wikimedia Foundation and Arbcom itself responded to them in their separate press statements. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Starke Hathaway: @TheRedPenOfDoom: : In my (real) world, a "talk," as in "Bernstein’s talk on Patterns of Hypertext," is a lecture, typically at a conference or seminar. Moreover, I don’t believe I have ever heard anyone refer to their Wikipedia talk page as their “talk.” The natural meaning of the statement was that Masem had delivered a lesson or lecture to a group of Gamergaters, providing tips for editing like those frequently discussed at 8chan and KiA. I understand that some of the parties come to English as a second language and my own German is feeble and technical, but this doesn’t strike me as a likely mistake in German, either. In any case, no apology is required for this interpretation of the clear meaning of a written statement. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: isn't happy with my using links in a manner consistent with policy, required by good manners, and considerate of busy administrators, arbitrators, and other readers. I have written replies to this complaint, but out of respect for my colleague’s delicate sensibilities, will provide no links here.
As for email policy, WP:EMAILABUSE says that it is chiefly concerned with copyright. It is doubtful that these emotional outburst can be copyrighted at all, but as they were sent by a Wikipedia official in the course of his responsibilities, the copyright (if any there be) rests with Wikipedia, and that is unchanged by my posting them here, giving the copyright to Wikipedia. None of these emails were sent through the Wikipedia email system, so WP:EMAILABUSE doesn’t apply to them anyway. I reproduced short, critical excerpts, so they're textbook fair use. They play a useful, probative, and necessary role in these proceedings.
And -- let’s get this straight: I ought to be sitebanned as punishment for having the temerity to petition the appropriate forum in the most temperate terms for redress of a grievance -- to wit, being called a “motherfucker” after asking a reasonable and necessary question? You guys think I’m inclined to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? Good grief! (Fermat, Kafka, and Orwell walk into a bar...) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


Statement by Johnuniq[edit]

My suggestion would be that Starke Hathaway (150 edits; half on Gamergate) focus on improving the encyclopedia rather than examining every comment at MarkBernstein's talk. Such activity is not healthy for the project. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]

I do not at all understand how the reply to my (unsolicited, entirely spontaneous) comment is a violation of anything, especially given that he hasn't even mentioned Gamergate in his reply. This is honestly just more evidence of the ongoing harassment of MarkBernstein. I feel atrocious in my unintentional involvement in the ongoing campaign to drive away a well-spoken, prolific editor whose contributions have greatly enriched Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

As a completely unrelated aside: I did not author the piece I linked, although I do endorse it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Hello! I appreciate that there's much consternation over MarkBernstein's actions, but he's fairly blameless in this particular correspondence- he replies to my (trout-worthy?) link with another, a brief, silly interlude in his regular editing to link to his own feelings on ArbCom's decisions. You might accuse me of baiting him into something, or similar, and I'd accept anything coming my way re:my flouting of policy- please don't punish him for being polite enough to reply to my comment with anything other than 'I CAN'T TALK ABOUT THAT GO AWAY'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bosstopher[edit]

Agree with Gamaliel that minor borderline banvios like this one, YellowSandal's and DSA's, are not worth banning anyone over. All this request will do is cause more drama. Is there some way we can set a 1RResque limit to things of one AE request against Mark a week? There are approximately 10 billion admins watching his talk page, so if he does anything too horrific after the week's AE request is done, one of them can just sort it out without an enforcement request. Currently a huge proportion of this enforcement page is Mark-related, and all it's done is create layer upon layer of pointless drama. Bosstopher (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Upon thinking about things in a much less sleep deprived state, I have come up with an ingenious solution that will satisfy everyone (although it probably wont). Per User:EvergreenFir's comments, Mark should be topic banned from linking to his blog/external links. @MarkBernstein: While Dreadstar's not going to remove your topic ban, have you considered asking him to change it so that it's just a straight up Gamergate topic ban like the ones they used in the good old days? That would solve a lot of the issues you're facing with being confused over what you're actually allowed to edit. Bosstopher (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark[edit]

I think it would be great if MB would go back to being the valuable contributor of a few years ago instead of a SPA in the area of grousing about ARBCOM, but this filing is a waste of everyone's time. Rhoark (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: @Masem: It's easy to jump to conclusions when operating from a baseline assumption that other people are operating with nefarious intent. I think everyone should just call a truce, assume good faith, and edit by policy instead of politics - if people could just do that there'd be no need for anything on this page, and I'd be the first to say so. Does anyone want anything else out of the situation? Rhoark (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]

I am getting a bit weary of seeing Mark's name here. This isn't a huge violation, but Mark knows full well the terms of his tban and continues to link to his blog anyway. If this doesn't result in a block, this should be a final warning. Mark needs to stop linking his blog (generating traffic and views) and needs to stop all references to GG. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

MarkBerstein says, "I don't care about Wikipedia traffic. It's called making a point. There’s another name for what it’s called: “winning.” Give it a rest. I have explained why I link..." This is exactly what I'm talking about. Mark knows exactly what he's doing, that it violates his topic ban, that he's making a WP:POINT, and doesn't care. There is no good faith to assume here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 11:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that handling this case is about as appealing as picking up dog poop with a napkin, but it's been left to linger. Would someone kindly address it before it turns that awful white color? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Callanecc and DHeyward: I guess discretionary sanctions could be placed on the talk page itself (just like 1RR was placed on Gamergate controversy), but that seems odd for user space pages. Is the concern that talk page stalkers will bring up the article or that people will bait him into discussing GG? Personally I'd learn more toward a less formal version of that where a few admins watch his talk page and remove anyone trying to bait him or anyone being WP:MEAT and posting his website on his behalf. Just my 2 cents. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]

Simply more evidence of the ArbCom's disastrous miscalculation that their insipid decision was something that would in any way limit disruption of Wikipedia rather than provide a blueprint for sustained organized disruption.

Gamergate Ahoy! Keep them socks coming! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we need to open another ARCA to see if by "broadly construed" ArbCom merely meant all Pinnipeds, or if they are inclined to include all ocean bound mammals? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: ", I do not side with GG " is complete and utter bullocks. You cannot go a week without making another 10000 word push on why we cannot follow the absolutely highest quality reliable sources because they "are not fair to gamergate." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Masem, you have given talks to the gamergaters on how to edit wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam[edit]

Can we speedily close this and just get on with working on the encyclopedia? The linked to diff isn't worth this much drama. Starke Hathaway is simply mistaken in their believe that DSA510 was held to a higher standard. He obliquely violated his topic ban here, more directly here, and I think by accident here. None of that was deemed disruptive enough and nobody bothered to file an AE request. If Starke Hathaway thinks MarkBernstein is being held to a lower standard they are simply mistaken. Strongjam (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: With regards to DHeyward this is what you're looking for. — Strongjam (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: To be clear, are you talking about the link that MarkBernstein posted, or the link that was posted on his talk page? — Strongjam (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: Thanks for the clarification. In that case I think PeterTheFourth should be trouted. Links that contain personal attacks on editors are not appropriate for linking to on WP. — Strongjam (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: To jog your memory
  • You blocked DHeyward for BLP violations and FORUMing previously.
And recently:
I considered filing an AE request about the last two, but decided to leave it considering how much drama we've had here.
Strongjam (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@DHeyward: turning
  • "Far from women and people of color serving as a shield for white men, it’s white male journalists who — slowly, imperfectly, all too infrequently — often act as a sadly necessary shield for women and people of color who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it."
Into
  • white male journalists ... who take the risk of speaking out....
Is not OK. It changes the meaning of the quote.

Strongjam (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Starship.paint[edit]

Is anyone reading what @EvergreenFir: has written?

There are two scenarios here. Either posting a link to his personal blog about GamerGate violates the topic ban, or it does not. Could we make it explicitly clear? If it violates the topic ban, at the very minimum MarkBernstein should be given a final warning, if not harsher punishment. There is another AE request up above, now closed, regarding MarkBernstein posting a link to his blog. He should clearly know better. If it does not violate the topic ban, let's just inform MarkBernstein so he can continue posting such links as and when or wherever he likes.

And has MarkBernstein's Sea Lions of Wikipedia comment escaped scrutiny as well, even if linking his blog post is permissible? Sea Lions are clearly a reference to GamerGate. MarkBernstein has already said he's winning. That's because we are letting him get away with it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: And a remark about sea lions is off-wikipedia? Umm, it was posted on his talk page ... and he chose to reference pretty much the most prominent (19 March EDIT: one single?) animal associated with GamerGate. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: - as for other animals associated with GamerGate, honestly I don't know of any. I only know GamerGate sponsored a sea lion, nothing about other animals. Their other mascot is a girl, I believe - but I'm not a GamerGate expert, yeah. My language (the most prominent) was slightly imprecise as well, sorry. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by coldacid[edit]

@Starship.paint: I think without further clarification, Mark Bernstein should be free to link his own blog on his user or user talk pages, but without reference to areas for which he is under an active topic ban. Simply linking his posts, fine. Commentary like "sea lions of Wikipedia" (a clear reference to GamerGate), not fine.

In addition, as EvergreenFir points out, this behaviour from Bernstein is getting needlessly WP:POINTy by now. Yes, there are other editors gunning for him, but the disruption wouldn't be nearly as bad if he didn't keep tiptoeing the line in front of them, and pouring fuel on the flames of this drama. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem[edit]

Noting that the link put on Mark's page by Peter includes things that call me out as an editor directly (and incorrectly as well, I do not side with GG so calling me a sea lion is flat out wrong), I would have just considered Mark's reply simply needed a trout, a slip of the mind that would have gone through the cracks if people were not hounding him.

But the replies to this complaint show something more. I highlight this part of Gamaleil's statement below: If your aim is to edit an encyclopedia, you are welcome here. If your aim to be the Gamergate police cracking down on the SJWs, you are not. This needs to also work in the other direction - If one's aim here is to criticize and condemn GG, and fight to protect victims of GG (beyond what BLP requires us to do), that's the same problem that should not be welcomed on WP. And Mark's attitude here falls right into line with this. We're back at the neutrality issue that started the ArbCom case, that editors are too involved ideologically or emotionally that they are not editing in the expected behavior for a neutral, impartial encyclopedia, creating the battleground mentality that started the case. This idea works both ways (pro and anti-GG) - it's just easier to deal with the side that comes from pro-GG because they are the new/SPA accounts that have easier behavior to call out.

