Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive194

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

Contents

Monochrome Monitor[edit]

Monochrome Monitor agrees to a voluntary restriction and mentorship by Irondome. Given this, no further action is required at this time. Monochrome Monitor is warned that further disruption or failure to abide by the voluntary agreement is likely to result in a full topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:18, 6 July 2016 (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 Monochrome Monitor[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Monochrome Monitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Zionism:

  1. 20:54, 2 July 2016 Revert of [2]
  2. 21:30, 2 July 2016 revert of [3]

Baruch Goldstein:

  1. 15:55, 30 June 2016‎ Straight-forward removal of material, definitionally a revert
  2. 02:04, 1 July 2016‎ revert of [4]


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 

Following a topic ban on Khazars Monochrome Monitor seemingly immediately continued with the same behavior that caused that ban, namely edit-warring and imposing his or her will through reverts. Additionally, the user has violated WP:BLP here (calling a living person a real-life loon[y]). Asked to remove that, the user declined.

Im not planning on spending a whole lot of time on this request, however I feel compelled to note one thing. MM's response below shows what I think to be the main problem with this user editing in contentious topic areas. The need to personalize every single dispute. On his or her talk page I asked the user to self-revert on another article. His or her response there was that reverts should not be used wantonly, as mine had been. It was as if whoever has an editing conflict with the user must have some sort of personal grudge in which MM must win. I dont think Ive ever said two words about the president of Turkey, but my request that the user abide by a core Wikipedia policy turns into how low [I] descend just to f*ck [MM] over, suddenly caring about not offending a man who says turkey doesn't need to apologize for the armenian genocide. Its this repeated seeking out an escalation of conflict thats the core problem. One revert on one article begets a 20 article editing binge of removing categories. I dont know how to solve that problem, but time editing in less contentious topics where he or she can get a better handle on the consensual editing model of this place I think would be to his or her benefit. nableezy - 03:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully the last note; the disingenuous I didnt know about the edit 3 weeks ago is just that, disingeneous. MM has been involved with talk page discussion that has been centered precisely around whether or not to use establish or re-restablish (here). How exactly can he or she feign ignorance of the dispute? The user repeatedly uses reverts to impose his or her favored version on an article, and this is just the latest example of that. Other recent examples include Dahiya doctrine. Really any article where MM is found contains the same pattern. The user decides whats best, makes that edit, and reverts anybody who disagrees. And then says those reverting him or her are doing so "wantonly" and can be ignored. nableezy - 18:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified

Discussion concerning Monochrome Monitor[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 Monochrome Monitor[edit]

Already covered on my talk page, thanks.

This article is under WP:1RR due to ARBPIA. It my be in your interest to undo your last edit. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Thank you for telling me but the date says it's a new day. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 02:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The definition of a WP:1RR violation is two reverts within a 24-hour period. It doesn't matter whether the reverts are on the same day. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks then!--Monochrome_Monitor 03:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks like I already undid it ooops.Jonney2000 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That ^^^ I did not realize that I violated 1RR, edjohnston was very nice and warned me, so I said I would self-revert. But Jonney already did. You're saying because someone reverted it before I could revert myself, it's a 1RR violation?

[5] That is called a revert. I used my 1 revert for the day on it. I reverted nish's edit which I thought made unfair changes not mentioned on the talk page and misinterpreted a source. But that doesn't matter. This [6] is not a revert. You are telling me that because someone typed three characters weeks ago, and I deleted those three characters by writing what I had already proposed on the talk page, that's a revert, despite all the edits in between. That is completely insane. You're being vindictive and mean.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not say he was a "loony". I mentioned loonies with a hyperlink about him next to it. I'm really amazed how low you descend just to f*ck me over, suddenly caring about not offending a man who says turkey doesn't need to apologize for the armenian genocide, because they "committed no crime".[1]--Monochrome_Monitor 00:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

More crap[edit]