Again, I don't think this specific instance needs anything more than a warning to Mark (as well as others). But we need ArbCom to be clear that Wikipedia should not be considered a part of the larger GG battleground for either side, and that editors using WP to engage in that should be considered disruptive. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: One post at the site is titled "Sea Lion Emeritus Masem is Not Animatronic. We Swear!" and goes to mock my discussion contributions. Now, being fully aware that Poe's law could be in play and we could be talking about a parody site, I'm also fully aware of the language that proponents on both sides of the issue write, and this is far from just being parody. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Strongjam: That's from the link Peter posted to Mark's page. Not sure if that's the link Gamaliel was specifically talking about in that request. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: I don't doubt that that you have no hand involved in the link Peter gave, I read it that Gamaliel was looking for disparaging comments from that site (and if not, then we should be aware what type of commentary is at that cite). It was not my intention to claim that you wrote on that specific site, if that's how it came out which I apologize if that did. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: As I noted, I thought you might have been talking about what that link is, which is not the case that I can see now. While the site directly does not involve Mark's actions, it's important to note his reply on Wikipedia that uses the language of site , which itself it mocking in tone, is part of his continued behavior problems. And we do sometimes redact links that are known to be sites that only engage in BLP violations as we would gross copyright violating sites. I would argue this one falls into that. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: The language of the standard sanction for GG (which I don't think Mark is under but I think should be considered the scope of that topic ban) includes not making any edit about Gamergate (doesn't make distinction about where on WP save for ArbCom). The language "Sea lions" in the context of Mark's reply to Peter is definitely about Gamergate. As I note, I see this as a troutable slip for the instance, but part of a larger behavior issue to consider. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The above addition by tRPoD about my participation ([4]) demonstrates the battleground attitude that still persists in the GG situation on WP today. I do not support any of the claimed GG goals or their approach, but I also don't support taking the tone that the press has taken in reporting GG when we are supposed to be neutral and impartial as an encyclopedia. That in no way makes me proGG, but this is unfortunately what (outside WP) the situation has become - if you don't side to speak up against GG, you must be supporting them. (and vice versa when talking about supporting GG). There are many many more sides to this (including a number of editors on WP that simply want a neutral article that recognizes the bias that the press has here and acknowledged in the previous RFC) There are editors like Mark that, based on their conversations, appear to only be here to condemn GG which will never get us to a neutral article. The attitude of a "us vs them" is a poisonious battleground mentality that needs to be stopped. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Please show the diff of my contributions that are directing gamergaters how to edit WP. All my contributions on WP are in the open, and I've mentioned before the only interaction directly I've had with anyone proGG was a reddit message to briefly explain the issue with reliable sources. This is otherwise a personal attack, asserting that I'm leading GG to edit here, and a continuation of the battleground mentality to assume that I'm not "with" the side against GG. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

With permission from uninvolved adminstrator, I only note that MarkBernstein uses a term of disparagement that was used with respect to Orlando Thargor and me. MarkBernstein has falsely accused me of offsite collusion and refuses to disclose his link (because it's false, I presume) but freely links and makes on-wiki comments on external sites that disparage other editors in violation of both his 90 day GamerGate topic ban and his indefinite interaction ban. My only request has been that he stop. Nothing tried so far seems to work. --DHeyward (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel Starship.paint addressed it above. I don't know exactly what a "sea lions of wikipedia" is but I've read the link, read how I was mentioned and I've read MarkBernstein's comment and that term is disparaging. Why he thinks it would be appropriate to use that term on Wikipedia to refer to editors is beyond me[5]. And yes, it's a silly talk page comment. I'm sure everyone has made worse. But not by someone with same reputation, block, tban, iban, warnings and board discussions as MarkBernstein. And I'd prefer that if you are going to sanction or not, that you leave it as a recommendation. --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam You are incorrect about Chu. You seem to have misunderstood Arthur Chu's whole point. You didn't even read the source before reverting and it was quite disheartening when you actually posted that you didn't read the article before you reverted and argued about it. The exact quote after telling us what you thought he said: "Self-reply.. I hate the slate website. Turns out you have to scroll down before it loads the rest of the article." -Strongjam Imagining what he said and reading what he said is not the same. --DHeyward (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam As for Chu, his whole article is about how #NotYourShield was established to silence white, male defenders (journalists) from speaking out against GamerGate. He made the case that they are necessary voices. He also said they take great risk in speaking out against women and minorities (aka the #NotYourShield people) and too often stay silent. Your quote highlights it quite nicely. Yes, women and minorities take risks but that's not Chu's point in that article. It's all about his assessment that #NotYourShield was trying to silence white, male journalists that fear speaking out against #NotYourShield because of the potential backlash against them for speaking out against women and minorities. Your vision of what you want him to say is not what he said. In any case, there is nothing that I said that is a BLP or any other infraction though you may wish to rethink the prism you are viewing this through. --DHeyward (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc Making a "no link" rule that only applies to user MarkBernstein making links is simply ignoring the topic ban he is under.

Gamaliel a better solution is to also put his talk page under discretionary sanctions regarding gamerGate related material so it's not a focal point for disruption. It can expire when his topic ban expires. There is no reason for any editor to bring offsite/onsite/anysite, gamergate links to his talkpage while he is topic banned and editors, not limited to just MarkBernstein should be sanctioned for encouraging him to violate his topic ban by doing so. --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc, EvergreenFir, and Gamaliel: If PtF's post to MB's talk page is not a violation, MB's talkpage will become an aggregator site for such links - only without comment by MB (or deletion if he chooses). That will become a problem just like it's a problem now. It's not hard to put a notice. It's better to discourage it, then allow it. Articles aren't policed more when they have warnings, they are policed less. That's the point of the sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: as was noted, "under normal circumstances..." but that isn't where we are. This isn't a blanket ban on links anywhere, just his talk page. That is what started this, not links by MB. Why would you want to allow editors to drop GamerGate links on his talk page? There is no project benefit, only downside (like being here the next time). --DHeyward (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: The problem was PtF posted a link and a comment. MB replied with a comment. MB's link was less of a problem than his comment. Do we really need baiting links on his talk page attracting the bus of GG editors? If he replies without a link, is that okay? The answer, of course, is no. Therefore nip it in the bud. "Don't post GamerGate stuff to MBs talk page." It only causes disruption and has no value to building the encyclopedia. Editors can ping him to their page if they want him to see stuff but his talk page shouldn't be the aggregate site. It will only bring us back here eventually. --DHeyward (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by squiggleslash[edit]

You're going to keep getting these reports about every minor infraction MB may have committed as long as you make it clear there's a chance you'll act against him, and little chance those promoting the conflict will get sanctioned. And I say "You're going to keep getting" because you already are. The current gender controversies topic ban is itself an example.

  • Repeal topic ban. It was never justified. (MB, maybe it'd help if you filed a formal appeal against it, or did you and I missed it?)
  • Add Starke Hathaway to the TIBAN (is that a term?) that already applies between MB, Thargor Orlando, and DHeywood.

You can continue to do what you're doing, but it isn't working. You can do what the hoards of offsite trolls are trying to get you to do, but that's happened once already, Arbcom did what they wanted them to do, and, well, here we are. Not that anyone that's part of the Wikipedia establishment will ever admit it might, possibly, have been just a slight possible misjudgment, to sanction people trying to protect Wikipedia from trolls for edit warring. --Squiggleslash (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz[edit]

Just so we are absolutely clear, this is about a link on MB's talk page to his website he offered in response to a comment by another editor. That's all, there was no discussion of GamerGate on a GG-related article or talk page? I'll admit that MB can be provocative but this "it can't go a week without an editor filing a complaint about Bernstein" routine is getting ridiculous. It borders on stalking behavior by the filing parties. The worst part is that it seems like this behavior will continue and they'll keep throwing metaphorical spaghetti at the wall until something sticks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a link to a website. And a remark about sea lions is off-wikipedia and ARBCOM didn't seem to care about off-wiki content when they came to their case FOFs and decisions. If they had included consideration of off-site harassment, the results of the case would have been quite different. And considering that DHeyward can't stop talking about Bernstein on multiple user talk pages, that seems like a much clearer violation of a tban/iban than posting a link to ones website on ones own user talk page.. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Ched, I can't see exactly what you are objecting to. That Bernstein shared a link to his website to another editor on his own talk page? Do you seriously think this is about website traffic or publicity? Bernstein has been quoted in some national publications, I don't think sharing a link on a Wikipedia talk page has anything to do with notoriety. Does this mean anyone sharing a link to an off-site website or blog they are involved in in the context of a discussion is self-promoting? If so, I see a lot of user pages, including some admins, who share a link to their off-site websites.
I get that admins are tired of seeing GamerGate related incidents come to AN/I and AE. I think we all are. But can't you also see at this point that this is a war of attrition? If Bernstein receives a longer block, it won't be an end to these proceedings, those on one side of the dispute will just go on to the next active, outspoken editor who involves themselves in editing these articles. After all of the numerous topic bans and blocks, can't you see that it isn't a matter of a few bad apples? There will always be new editors coming to these article pages who see it as a battleground. Discretionary sanctions help but you can expect these problems to continue given the way the GamerGate case ended. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
starship.paint, first, the most prominent animal associated with GamerGate? Before I saw a link of the blog referred to which was posted by another editor on Bernstein's user talk page, I didn't know that there were any animals associated with this consumer revolt. What are the others? Secondly, I've seen the original cartoon about sea lions and it is about individuals who incessantly interrupt conversations with faux concerns, a behavior that doesn't seem specific to GamerGate but is about fruitless debates on the internet with people who are not listening to what you are saying and who continually raise objections. It applies as much to Wikipedia as an editing environment as it does to GamerGate. Finally, I see that I was incorrect, Bernstein did mention the term "sea lions" on his user talk page but the comment was primarily a link pointing to an off-Wikipedia blog post and, again, he was responding to another editor's use of the term. But my language was imprecise for which I apologize. Liz Read! Talk! 15:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent[edit]

Please impose the maximum duration siteban allowed by discretionary sanctions.

Apparently MarkBernstein is some kind of journalist / blogger / activist out there. Don't know, don't care. Here he's not here to build the encyclopedia; he here's for WP:SELFPROMOTION, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and make a WP:POINT, as evidenced by his talk page statement A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive.

Now, I generally don't worry about user / user talk pages unless it's disrupting the project.

ANI[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#Dreadstar, in which he reports Dreadstar called him a motherfucker; it's fair to say that fall short of the standards of WP:ADMINACCT, and as another editor once remarked NE Ent may be a lot of things, but an apologist for admin is not one of them. I'm also a veteran with 1K WQA and 2K ANI contributions and I've learned to look at what proceeded an event, and found Berstein suckered Dreadstar with I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter. blah blah doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, and Dreadstar unfortunately fell for it, interpreting the comment as saying he supported rape. Of course, there's enough blah blah so Bernstein can act all innocent 'I never said you supported rape.' Note also how the portion of his comment his posted on ANI omits the "I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter." beginning of the comment.

Notice also the statement "The topic ban itself is, in my view, neither just nor expedient. I do not raise that question here; I may raise it elsewhere." which begs the question why is it in the ANI thread if he's not raising it? The Mark Antony "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." shtick was clever when Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar (play) but its transparently lame in 2015. After I close the turkey of a thread with Bernstein's suggested wording he then absurdly asks "If the intent was not to lift the ban, why adopt my proposed phrasing of rolling back to Sunday morning -- before the ban?". Therefore his proposed wording was to lift the ban which was not the subject of the ANI.

ARCA[edit]

Next came the "clarification request" which asked an obvious question, and served as a topic ban breaching WP:COATRACK 10 March Statement WP:SPAMLINKing Bernstein's own blog "benefit our pals," and more fodder for his off-wiki activities [6].

Emailabuse[edit]

Policy on email is WP:EMAILABUSE. NE Ent 02:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning MarkBernstein[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Topic bans are supposed to prevent disruption, not create drama through hyperscrutiny and a resulting flood of complaints. Let me give you an example: Two days ago, YellowSandals violated his topic ban here. None of you editors constantly complaining about MarkBernstein made a peep about it, and obviously some of you saw it. I ignored it just like you did, and that's what you should also do here. (For the record, I felt the same about DungeonSiegeAddict510 and advised only a trouting in that case.) If your aim is to edit an encyclopedia, you are welcome here. If your aim to be the Gamergate police cracking down on the SJWs, you are not. Mark Bernstein is officially trouted - if there is such a thing - and advised to keep such chats off wiki whenever possible. Gamaliel (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: "Policy says, discuss Wikipedia on Wikipedia unless there's a pressing, exceptional situation that makes discussion impossible." That exceptional situation would be your topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: If you object to the topic ban, you are welcome to appeal it in the appropriate forum. This is not the appropriate forum, but you are welcome to open another request challenging the topic ban on this page. Regardless of whatever grievance you may have, you are not free to violate the topic ban. I hope that is clear. Gamaliel (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
For the record, since the comment left by YellowSandals appeared to be a direct personal attack aimed at me - I chose to ignore it. Yes I saw it, but if I had blocked for that it would have given the perception of being retaliatory in nature. I'm not able to review the other things properly to add any more beyond that. — Ched :  ?  15:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Huh. I thought he was talking about me and didn't block for the same reason. That's almost hilarious. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Could you identify the admin? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Strongjam addressed the above question. I've read the link. Can you identify the disparaging comments? I feel like I'm missing something here. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • At some point, this all has to end. How many enforcement requests are we up to against Mark? How many warnings has he had? How many times has he been asked nicely to stop commenting on his opponents and comment on content instead? Probably more than any other editor in this topic area. This is the second time he's been topic-banned, and not the first time he's violated a topic ban. Yes, he is probably under more scrutiny than most editors in the topic area (though, while I don't condone one group of editors training their sights on another editor, it is MB's own actions that have led to that scrutiny), but at some point the question has to be: does the problem lie with a small army of editors filing enforcement requests (and even with admins issuing warnings and sanctions), or with a single editor who doesn't seem to want to heed advice, warnings, sanctions, or anything else? At this point, I think Mark has been extended all the rope that is reasonable and more, but has carried on regardless. I can't see how this is any different to the situation with the last topic ban (which was later lifted, although Mark was twice blocked and repeatedly warned for violating it), or to DSA510 (who similarly showed no inclination to separate himself from the topic area). What irks me most is that these editors aren't making good edits in the mainspace that are being met with frivolous enforcement requests, but politicking on talk pages and in the projectspace. I think Mark has the potential to be an incredibly valuable contributor (I think the same of DSA and several other 'problem editors' in the topic area), but his continued participation with regards to gamergate is not conducive to progress, and he has shown no inclination to change the way he participates. Given all of that, I recommend a one-month block, as with DSA510. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If there actually are disparaging comments at this link I support this action. As for the rest, there is plenty of blame to go around here, which is what makes this conflict so intractable. Both sides are holding themselves blameless while incessantly complaining about the other side. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • DHeyward obviously takes offence at the "Sea Lions of Wikipedia unite!" comment, which he seems to believe is directed at him; regardless of its intended recipient, it's not a constructive comment. It does nothing to make the project a better place and it does nothing to improve the encyclopaedia.

    Mark: You've been repeatedly asked to stop commenting on editors, or to put it another way to focus your energies on the encyclopaedia and not your opponents. Contrary to what you seem to believe, it is possible to believe in good faith that gamergate is not the root of all evil. It's also possible to criticise your conduct in good faith. I've never seen, for example, DHeyward or Thargor Orlando intentionally libel anyone, and I haven't seen you file an enforcement request against either of them for doing so. You didn't stop, and Dreadstar imposed a topic ban—you can disagree with it, but you're bound by it unless and until you successfully appeal it. And even that hasn't prompted you to refocus on the encyclopaedia. I don't want to block you, but everything else has been tried and still you persist; I'm wondering if you're trying to get blocked, quite frankly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I concur with a lot of what you've said here. MarkBernstein obviously feels the topic ban is unjust and it appears to me that such feelings are prompting him to respond in a less than productive manner. I see that he has formally appealed the topic ban below, which I hope is a sign that he is channeling his energies in an appropriate direction that is more compatible with encyclopedia editing. Gamaliel (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • IMO, this isn't about Gamergate, abuse directed at Zoe, TBAN, IBAN, or anything other than using Wikipedia as an SEO bump for markbernstein.org (linked many times in previous threads, often seen as [#] rather than spelled out.) which gets that website a higher slot in google searches. Mark doesn't "attack" individual editors in the WP:NPA sense on wiki. He's cautious of his language, and intelligent in his presentations. He's able to do quality article work here. But riding the coattails of the Gamergate fiasco to promote a website isn't what we should be doing here. Yes, entire websites (ED, Wikipediocracy, and others) have plenty of martyrs (see Harry's link to WP:SBA above) who revel in any divisiveness on wiki. I also see that below. Mark (again) posts excerpts from an email, and I don't recall seeing permission from Dreadstar to do that. (although I did read an apology that Dreadstar offered ON-wiki for something he (Dreadstar) had said OFF-wiki, due to a possible mis-understanding of intent.) I always understood that posting email contents was not allowed, but once again so very close to the "lines" - it is done so without the headers, so I guess he gets a pass on that as well. Perhaps we could lift all restrictions everywhere. Perhaps we could block for WP:NOTHERE. It seems to me that this particular drama-monster has an insatiable appetite, - and me, personally - well I'm done "feeding" it. — Ched :  ?  23:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the current practice here: We delete and forbid links directly to personal attacks, but we don't ban entire websites for such things. For example, if someone posted a link to an attack on me on Wikipediocracy (which happens there daily, it seems like), then I could demand its removal, but I can't demand removal of all links to Wikipediocracy anywhere on Wikipedia. So MB should not link to that particular blog post but is free to link to other entires. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: It's been pointed out to me that the blog post "Sea Lion Emeritus Masem is Not Animatronic. We Swear!" is not on Mark Bernstein's blog, but on a different blog not linked to or written by him. So what does this have to do with Mark Bernstein? Gamaliel (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: Let's focus only on actions taken by Mark Bernstein here. There's enough drama to keep track of. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: That is an excellent solution, so of course no one will be satisfied. If we imposed such a ban, we should make it clear that it only applies to MB himself, so no one comes here demanding sanctions on MB if someone else drops a link on his user talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Do we think just a ban from linking to the website or a topic ban from it (hence including, linking to, mentioning and discussing) would work best? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
At this time, I oppose placing any ban other than one restricting him from posting a link to his own blog. Anything broader than that I fear would prompt attempts to goad him into violating the ban or a flurry of complaints about "violations" that were nothing more than him making remarks here that were vaguely similar to ones on his blog. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy with that, HJ Mitchell do you have a preference regarding this ban or the block you recommended? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • While we're here DHeyward suggested on my talk page that I prohibit anyone discussing GamerGate on MB's talk page. I'm not sure whether we're able to do that (how far that option in the page-level sanctions section of the DS page extended) and whether it would be effective (given the difficulty in advertising and being reasonable while also enforcing it). What are other's thoughts on this? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what problem this solution is supposed to address. He's already topic banned. How would we enforce this? We'd have to constantly monitor the page and warn lots of users. And why? Gamaliel (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @DHeyward: So? It's one thing to say that an editor with a history of disruption cannot act disruptively in a particular way, it is quite another to blanket ban everyone from doing so regardless of whether or not they are acting appropriately, which is essentially what this would do. Unless the links contain personal attacks or information that constitutes outing, then posting them should not be banned. Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @DHeyward: I am willing to try unorthodox sanctions, but a sanction requires the identification of a problem and an explanation of how the sanction would address that problem. I see neither. Gamaliel (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Callanecc: I think it's beyond the scope of this request to say what others can and cannot say on MB's talk page; (beyond the normal WP policies) - and - MB should be allowed to respond ON .. HIS .. TALK - IFF he is allowed to remain editing after the various violations he's gone through. Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the first bit, but this was the best place to bring it up. Regarding your second point, if you're topic banned you're topic banned period from everywhere per the policy. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Dr Bernstein has not only shown no intent to cease his disruptive comments, but has referred to his opponents as "the armies of Mordor" in a post below. If he's not even going to tone it down at AE, where his conduct is under scrutiny, he's certainly not going to do so on talk pages in the topic area. For me, this is the rather large straw that broke the already overloaded camel's back. We wouldn't tolerate this of any other editor who had been repeatedly warned and sanctioned, especially not at AE itself, so I fail to see why Dr Bernstein should be any different. Imagine, for a moment, if this was Israel-Palestine and we had an editor making inflammatory comments like this and referring to the other side as the "armies of Mordor"—I can't imagine they'd last very long. At the end of the day, this is a project to create an encyclopaedia, not a battleground. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, I'd we close this with the TBAN and the one month block and make it clear that linking to pages offwiki which relate to an area you are topic banned from is a violation of that topic ban. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree. — Ched :  ?  05:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed. He does not know when to stop digging, unfortunately. The ability to know when to step back is often one of the greatest assets to a productive editor. Gamaliel (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sceptre[edit]

Consensus appears to be against any further action (beyond the one-month block which resulted from an ANI thread) at this time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 25 March 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 Sceptre[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Iselilja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Sceptre (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/Sexology#Discretionary_sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 16 March 2015 Personal attack: Says she opposes James Cantor's presence and his friends crackpot theories.
  2. 16 March 2015 Personal attack (implicit BLP violation): "you and your child abusing friends can fuck the hell away from it"
  3. 20 March 2015 Upholds PA/implicit BLP violations at ANI "didn't say that your colleague was a child molester, I said he was a child abuser
  4. 20 March 2015 Upholds accusations at own user talk page after block: "I personally don't think we should extend civility to child abusers and their sycophants"
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  • Has a long block log for incivility, personal attack, breaches of topic ban etc.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Sceptre was a party of the original Sexology case, and has also been notified on a clarifying motion 25 September 2014 . She has been sanctioned in the transgender area previously for breaking a topic ban relating to Manning. See block log above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

User has in connection with the latest blow-up committed direct libel against Kenneth Zucker, a merited academic. This libel has been oversighted. Sceptre edited Kenneht Zucker's BLP right after she committed libel against him, which she may go back to again unless a topic ban is placed. Editors should not edit articles on BLPs they repeatedly make deragatory and libelous comments about. (In addition to the oversighted direct libels; there are "indirect" libels where Zucker is not mentioned by name; but referred to as " your friend" or similar. I think a topic ban for the full transgender topic is in order.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Replies:

  • My request is as I mentioned in the last sentence "a topic ban for the full transgender topic". Sorry if I should have put this another place; I am not used to filling out AE requests. At a very minimum, a ban on the Kenneth Zucker is needed; since Sceptre has on several occasions committed direct or indirect libel against that person. It would simply be irresponsible and disrespectul to the BLP object to let Sceptre continue to edit that article. My impression is that Sceptre's recent PAs/BLP violations is very much tied to the topic area where they have a strong emotional involvement, so as such I don't request a total ban (allthough I notice that Sceptre had some problem respecting the Manning topic ban). Iselilja (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ANI discussion. In my view, there was a clear majority of commenters who either wanted a full ban or a topic ban, something the closer did not comment on. Iselilja (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ched What are you implying here "Certainly the topic of child abuse is bound to raise the emotion levels of most (if not all) people, and I would hate to think that any of the folks here would ever be supportive of such a thing ? Calling for Kenneth Zucker to be treated with the same respect we expect other BLP subjects to treated with at Wikipedia should in no way be interpreted as a defence for child abuse. Zucker is a merited academic whose two most cited papers deals exactly with child abuse. To refer to a BLP as a child abuser can simply not be defended; unless they are actually convicted for it; or regularly referred to in RS as a child abuser. That's totally not the case for Zucker. Iselilja (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • My first comment on the need for a topic ban for Sceptre was made at ANI when Sceptre still had a shorter block (72 hours). I don't think the fact that the block has later been prolonged (one month) makes the need for a topic ban any lesser; the topic ban is meant to last much more than a month. The argument that I am deliberately trying to push this while Sceptre is away is just nonsense. My push for this is caused by the nature of Sceptre's behaviour in the topic area. Also, I said in that first comment of mine, that I believed the right place to deal with the question of a topic ban would be AE. (Unfortunately, I can't link to that comment, because the diff has been oversighted, as a result of the oversight that was needed for Sceptre's libelous comments, but the comment can be found in the general ANI thread linked above) Iselilja (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


Discussion concerning Sceptre[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 Sceptre[edit]

Statement by (uninvolved) coldacid[edit]

@Iselilja: What is it you're looking for in this enforcement request? The recent AN/I discussion put the block on Sceptre based on the behaviour around the first three diffs you provided, and added a talk page block over the fourth. I saw your comment that followed the closing of that discussion at AN/I, but you don't say anything in your request here about what you actually want done. I'd suggest that you update your request to specify the desired outcome here.

That said, after going through the AN/I discussion, Sceptre's edit history, and their block log, I'd say that Sceptre's behaviour around this issue certainly seems like grounds for a topic ban. I'd suggest that an admin put Sceptre under an indefinite topic ban for all pages related to the sexology case. I offer no thoughts or opinions on the idea of an indefinite block of the user, but suggest that anyone taking up the idea at least review the AN/I discussion. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 23:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Iselilja: If the issue here is BLP vios, Sceptre can already be topic banned from editing BLP pages via discretionary sanctions authorized by WP:NEWBLPBAN by any admin, it just needs to be brought to AN/I for attention. I have to agree with both NE Ent and Ched; this is just trying to push something through while Sceptre is away. If there are BLP issues on Kenneth Zucker then revert or remove them, ask for oversight help if there's anything that needs scrubbed even from the article history. Other than that, let the block run its course. If something needs to be done about Sceptre's behaviour after their return, then file an AE request. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent[edit]

Sceptre is blocked without talk page access for the attack and multiple administrators have already commented in the AN/I. This is just your basic WP:FORUMSHOP. NE Ent 23:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Stalwart111[edit]

I'm mostly uninvolved, though I commented at the end of the ANI thread. I wanted to fist address the block log (though not in detail) - the most recent block (not relating to this particular issue) was last year and was quickly reverted by the blocking admin per WP:INVOLVED. The one prior to that the year before. We're not talking about an editor with constant blocks and the blocks aren't for the the same thing.

I suppose my biggest concern is that while the comments in question are a personal attack (when directed at another editor) they aren't automatically a BLP violation just because that editor happens to be the subject of an article here. It's a ridiculous double-jeopardy to say someone who personally attacks another editor is doubly guilty if that editor happens to be notable enough IRL to warrant an article. The other "BLP violation" relates to Dr Zucker who reliable sources have accused of "child abuse" in unequivocal terms. Sceptre repeated those accusations. Andrea James is just one such reliable source (with an article here) who has accused Zucker of child abuse. That doesn't make it correct, nor does it make Sceptre's comment appropriate in the context of his discussions (such as they were) with Cantor. But topic-banning editors for repeating what has been published by reliable sources is a slippery slope. It doesn't give Sceptre a "free pass" to tar fellow editors with the same brush for supporting Zucker, though. Even the most supportive articles in local press still call Zucker a "controversial doctor" and that controversy is for a reason. Stlwart111 06:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Pudeo but when you choose to edit here without the protection of anonymity (which is freely offered and militantly upheld) you open yourself to scrutiny for your edits here and your commentary and well-published views elsewhere. Again, that shouldn't be considered an aggravating factor in determining the extent of the punishment dished out here (especially given sanctions are designed to be preventative, not punitive, anyway). Stlwart111 03:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo[edit]

The personal attack is probably as low as you can go without direct threats. Very sorry that someone who edits with their real life name and photo should be abused like that in Wikipedia. Either the case is that the editor completely lost control for this incident and is excepted to remedy it in a month. The other option is that they wanted to be blocked (a Wikipedia version of suicide by cop I suppose), given that they continued the same behavior in a blunt way before being revoked talk page access. It seems to be rather serious poisoning of the well. Frankly, it would be unfair if James Cantor would be expected to just collaborate with this editor on sexology topics like nothing happened. No, he shouldn't have to.--Pudeo' 15:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Sceptre[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I won't speak to the merits of this; but, I will say that I'm not a fan of In absentia findings. I prefer to wait until User:Sceptre is able to speak on her own behalf. I'll also note that I consider it likely that there were some very major misunderstandings in the cross-talk of text throughout this entire unfortunate affair. Certainly the topic of child abuse is bound to raise the emotion levels of most (if not all) people, and I would hate to think that any of the folks here would ever be supportive of such a thing. I think it's best we put this on the back-burner for now and wait for some calm rational thought to be restored to the subject. If, at the time when Sceptre's block expires, there is a need to pursue a topic ban, then we can revisit this request at that time. — Ched :  ?  23:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Iselilja, my frame of reference is this AN/I thread, and I'm not prepared to discuss Zucker or the issues therein because I haven't researched that particular topic at any great length. My comments should in no way be construed as any reflection on either Zucker or those editing that page. My comments above should be taken as a very "general" view of the situation at hand, and not as any particular reflection aimed at any individual. — Ched :  ?  00:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand why Iselilja brought this here, it is likely that the longer term aspects weren't considered and/or that the existence of DS to TBAN wasn't considered. But I don't see a reason to also impose a TBAN at this stage, especially while they are already blocked. If the behaviour continues when they come back from their block it's likely to be dealt with by a much longer block and/or a TBAN. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Callanecc and User:Ched have opposed issuing a topic ban at this time. They both prefer to wait and see what happens when Sceptre's one month block expires. After Sceptre returns to editing, if a ban turns out to be needed it can be issued by any admin under the discretionary sanctions without needing a trip back to AE. If it were up to me, I could see the case for a six month ban but won't issue one without other admins being in support. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Galestar[edit]

Standard 12 month GG topic ban by Gamaliel. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:31, 26 March 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 Galestar[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Woodroar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Galestar (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 :

Continued ignoring and editing against consensus, removing unsourced material from lede, adding undue material to lede, pushing a POV.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 13 March 2015 removed "misogynistic" from lede, was reverted and told to take to Talk as this was against consensus. Editor started a discussion on Talk which is still ongoing, but consensus remains that the attacks (at least) are widely described in reliable sources as misogynistic.
  2. 22:45, 17 March 2015 removed "misogynistic" from lede
  3. 22:52, 17 March 2015 removed "misogynistic" from lede
  4. 23:53, 17 March 2015 removed "misogynistic" from lede, added ref to lede, was blocked for 48 hours for 1RR violation
  5. 18:05, 23 March 2015 removed "misogynistic" from lede
  6. 18:10, 23 March 2015 reverted archive template from discussion, but didn't actually contribute any more to the discussion
  7. 04:44, 24 March 2015 added unnecessary sources to the lede
  8. 15:42, 24 March 2015 added undue "and ethics in videogame journalism" to the lede
  9. 16:29, 24 March 2015 added undue "impossible to separate honest criticism from trolling" sentence to lede

Galestar also appears to be pushing a POV on other articles:

  1. 18 March 2015 removing "equality" from Feminism
  2. 18 March 2015 adding unsourced opinion that "feminism often promotes misandry"
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 18 March 2015 first sanctions block
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Editor was informed about sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[7]

Discussion concerning Galestar[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 Galestar[edit]

  • #1, #2, #3, #4 I've already been blocked for violating 1RR.
  • #5 I performed as perceived consensus on the talk page by the discussion being closed.
  • #6 After my edit was reverted I proceeded back to the talk page to clarify. Turns out section was closed by an involved editor, without following any kind of procedure other than "I declare that I win". Contrary to this report, I did continue to contribute to the discussion (and so did many others). It is obvious that there is no consensus.
  • #7, #8, #9 Attempting to accurately summarize the article as per WP:LEDE

Which policy am I being accused of violating that would warrant arbitration? Galestar (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Since there definitely wasn't any consensus to keep the wording as is, I interpreted the closure of the discussion as deference to my arguments. Otherwise this would be an involved editor closing a discussion without reaching consensus. WP:HORSEMEAT is an essay, however WP:CLOSE is "communal consensus" which is stronger. There is a process for closing discussions, and it was not followed. I'm not sure how you can point the finger at me for reopening an improperly closed discussion that did not have consensus. If that was a violation then anyone could go around claiming WP:HORSEMEAT on discussions they disagreed with and no-one could discuss anything.

Anyways, that's all I'll say in my defense. No more feeding the trolls. Galestar (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: As I have noted elsewhere, I do not believe that edit was in violation of my ban. Can you please check the timestamps again? Galestar (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Being an SPA Temporarily focusing on a single topic, or taking breaks from Wiki are not bannable offences. Please stop flinging these accusations. Galestar (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Thank you for confirming that I did not violate my ban - everyone else has simply laid on accusations and not cared to hear my defense. Galestar (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Yes. I know now that I was in violation of WP:ILLEGIT, if not the ban. It will not happen again. Galestar (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have also reverted the single edit by that other account. I have no other accounts. Galestar (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz[edit]

Woodroar was quite clear, Galestar, the guidelines are DS for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate and the violations are continued ignoring and editing against consensus, removing unsourced material from lede, adding undue material to lede, pushing a POV. These assertions go beyond a 1RR violation. Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Woodroar[edit]

@Galestar: the Talk page section was closed at 04:29, 22 March 2015 with closing remarks of WP:HORSEMEAT and lots of glue have been the product of this discussion. That said, the Colbert quote was changed and Masem did raise some potentially viable alternative wording. Would recommend we start a fresh discussion about the wording if that's still an issue and allow this very messy section to be closed as the original topic as ceased being discussed. Immediately prior to your revert, we had numerous requests to close the section. Given these facts, I'm not sure how your edit at 18:05, 23 March 2015 reflects any amount of "perceived consensus on the talk page by the discussion being closed", or your claims that the section was closed "without following any kind of procedure". Similarly, your addition of sources and undue sections to the lede shows that you're simply ignoring or dismissing consensus and seek only to push a POV. Furthermore, remarks like thisCan "attacks" even be misogynistic? Do the attacks themselves hate women? The sentence doesn't even make any sense. Why does everyone want to keep it so badly when its an obvious grammatical failure and sensationalist headline?—appear to show that you don't care much at all about gaining consensus or reliable sourcing in general. Woodroar (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]

Just commenting to second what Liz said. Clear case of disruptive editing and violations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the sockpuppetry and the fact this user is an SPA zombie account, recommend tban. The sock was used to comment on feminism, which is covered by the GG ruling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Galestar: - No, but that in addition to your other behaviors make them even more egregious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jorm[edit]

Agree with Liz and EvergreenFir. This user is continuing in the grand pattern of previous editors who engage in behaviors designed to frustrate and waste the time of productive editors in order to promote an agenda. --Jorm (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry[edit]

No comment on the merits, but a few minutes ago I discovered that Galestar evaded his last block - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Galestar where I have left notes. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam[edit]

Given the sock puppetry a tban is in order. The timing is a bit off for block evasion, block started at 04:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) only edit by the sock was 01:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC). Given that they both were editing about feminism seems like an WP:ILLEGIT use of multiple accounts . — Strongjam (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the users statements about the sock puppetry:

I'd suggest an admin have a word with them about multiple accounts. — Strongjam (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing[edit]

I think we need to hear a clear, convincing explanation from Galestar about how the use of multiple accounts falls within the boundaries of WP:VALIDALT, or a believable acknowledgement that it was against policy and an assurance that it won't happen again. And we need to hear it sharpish. "It wasn't block evasion" doesn't cut it. GoldenRing (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

ie wot Strongjam said. GoldenRing (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem[edit]

On the basis of the first removal that mimicked the previous removals that lead to the short ban, there's very little to excuse this behavior. However I will point out that the last several diffs provided at the GG page should not be seen as POV pushing or undue - at least in a manner that requires a ban. Tied with previous behavior, yes, it is a problem, but these actions in isolation should not be called "POV pushing" or "undue" as that's maintaining the battleground attitude that the page has suffered since prior to the ArbCom case and makes it difficult to discuss consensus. Any other editor that previously had not done any of those actions and made one of the same changes (and no post 1RR action) would not be violating any part of the GG restrictions. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Galestar[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • There are a long list of problematic behaviors here, any one of which would be deserving of a sanction. I am applying the standard GG topic ban: "Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." The topic ban will be lifted after twelve (12) months or when this editor demonstrates a pattern of current, non-problematic editing in other topic areas. Gamaliel (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Given the number and variety of issues, that seems a reasonable course of action to me. I might have said that the 1RR violation had been dealt with and the socking wasn't in violation of the block, but the persistence of their removal of the adjective "misogynistic" and the pointy edits at feminism clinched it for me. A topic ban seems a proportionate response. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon[edit]

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 Dicklyon[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Dicklyon (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/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions :

I would draw specific attention to remedy 1.2: "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes".

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [8] Referring to those that oppose his changes as "inane", and their opinions as "lies".
  2. Blackfriars Massacre – What happened at this article is a telling example of Dicklyon-style tactics. In this case, he unilaterally moved the page on 6 December 2014. This move was part of a huge series of concurrent moves, which I subsequently reverted per WP:BRD. The decapitalisation was subsequently discussed at a mass RM, where it was voted down. That didn't stop Dicklyon from coming back months later and trying to do the same thing again. I asked him to file an RM, and reverted his changes. He reverted me again, calling me "silly", and this time modified the redirect so that I could not change it back. I was forced to make a request at RM/TR, which ended the issue.
  3. Engages in edit-warring and move-warring in the name of what he calls "style fixes" or "maintenance". He was blocked for this, but his behaviour has not changed (see "Mud Run Disaster" moves below).
  4. [9] Referring to me as a "donkey" for asking for a reversion of his mass unilateral changes per WP:BRD at WP:RM/TR. Badgering and threatening tone.
  5. Please read the talk page section labelled "Event name RMs" at this revision of his talk page, where editors attempted to counsel Dicklyon against mass changes. His response was flippant, disregarded consensus, and showed his desired to bulldoze his favoured changes through.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Reminded on 14 May 2013. According to the sanctions log at WP:ARBATC#Enforcement log, this reminder qualifies as a notification until 3 May 2015. This seems somewhat confusing, as the modern procedure specifies one alert per 12 months. As such, I've added a modern-style DS notice today. I think that the earlier reminder should qualify as making Dicklyon alert, though, as the log say that it does not expire until May this year.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I've been tempted to file this request for a while. Dicklyon has been on a constant "style crusade" across the encylopaedia since late last year. The two issues that have been most controversial are the removal of the comma from names using the "Jr." or "Sr." suffixes, and the unilateral mass decapitalisation of various articles. His conduct in this area has been nothing but unacceptable. He has had no regard for consensus, and has continually casted WP:ASPERSIONS against editors opposed to his mass changes. His point-of-view on these editors, who he terms "zealots", can be found in this comment, which started a discussion about how to canvas editors that support his viewpoint. His effort is ongoing. Just yesterday, he made a mass of unilateral moves, modifying the redirects so that regular editors could not revert him. When I subsequently asked for a reversion of these edits at WP:RM/TR, Dicklyon began to move war to retain his favoured version, labelling the capitalisation as "junk", and necessitating a second RM/TR request. What do I want from this AE request? I simply want Dicklyon to stop this mass unilateral moves, and to stop gaming the system. There are many, many more that have gone unnoticed. These moves have caused rows at numerous pages. The RM procedure should suffice, and he should know that these changes are controversial. He moves hundreds of little-watched pages a week, with little scrutiny of his edits.

@Callanecc: An accusation of "stalking" is absurd. Where have you derived this utter nonsense from? An outrageous claim by a supposedly neutral party, with not a shred of evidence to back it. I demand that you strike it at once. I have not followed anyone anywhere. There is no problem between me and Dicklyon. I have no issue with him personally, and I presume he does not have any personal issue with me. The only issue is the hundreds of mass page moves being made without consensus, which are done in ways to game the system. The remedy 1.2 is clear on this matter. You seem to have mistaken all the evidence presented here, and have turned this into a thread about a non-existent personal dispute. I will not countenance this grave error on your part. This is not about a personal dispute, and this is not about civility. It is about ramming through hundreds of page moves, preventing reversion, preventing discussion, ignoring consensus, and labelling those who oppose his interpretation of the MoS as "zealots, &c." Strike your absurd and irrelevant comments. Please provide a solution to the problem raised, not to non-existent problems that seem to have materialised in your words and in no-one else's here. RGloucester 06:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • As far as Dicklyon's statement is concerned, it is best to ignore it. It is filled with the same falsities that he has used to make his "maintenance fixes" for months. His changes are not uncontroversial or "routine" for anyone but himself. None of his moves are. When actually subjected to consensus, they are frequently rejected. He forgets that the burden is on him to present evidence for a change from longstanding title, and not the other way around. The moves of the previous day that were reverted were all controversial, and had no evidence provided for them. His statement is filled with blatant lies. He claims that I've "stalked him" into the Jr/Sr issue, but this is so obviously false that it is clear he's just trying to make more of a mess. I have had all the MoS pages on my watchlist for longer than I've known of his existence. In fact, when other users questioned his changes at the MoS page with regard to Jr/Sr, I explicitly supported his position without engaging with him directly. He says that I "talked them into" moving Cuban Missile Crisis, when I only made a grand total of ONE comments during that move request. This type of misrepresentation is par for the course for Dicklyon. He will often say that things are "not capitalised in sources", but ignores sources when they are provided. He forces changes through, making it impossible to oppose him. Watts riots is a good example. He proposed that the page be moved three times in three months, to the point where he was just shopping for the result he wanted. Yes, he finally got Watts riots in his last move request. That's not because it should've been moved, but because all the previous participants had not been informed, and because users like me simply did not have the energy refute his false logic again. This is unacceptable. Regardless, he is right sometimes. I've supported plenty of his move requests, which one will see if one looks. That doesn't mean he gets carte blanche. This nonsense needs to stop. It is not a personal dispute, the "stalking" allegations are baseless rubbish that don't deserve to see the light of day. Ignore the lies, look at the reality. RGloucester 07:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In response to Tony1's remarks about "language", I will say that that is irrelevant. There is no difference between civil disruption and rude disruption. Call me an idiot all one likes. I'm content to be an idiot. My request has nothing to do with such nonsense. My request has to do with disruptive page moves and gaming the system. Those concerns need to be addressed. The "civility" aspect is a canard. RGloucester 03:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Dicklyon[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 Dicklyon[edit]

Probably you should go ahead and block me, for a long time, so I can stop trying to work around RGloucester this idiot. Dicklyon (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, we can talk about this. I'm getting the message that some people are not keen on my persistent effort to move things toward compliance with the MOS. But let's look at the source, and what's behind his allegations, and why he has been stalking me and fighting everything I do since December.

In early December, he reverted about 34 of my recent case fixes to article titles, mostly of riots and massacres; so I started the multiple RM at Talk:Watts_riots#Requested_moves. If you look at the articles listed there, you'll see that his errorful re-capitalization has since been corrected, by consensus in RM discussions, for the vast majority of them (looks like 24 of the 30, anyway); besides the Lager Beer Riot which I declined to pursue, the few still capitalized were mostly left that way because we were unable to arrive at a consensus in a move discussion (see closer's statement at Talk:Pullman_Strike#Requested_move_20_December_2014); all the ones that went to lowercase were due to a consensus that the MOS applies and that these terms are not usually capitalized in sources.

Now, I realize he may be pissed that he lost so many, but I'm pissed that he dragged us through so many months of discussion by so many editors where the MOS obviously applied and the move to lowercase was obviously appropriate. In the process, he said at one point that he would no longer bother with capitalization. Yet he's now stalking me again. He undid the routine moves of "XXX Disaster" articles where in each case the term has little or no support in sources for interpretation as a proper name.

And somehow he decided to stalk me to other issues, like the comma before "Jr." that I believe I pursued pretty carefully and without pissing anyone off until he started reverting me. See WP:JR and discussion such at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Comma_after_.22Jr..22.2C_.22Sr..22.2C_etc..3F and subsequent. Note that I was very open there about what I doing: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Testing_new_consensus, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Followup. More recently, a few editors have objected; in most cases I have just joined the conversations. If I acted badly with an editor besides RG who was stalking me, well, it might be that I was grumpy; but I don't recall who this would have been; point it out and I'll apologize.

As Randy Kryn notes, I taught him a few things about how WP RM processes work. He objected to some routine moves to lowercase of titles with "Civil Rights Movement" in them, and eventually prevailed in getting a consensus on his side to capitalize them even though they are not usually capitalized in sources. Did I bully or complain when he achieved that odd local consensus among history and civil rights buffs? No, I left that alone. Did I whine when he talked them into undoing the previous consensus at Cuban missile crisis and recapitalized it? Maybe a little.

So, other than being dedicated to moving toward compliance with the MOS, and some obnoxious reactions to obnoxious behavior, what awful things am I being accused of? And could someone ask RG to stop stalking me please? Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, whatever you think the right process is, note that at least 3 other editors tried to dissuade the admins from implementing RG's requested reversion of my case fixes to the "XXX Disaster" articles, and the admins held off until after that discussion was removed to talk here, and RG himself closed the discussion on the talk page. His interference in what would have been an uncontroversial set of moves, like the hundreds of others that he notes nobody has ever paid any attention to, is something noted by lots of editors besides me. If he had any basis for challenging one or more of these, we could discuss; we're doing that on a few already (see Talk:Buffalo Creek Flood#Requested move 25 March 2015, Talk:Johnstown Flood#Requested move 25 March 2015), but from past experience I know that he and the other MOS haters will object is a make a multi-RM for what should have been an uncontroversial set of moves. If I'm wrong, somebody show me that some of these are consistently capitalized in sources, as MOS:CAPS says is the criterion. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]

I made the mistake of closing an RFC about the Manual of Style, in particular about comma before Jr. That didn't resolve things, and my request for closure review at WP:AN is still open, but part of the problem is that some editors are tendentious and disruptive about MOS issues. Shortly afterward a request was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard about astronomical capitalization, in which the OP requested that DRN deal with a "disruptive RFC". That is clear evidence of disruptive editing, because either the RFC was disruptive or the DRN request was disruptive or both. In any case, I think that it is time for Arbitration Enforcement to take a strict approach to disruptive and tendentious editing about MOS issues. The subject of this request is not the only editor who has been disruptive recently about MOS issues, but the subject has made a personal attack right here in the use of the word "idiot". Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that a major issue is said to be controversial removals by Dicklyon of the comma before Jr. or Sr. On that particular point, the statement that his removal of the comma is controversial is just incorrect. The MOS states that the omission of the comma is preferred, in part because the rules about punctuation after the suffix are complicated. I have not reviewed the details of Dicklyon's requested moves to remove commas, or his actual moves to review commas, but there is nothing controversial about the removal of the comma. (There may be controversy about his tactics if he is making or requesting large numbers of moves.) Criticisms of his action in removing commas may themselves be disruptive. In any case, I submit again that it is time for Arbitration Enforcement to take a strict approach to disruptive and tendentious editing about the MOS. Dicklyon has insulted another filer, and Dicklyon's opponents are going against consensus (the MOS). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by BusterD[edit]

For the most part, I have not been part of the MOS disputes about capitalization, but I have participated in a small number of RM and talkpage discussions surrounding such on-page disputes. I have frequently noted a flippant dismissive attitude on the part of Dicklyon. It is possible I have missed it, but since I began watching these sorts of disputes, I don't remember ever seeing Dicklyon admit error or apologize for a heated disagreement. The user's apparent urgency and self-righteousness often comes across to me as arrogant and battlefield-like.

1) Here's a notice I left on talk about warnings sent Dicklyon and Red Harvest after editwarring in live pagespace. I had previously attempted to guide discussion to avoid the revert warring.
2) Because Dicklyon often blanks his usertalk page, it is difficult to show an entire discussion without other content, but here is one such about User:Blueboar's rather civil objection to the speed of Dicklyon's changes (the section titled Event name RMs). My comments here and here make several points about Dicklyon's dismissive language, including diffs.
3) The user has been blocked twice in the last two months for disruptive editing involving capitalization issues. Note the 2011 block which was given for violating 3RR on MOS (capital letters). This frequent edit warring over capitalization is ongoing and not a new behavior for this user.
4) This comment made by Dicklyon as a response in this very procedure demonstrates the user's failure to act in a civil manner when confronted with disagreement. This sort of language is ongoing and not new behavior for this user. BusterD (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Red Harvest[edit]

I became aware of Dicklyon's flippant and disruptive approach to this when he began moving some pages I was watching. He did this without discussion and reverted the moves back without discussion which has been his M.O. Various editors disagree about his criteria and approach to MOSCAPS but he blows off the concerns. When consensus is against a move he either makes it anyway, or keeps coming back to challenge it again until he can bulldoze through opposition. I'm less concerned about the actual moves (although I disagree with several and don't buy into his circular logic). I am more concerned about the abuse of process that is the norm for his edits. Red Harvest (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I do realize that this is the time for the MOS haters to air all my past sins and flippant attitudes, but do you have any actual examples of where "When consensus is against a move he either makes it anyway, or keeps coming back to challenge it again until he can bulldoze through opposition"? I think you're misremembering cases where more discussion was needed to reach consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not misremembering anything and find your personal credibility to be dubious based on a lie about me on your talk page--which when challenged you referred to as "a mischaracterization of your position, perhaps" then continued down the same line. You repeatedly ignore the consensus when it goes against your desired move. Then you try again and again waiting for opposition to weary. As others have noted, it is your crusade. Folks can go back and look through the moves and discussions as they wish.
I don't hate the MOS, but I do find parts of it are not well fleshed out/defined. When that was brought to your attention, you blew it off repeatedly. Others expressed similar concerns including User: North Shoreman. When I see a zealot unwilling to acknowledge that the guiding document could address some things better and then behave as if his view is the only valid one/worth consideration, then I doubt his judgment and will not support his crusade. As I recall your primary objection was that other editors were slowing you down. So while I don't oppose the MOS, as a result of your personal tactics I am hesitant to accept your interpretation of it. Red Harvest (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by George Ho[edit]

I am unsure whether this is about Dicklyon or the misuse of MOS. I myself removed commas from Roy Simmons, Jr. and Roy Simmons, Sr. Then I re-added commas into them because majority opposed removal of commas, especially at Talk:Barack Obama, Sr.#Requested move 4 March 2015. When I reverted Dicklyon’s attempts to remove commas preceding the predecessor/successor abbreviation, he questioned my actions non-stop. When I re-added a comma, Dicklyon reverted my re-adding it twice. Unlike Dicklyon, I mostly discuss capitalizations and commas, especially when I have requested them, like Talk:Better than Today, Talk:Barack Obama, Sr., and Talk:None but the Brave. As agreed, he did attempt to remove a comma from "Martin Luther King, Sr." by requesting it as “uncontroversial”, while a move discussion has been ongoing. I should ask Philg88 about this action. --George Ho (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Philg88[edit]

Comment by uninvolved admin The "action" that George Ho refers to was the processing of a move request filed at uncontroversial technical requests (WP:RMT). At the time of the move, I was unaware that there was a discussion ongoing and the request appeared prima facie to be uncontentious.  Philg88 talk 06:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1[edit]

I feel slightly awkward in posting here, since I have a COI: I mostly agree with Dicklyon's opinions on capitalisation and support his moves. I find his logic and evidence compelling, as you'd expect from the scientist who invented the optical mouse; whereas I don't see RGloucester and like-minded editors on this matter presenting well-structured evidence or explaining their logic in a convincing way.

On several occasions I've sought Dicklyon's opinion about capitalisation in technical areas, and have noted his caution—he doesn't automatically agree with proposals to downcase.

But I see that a certain emotional content has crept in, which is understandable but regrettable. I wish Dick would studiously refrain from anything that could be taken as personal; and I note that RGloucester is conducting something of a campaign against him (e.g. this). Some conflict-in-debate appears inevitable on this stylistic matter, and is probably healthy; but surely all parties can start afresh in terms of surface politness: both make valuable contributions to en.WP. Tony (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have suggested to Dicklyon that he make changes in the language he uses in this type of dispute. I think there's a reasonable likelihood that he will do so. Tony (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Randy Kryn[edit]

An ornery cuss to be sure, Dicklyon takes a side, holds it like a tiger, and won't let go until he's pinned down and dragged out. Then he bellows and calls names. But he stands up for what he believes in, and by contesting him quite a few times in the last few months I've learned more about the inner workings of Wikipedia than I have since becoming a member in 2007. Some of what I've learned concerns the scant number of people who make site-wide changes with little input, with Dicklyon leading the charge on many occasions. When he's good he's very very good. When he's bad he shows his blind spots and a rigidness to personal dogma (as we all do, and hopefully learn from each other), but even then he's either educational and/or entertaining. He certainly gets the job done, tirelessly working to make Wikipedia the gem that it is. I don't know what remedy is being sought here, but ask that Dicklyon not be banned for any length of time (well, maybe an hour, that'll teach him!). His valued contributions to Wikipedia greatly benefit the site, and who knows, if he was kinder and gentler he may not be as good (and banned he's no good at all). Takes all kinds, it really does, and if Dicklyon's style changed then Wikipedia would be the less for it. Randy Kryn 8:59 27 March, 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Blueboar[edit]

In his comments (above) BusterD points us to a discussion I had with Dick on his talk page a while back... I think it is worth repeating something I said in that discussion. I actually warned Dick that something like this might happen. The problem with Dick's behavior isn't so much the substance of his moves (or his move requests), it's the appearance of them. By moving (or proposing) multiple articles at one time, he gives the appearance of being on an unthinking "anti-capitalization crusade". And crusading is almost always seen as disruptive... even when the crusader may be correct and the crusade may benefit the project. The disruption isn't so much what is done, as how it is done. It's a behavior issue, not a content issue. The fact is, Dick is often (but not always) correct in his determination of what the most appropriate title should be... and it does not matter. His correctness is actually besides the point. It's more the way he goes blundering about like a bull in a china shop, moving lots and lots of articles all at once (and stubbornly defending his moves) that is disruptive, and less the individual moves themselves.

I would suggest that an appropriate remedy would be to 1) ban him from moving articles outside of the RM process, and 2) limit him within the RM process - to raising one article at a time for discussion. This way Wikipedia would continue benefit from his expertise on style issues (all be it at a slower pace)... while at the same time reducing the crusading behavior that pisses so many people off. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Dicklyon[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Dicklyon does seems to resort to personal attacks and incivility occasionally however I'm not seeing enough which to warrant more than a warning to avoid personalising disputes. Regarding the concerns raised over RGloucester's beahviour (stalking) I can see where those concerns are coming from - RG does appear at a number of places Dick has taken an action, even if that is coincidence the appearance is of RG following Dick around. In terms of sanctions which could be placed we're somewhat limited with what we can do with these discretionary sanctions (which IMO only apply to discussions about MOS and WP:TITLE rather than it's application on articles so I don't think we'd be able to impose the restrictions Blueboar has suggested. I'm loathe to suggest an broad mutual IBAN but I think an IBAN which only prevents RG and Dick from interacting regarding the MOS or WP:TITLE (including discussions about it or it's provisions which the other is already involved in) for six months might calm this issue down as it seems the angst is primarily between those two. The benefit of this area only is that they don't need to be constantly on guard for if the other has commented, and hopefully having to check if the other is involved in this area will stop them from taking actions straight away. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with RG that some of what Dicklyon presents does not seem to be the case from a neutral point of view, but I can see where they are coming from regarding some (eg regarding RG). However given that other editors commenting agree that Dicklyon's behaviour is not ideal (and the evidence presented supports that) then the wider issue is more evident. Having said that, given my opinion of the limited scope of the discretionary sanctions (that they can't be used to enforce the MOS) I don't think there is a great deal we can do here. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Calypsomusic[edit]

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 Calypsomusic[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 13:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Calypsomusic (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:ARBIPA :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
Source mis-representation
  1. 24 March 2015 Addition of large quantity of POV content, with no backing source. Sources already in text [10] and [11] don't support the edit.
  2. 21 March 2015 Text added which sounds like it is the BJP's perspective on the policies mentioned in the sentences above; but the source used quotes another author (Partha Ghosh, mentioned in the citation) who was writing well before the policy was put in place.
  3. 6 February 2015 (2nd addition following line 198, beginning "on the other hand...") inserts statement saying that the BJP made genuine efforts to win Muslim support. The cited source suggests that the relevant policy was hypocritical, and ends by concluding BJP efforts were symbolic.
Edit-warring
  1. 1, 2 6 February 2015
Battle-ground attitude
  1. RfC begun on including a book by Elst in the further reading section of the BJP article, following a discussion where Calypsomusic participated. Both discussion and RfC show evidence of a battleground mentality. It did not stop there; the RfC closure was disputed by Calypsomusic on the admin's talk page, on ANI, and on the censorship noticeboard.
  1. Recently (15 March 2014) referred to that RfC as censorship, showing that they continue to misunderstand how consensus works. (Note; this diff added later. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC))
  1. Following said discussions, Calypsomusic removed Further Reading material from three unrelated articles [12] [13] [14], a perfect example of editing to make a point.
  1. During a recent GA nomination of the BJP article, and discussion following the failure of the nomination, repeatedly posted walls of text with no supporting refs that were mainstream, secondary, and reliable; GA nomination, talk page, despite repeatedly being asked to do so, and being pointed to relevant policies.
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)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Calypsomusic's editing consistently shows that they do not understand our sourcing policies. They have repeatedly posted blogs, websites, and fringe sources to support their arguments on talk pages, such as here. This, along with the battleground behavior mentioned above, means that carrying on productive discussions with them is virtually impossible. I am not the only one to notice this; Calypsomusic was flagged as an SPA by Drmies on 11 April 2014 on ANI, where a number of issues were raised with their editing. ANI report dropped thanks to an SPI, which turned up negative (diffs on request) but single-purpose editing has not stopped. The vast majority of their edits have to do with Koenraad Elst or the Bharatiya Janata Party, and their use of unreliable and fringe sources indicated an inability to follow WP:NPOV and WP:V. Considering that this is a sensitive and controversial topic area, I believe they should be topic-banned until they show that they can follow these policies and behavioral guidelines.

I am aware that my own conduct will come under scrutiny here, and I am prepared to receive feedback and/or other consequences. I will just say in my own defense that if I seem to not AGF with this user in the interactions visible here, it is because my history with them, and this sort of behavior, stretches even further beyond the interactions shown here (for instance, to their behavior at Koenraad Elst related articles, diffs on request), and that I have collegial interactions with the vast majority of users.

  • AP, you seem to be characterizing this as a symmetric dispute, which it patently is not; even you admit that I accepted the corrections, something Calypsomusic has never done. I also have more than 12k productive edits, in several other topic areas; Indian political articles don't represent even half of my content-related edits. I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of disputes that I have had with you without Calypsomusic being involved, because that seems to me to be off the topic. If anybody wants a response from me about those disputes, I shall provide it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Callanecc, Calypso's recent disruption is mostly on the BJP page, but virtually all his recent edits have also been to the BJP talk pages. He has previously been rather disruptive on the Koenraad Elst page and its talk page; like I mentioned above, this caused Drmies to flag his behavior on ANI. As a matter of fact I walked away from many of those disputes following the walls of text that Calypso posted. Darkness Shines interacted with him a lot more, but he was then tbanned under circumstances you are aware of. In terms of disruption, here is further evidence of pointy editing, which I missed earlier, [15] to the Republican Party article. As to the BLP vio; AP's revert was accurate. I was at that point unaware that criminal accusations in reliable sources that had been dismissed in court were inadmissible per BLP. I am now so aware, and have not to my knowledge made that mistake again. More generally, I believe I have been better at discussing rather than reverting in more recent months. Since we are now looking at interactions between AmritasyaPutra and myself, I would note that AP has had multiple blocks for edit-warring in the past few months, and was also a party to the RfC, following which he disputed the closure on the admins talk page, as well as ANI. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Since AP persists in discussing my interactions with him; I did not "Out" AP. I referred to him by his previous username, which he had used in the same topic area, and which still redirected to his userpage. In retrospect, that was nonetheless a mistake, and not something I will repeat. It was a product of annoyance that I should have handled better; but hardly private information. As to canvassing, the diff that AP himself supplied is fairly clear; he posted to the talk page of a single uninvolved user, and dared me to go to ANI when I pointed it out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Zero, such disagreement becomes disruptive is when the user was well aware of the GAN, and indeed raised some objections to it; [16]. Rather than seeing those through, he then waited several months for the review, and then proceeded to derail it with walls of text with poor sourcing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There is not much that I have to say to the wall of text that Calypso has produced, but I do want to respond to their explanation of the use of Ghosh as a reference. Their statement again obfuscates the issue. The sentence before the one inserted by Calypso refers to the educational policy of the National Democratic Alliance (India). This came to power in . Partha Ghosh wrote in June 1998, and his article is equally critical of the BJP and the Congress. The "textbook changes" he refers to are state-level changes - very different from the later modifications of the NCERT, and Ghosh is critical of this; the quote Calypso uses to defend BJP policy, begins thus "While the BJP is indeed responsible for advancing a Hindu chauvinistic policy to the detriment of the emotional integration of India, etc." Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Couple of brief responses to Calypsomusic's latest post. First, I did NOT use rollback on his edits. I have not, ever, used rollback on a non-vandal edit. I don't even believe I used standard twinkle rollback at any point; but if ever I did, it was always accompanied by an edit summary. His comment on Ghosh is also disingenuous. The chronology is abundantly clear, because the previous sentence refers to a certain government (not party). Sure, Ghosh is important, but not there, and he is not pro-BJP; read the quote I provided in the previous paragraph. Finally, I am enjoying the fact that Calypso's genuine feelings have come out; that a "hindu" POV and a "BJP" POV are one and the same, and that I am excluding these. He talks of a "broader selection" of scholars; but he has not provided a single reliable mainstream source on the talk without mis-representing it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Calypsomusic seems intent on dredging up every instance where somebody has disagreed with me, with complete disregard for policy. The Bangladesh Liberation war diff is particularly ridiculous; are you really defending the unsourced addition of "3 million Hindu victims?" There were three million total. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

diff

Discussion concerning Calypsomusic[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 Calypsomusic[edit]

I don't have time for a full reply today, but will provide one in the next days. Some preliminary notes on this comment: "the misrepresentation of sources and the second edit third one under the battleground header (regarding POINT) seem to me to be the most concerning".

The first alleged "misrepresentation" was actually me reverting an IP Edit. In one of the reverts, I explained to the IP that deletions of content should be explained: "rv unexplained major changes and deletions, please provide a rationale for large deletions". I remember last year I edited the article, but only added sourced content. What the IP reverted includes additional material that was not added by me. I reverted simply because the IP did not explain the deletions.

The second case is a content and neutrality dispute. Shourie and Ghosh are very relevant to the section, which is BJP and education policy/textbooks controversies. Ghosh's article that I cited is discussing "changes that the BJP had brought in the textbooks". Both are cited in this context in Ramesh Rao's book that I used and other sources. I also didn't have the time to reply to Vanamonde's revert on the talkpage before he opened this here, so really this is something that should be discussed on the talkpage first. Vanamonde seems to imply here that my source was published in 1998, but his sources were published later. However, the section in the article does not mention any years, if it did, it would have been easier for me to put the additional material in a chronological context.

To the third case, I explained on the talkpage: "I didn't read the full article, but used a quote from the article I saw in a book. The point that needs to be illustrated is that the BJP also made pro-Muslim actions and initiatives, which must also be mentioned. One of them is that it increased the subsidy given to the pilgrims. Rather than deleting the fact, we can add that it previously opposed the subsidy." And later: "The following instance show both sides of the relation, and should be included". After Vanamonde explained it on the talkpage, I did not add it again. On the talkpage I commented on the possibility to use the source as an example where the BJP made both Muslim-critical and pro-Muslim actions.

I don't own the Ramesh Rao book and could only consult it for a short time. I made the addition in good faith from my limited time with the information in the book chapter, and if Vanamonde has issues with the edit, it should be first discussed on the talkpage, not here. I have made copies of the relevant pages in Rao's book, and have also consulted another source, so was going to argue about the inclusion about the source on the talkpage, but because of this case here, this has been delayed, otherwise I would have done so by now. I also would ask Vanamonde to include years in the section, to make it easier to place the controversy in a chronological context, and I see no reason that the controversies in earlier years, or on state level, should not be mentioned. I see however that Vanamonde is trying to remove neutral or pro-Hindu opinion like that of Ghosh, a very relevant source for BJP textbook controversies.
I have simply tried to include both sides of the argument in the section, so added the missing viewpoint. He should thank me for trying to balance the section, unless he wants to keep it non-neutral. Currently, like all other sections on controversies in the article, it is slanted towards the anti-Hindu/anti-BJP position. Somebody needs to tell Vanamonde that quotes from a broader selection of scholars should be selected in a effort to juxtapose the two dominant points of views. In an article on the BJP, the Hindu pov is also one of the dominant point pov views. But to Vanamonde, whatever I am doing it is not right. When I'm discussing on the talkpage, I'm just posting "walls of text". When I'm editing the article, I practically always get reverted on the BJP page and even other pages. Vanamonde has been asked to read WP:OWN already by another user to no avail. The education policy section is also very illustrative of what is wrong in the BJP article: the section on the education policy only mentions one controversy, without attempting to show any comprehensive description of the BJP policy on education . How on earth can this be neutral? Compare this with this here. Similar serious NPOV issues are in the section on illegal immigrants, and the one-sided accusations against the top leadership of the BJP, and other sections. But even when I'm trying to improve the article by adding information on the completely missing sections in the article, like the environmental policy section, I get reverted. Gurdas is not a BJP member, but even a primary source can be fine for uncontroversial statements. When I'm comparing the article to the Republican party article, I also get snubbed, but comparing the article to similar articles on wikipedia is standard. Really the biggest obstacle that this article gets improved is Vanamonde.

The third edit under the battleground header (regarding POINT): the edit does not fall under point. It was not an edit "they do not actually agree": the edits were fully justified because KA has zero training in the topic areas and therefore I believe that they should not not be included, especially since these are topic areas where an extremely broad range of much more relevant authors exist. The edits were not in any way directly related to the edits of Darkness Shines, so it was not a POINT in regards to Darkness Shines actions, but the strongly disruptive influence of Darkness Shines on the wikipedia environment during that time should also be taken into account. Usually I'm too hesitant to censor other books on wikipedia, even if justifiable, but the experience with Darkness Shines Vanamonde may have helped me to overcome this weakness.

Edit warring

The "edit warring" was one (un, uno, yksi, ein, en, um, jeden, isa) revert on my part (of course accompanied with a talk page comment). Vanamonde claims two reverts, but the first link was not a revert, but me adding the NPOV tag. Only the second edit counts as one revert.

The "edit-warring" on Vanamonde's part was four reverts (or partial reverts) [17][18][19][20][21][22] in a 2 hour period. So AP is right that this should boomerang on Vanamonde. But Vanamonde is the one who is reverting all my edits, not me. He does so often with rollback. He should also be told that he should only use rollback for obvious cases of vandalism, and that he should explain his reverts. When he reverted the NPOV tag, he did not say this in the edit summary. Needless to say, when Kautilya claims the article was protected because of me it was because of Vanamonde's edit-warring, not because of my single revert. Similar false evidence is presented elsewhere in this page. If it is deemed necessary to reply to these, please let me know.

With rollback I meant automatic messages like "Undid revision XYZ". He reverts my edits on the BJP page so often, instead of first discussing them, or of adding tags to improve in the article, that I get discouraged editing the article at all. The problem is not that I am discussing the neutrality issues, the problem is that Vanamonde is not willing to fix them. Sometimes I think he just doesn't care. I told him: "Most of my concerns I already voiced months ago. I told you already then that one single sentence about Integral Humanism is by far not enough and even pointed you to sources, you could have fixed that during these months. You could also have asked yourself what could you do to make the article more neutral. Special care must be taken for npov for existing political parties, this has not yet been taken in this article." Integral Humanism is the official policy of the BJP. The article only included one single sentence on it. When I'm pointing this stuff out, Vanamonde now complains it is disruption.

Similar accusations could be made against Vanamonde (note that I don't find these serious enough to open a case against Vanamonde, and that is why I am marking it as "small", but they are at about the same level as those he is using against me): The MSM book "Religion and Human rights" says: after the Sabarmati Express train was forcibly stopped at Godhra Ciy and burned by a Muslim mob, resulting in the fiery deaths of 59 Hindu passengers mostly women, children, and seniors returning from the holy city of Ayodhya." But after the train burning, there were conspiracy theories that the Hindus burnt themselves suicidally for a staged trigger for riots, or that it was an accident that they were cooking something in the train, or that they provoked the attack, or that they were guilty and got what they deserved. But 30 Muslims have been convicted of the burning. India is not country like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or China, India is a democracy and in a country like India it would have been impossible for such a high profile case to convict 30 Muslims when they were innocent. There would have been riots all over the country. But Vanamonde is trying in several places to make appear the controversy that it was an accident as the dominant version, and the court conviction as not so important that it even needs to be considered in a summary. So there may be something wrong with how Vanamonde is using sources. Other users have told him on this issue that he using outdated sources: One user told him: "Her commentary is also outdated. The most comprehensive investigation represented by the Nanavati-Shah Commission was not completed at that time, and the court convictions of the accused had not taken place either. Now that we have all that additional information, her conclusions seem quite out of place in 2014." Talk:Godhra_train_burning/Archive_2 Vanamondes editing was also criticized here [23] "This is not the first time either. " or here and probably many other places [24] The Partition and the Bangladesh Liberation War were the two cases of communalism with the largest numbers of victims, most of the victims of the latter were Hindus. Vanamondes simly removes this second-most important case.[25] Then VAnamonde is accusing me of editing BLP article. But most of my edits were removing BLP violations. On articles of BJP politicians, he is slanting the article to an overtly negative pov, like in Amit Shah, Uma Bharti, possibly LK Advani, and others. [26] The BJP article stated: Anju Gupta, an police officer in charge of Advani's security on the day of the demolition, appeared as a prominent witness before the commission. She stated that Advani and Joshi made provocative speeches that were a major factor in the mob's behaviour. But in this source, [27], it is said that the " BJP on Monday termed as "false" the statement of senior IPS officer Anju Gupta in a court against L K Advani over Babri Mosque demolition and said the veteran leader did not give any speech on the day the structure was razed down. " (on this one I'm not completely sure if it was Vanamonde, but he will say if it was not him). I believe there were other misrepresentations by Vanamonde and some discussed on the BJP talkpage . AP may better know about these.

  • Vanamonde (re)writes in the BJP article:"although clerics, including Muslim religious leaders, stated that they supported the verdict." But the source is actually only mentioning Muslim clerics, so it is a source misrepresentation (the first version, before Vanamonde, was only mentioning Muslim clerics, like in the source). Vanamonde wrote in the BJP article: "Historians studying the riots found that there was a high level of state complicity in the incidents" But the sources were not historians, so again misrepresentation.

Would I open a case against Vanamonde because of this? Probably not, but this is Vanamonde is doing here.

Will provide more in the next days. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AmritasyaPutra[edit]

  • I believe these two editors clashed here before: Talk:Koenraad_Elst. Regarding battleground mentality on Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party, both have similar tendency. In both these discussion Vanamonde93 was wrong(source-misrepresentation) and had to accept the suggested correction but not without personal attacks: here, and here. AdhunikaSarvajna and I agreed on some points with Vanamonde93 and on some points with calypsomusic but I have not seen Vanamonde93 coming to any solution with Calypsomusic ever. Other pages where I had to revert Vanamonde93 for BLP violation: diff and for aggressive POV deletion: diff. In another content dispute his battleground mentality is clear as he ignores Dharmadhyaksha, Sarvajna and me and inserts his POV six times ignoring the discussion, finally Joshua Jonathan had removed it. Vanamonde93 has clearly shown edit warring: diff of self-revert ignoring the provided rs and edits of multiple editors. All this falls in same topic area. This looks like a mutual aggression and both should stay focused on content dispute and reduce aggression. Calypsomusic should reduce his posts' length too.
The diff which Vanamonde93 presents under 'Edit-warring' should boomerang given this edit summary when he repeatedly reverted the addition of NPOV tag by Calypsomusic: the tag is added if the attempts to discuss it fails. @Callanecc: regarding 'point', no editor restored on two of the articles, it was restored on one and Calypsomusic did not remove it. All three articles are watched by many editors, so these may not be pointy edits.
  • Since Vanamonde93 brings this up: He has reported 4-5 times to AN regarding me; alleged incompetent and canvassing. He has called me dense attempted outing, which he stopped only after two other editors intervened, (I was inexperienced and did not know how to respond to such behavior.) I can say he has a habit of being nasty towards less experienced users. His battleground mentality is seen in this discussion. He has said here I "disputed the closure on the admins talk page, as well as ANI", please validate it against the ANI case where I made only one "thank you" edit.
If old username is SuperMan and new name Callanecc would you say {{u|Callanecc|Super}}? The earlier username was retired two months before even creation of the page where Vanamonde93 morphs it. He repeated the same behavior three times despite explicit warning until two other editors intervened. The ANI concluded with no canvassing and he still says here it was canvassing. This is battleground mentality.
  • I disagree with Kautilya3's sweeping judgement regarding various authors including Arun Shourie and Koenraad Elst, I have expressed it in context earlier among few other editors here and here. I think this is not the place for it and the accusation is misplaced. He is using misleading edit summary and using Koenraad Elst selectively for his POV.
  • Regarding Bangladesh war: Vanamonde93 tried to remove article from list but that was against what scholarly sources(here) presented so he 'let it be' later in this revert.

Statement by Kautilya3[edit]

From my point of view, the most concerning aspect of Calypsomusic's behaviour is that they blocked a GA nomination (of Bharatiya Janata Party) by edit-warring in the midst of a GA review (diff, diff, protected). They claimed that the article was not written from NPOV but failed to substantiate this: Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#Neutrality of this article isdisputed. They do not appear to understand the meaning of scholarly consensus and ignore the guidelines about reliable third party sources. Despite our repeated explanations, they continue to cite sources closely allied with the Bharatiya Janata Party or fringe sources that are not accepted by the consensus of Wikipedia editors (diff and my analysis). This is what prompted my notification to them of the ARBIPA sanctions (diff), but there has been no noticeable effect of it on their talk page discussions (diff, diff). Their knowledge seems limited to these questionable sources, and they are in no frame of mind to accept the widely accepted scholars such as Ramachandra Guha. Their continued participation on this page and other Hindu nationalist topics is disruptive. I support a topic ban. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources that Calypsomusic wants to use in writing the article on Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are:

  • Koenraad Elst, a Hindu revivalist writer publishing in Voice of India, which is well to the right of BJP and allied organisations according to scholars (JSTOR 40279263).
  • Ramesh Nagaraj Rao, a professor of Communication Studies and a leader of the Hindu American Foundation (sympathetic to Hindu nationalism), whose professed objective is to "counter the criticism" of the BJP and its allies. The cited book has no academic citations on Google Scholar.
  • L. K. Advani, a senior leader and past President of the BJP.
  • Arun Shourie, another senior leader and past Central Minister in the BJP government.
  • Gurdas Ahuja, who seems to be an insider of the BJP (possibly a member). See my comment.

If the views of these sources, who are all very close to the subject at hand, are not represented in the article, he deems that the article is not neutral. If any criticism of BJP is not balanced by including positive comments on BJP, he deems that it is not neutral. This has been going on since March 2014 (diff). Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Calypsomusic and AmritasyaPutra would like to make it appear as if this is a "content dispute" or dispute about "neutrality", but it is in reality an unwillingness to read and follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. They ignore the prescription that the sources must be reliable, third-party, (published) sources. They ignore the fact that NPOV means representing such sources fairly and proportionately. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra says I am using Koenraad Elst "selectively". Assuming that I do, that is precisely what one must do with a fringe source, evaluate each piece of information, carefully separate facts from interpretations, and look for corroboration from other sources. The fact that he and Calypsomusic don't care do that is precisely how they turn Wikipedia into a battleground for their POVs. Calypsomusic has now gone to unprecedented lengths by effectively exercising a veto on GA nominations of this page by edit-warring. This can't allowed to continue. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The latest reponse by Calypsomusic again illustrates my point. "How on earth can this be neutral?," he says, while completely ignoring the prescription to refer to "high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources" for using the {{NPOV}} tag. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ugog Nizdast[edit]

I have been involved with this mainly through the 2015 BJP-related conduct dispute and its previous GA nomination. After the RFC and discussion died down, it took six months to get a willing GA reviewer. Finally, when the review was almost complete, Calypsomusic effectively disrupted it by coming out of dormancy and posting walls of text (diff) questioning its neutrality. The review had to close solely because Calypsomusic made the article unstable. Efforts to bring a fruitful discussion were in vain, three of us, plus the GA reviewer (diff, diff, diff), all agreed that there were no concerns regarding the article unless sources could be presented otherwise. Calypsomusic's recent rfc and POV tag (diff, diff). Vanamonde has brought the BJP article a long way since 2013 (major contributor) and till now was to forced to mollify (diff, diff, diff, diff) Calypsomusic to be able to get it GA passed. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (apologies, diff links added later, first time giving statement here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

The requester has highlighted at least four main cases/areas of disruption against the defendant, of which, I witnessed only the last one (the BJP page). I'm aware that is doesn't highlight edit-warring per se, but it does reinforce the defendant's battleground attitude and refusal to drop the stick. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian[edit]

I have no comment on the case itself, but I suggest that Calypsomusic should read WP:TLDR. Also, whatever happened to the 500 word limit for statements at WP:AE? Perhaps the template should make it Large instead of small, since I doubt anyone reads it now. Kingsindian  15:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Calypsomusic[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'll wait for a statement by Calypsomusic but the misrepresentation of sources and the second edit third one under the battleground header (regarding POINT) seem to me to be the most concerning. One related question: is the disruption limited to Bharatiya Janata Party or is it broader? The evidence from AmritasyaPutra regarding Vanamonde93 is concerning, particularly the BLP vio, but I'm not convinced that action is required at this stage. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I note that all of Ugog Nizdast's diffs concern discussion on a talk page. I see Calypsomusic expressing an opinion there and others disagreeing. Such discussions, provided they are carried out in good faith, do not violate any policy or sanction. Annoying or not, it is perfectly allowed for an editor to disagree with the imminent result of a GA review. I didn't yet look at the diffs given by the reporter. Zerotalk 23:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)