[Reply to Malik Shabazz] I discussed it with you, and you didn't make a compelling case at all. You did what you are doing now. Complaining about something you don't understand, pretending I removed categories that I actually added. I don't understand what is ideologically driven about changing "terrorism" to "war crimes" based on the date Israel was established and the jewish paramilitaries came together to become the IDF. State = war crimes. Non-state = terrorism. This is the definition wikipedia itself uses! It's not arbitrary at all,. Thus massacres committed by israel as a state I added "war crime", and massacres of the PLO during the lebanese civil war I added "terrorism". I have been ENTIRELY consistent except in one case- suicide bombings being labeled a war crime, they were in that category and I wasn't sure what to call it considering it has been called both, and its possible to have it be both in the case of state-sponsored terrorism. I'm trying to have a debate- you didn't debate me. You are being reactionary. You don't understand my edits. So, ask me about them. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"The entire spectrum of Zionist opinion believed, and still believes, that Eretz Yisrael extends to the east of the river jordan..." That's a gross generalization. The bible can say whatever it likes, it can say that the land of israel is from the nile to the euphrates- but that doesn't mean Jews believe it. Jordan has banned observant Jews from entering the country because they are afraid Jews will plant artifacts into the ground and claim the land as israeli.[2] That's how quickly this enters conspiracy theory territory.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC) You think that edit is inspired by "extreme ideology"? It is anti-extreme ideology.Only extreme religious zionists include parts of jordan into israel. Not "the entire spectrum". Hell, on one side of the spectrum of "zionists" they don't even think jerusalem is part of Israel.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The section you linked to- "please tell me...." I was asking you to tell me how the palestinian exodus is a war crime under the rome statue or terrorism. You never explained. But when I make the edits, I'm being an extremist, even if you never tell me what's wrong with them. You have to give me a bit more to work with. I've been TRYING to branch out, that's why I made the lede in zionism more nuetral today (for which I was reported) and that's why I started to populated the category "Israeli war crimes". --Monochrome_Monitor 03:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

On "eretz israel" and how zionists interpret it. We are led to believe from our source that all zionists consider eretz israel to include parts of jordan. Here's a dictionary definition: [7]

1. the Holy Land; Israel
2. the concept, favoured by some extreme Zionists, of a Jewish state the territory of which matched the largest expanse of biblical Israel

Those are two different definitions....she's distorting the phrase. And, I think that's not just a regular untruth, but a dangerous one that leads to prejudice. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

And another thing...[edit]

[Reply to Nish] I did not call falk an antisemite. I said "he has antisemitic views". He thinks Israel was involved in 9/11. I believe that's an antisemitic view, don't you? They are not the same thing. An antisemite is one who hates Jews. An antisemitic view is a view characterized by antisemitism. Falk does not hate Jews. However he has some antisemitic views- saying "he's a respected scholar and here are his medals" is silly. The controversy is described in detail on his wikipedia page. And I stand by my statement about Atzmon. Regardless of your qualms about my editing practices, I DID NOT BREAK 1RR THIS TIME. Making an edit that "un-did" a three week old edit I didn't know existed is not a revert. And I know about state-sponsored terrorism. Israel has sponsored "terrorists". But that's difference from state terrorism, which is a more dubious concept. The IDF is not "sponsored" by Israel. It is Israel. Hence, saying a massacre by the IDF is terrorism is accusing Israel of state terrorism. It's a lot more reasonable to just call it a "war crime".--Monochrome_Monitor 17:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

On the Armenian genocide, what I consider crazy about his views is his belief that no crime was committed. In contrast Israelis (except one azerbajani jerk) know that a crime was committed, a genocide was committed, but they don't call it that because they don't want to upset Turkey. What do I call them? Hypocritical moral cowards.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As for the reliable sources I removed, one I removed by accident which was a reliable source, for that I bear responsibility. The one I meant to remove (and did remove) was 972, which I don't consider a reliable source.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sick of being dragged to AAE for diplomatic disputes... but I guess I have made people afraid to talk to me. Have I broken any rules? No. That being said, I have let my own emotions spiral out of control on some talk pages. I have gotten into conflicts with editors that could have been avoided if I discussed my thoughts first and not after the fact, when they had already formed their own conceptions about my intentions. But I stated my intentions clearly up above, and I'd like to be judged on that, rather than how other people feel about me.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully the last section [reply to nableezy][edit]

Of course I know about the dispute, the dispute is why I made it, as a compromise. I changed the wording of the first sentence to my proposal on the talk page. But every change of wording that has some overlap with a change undone in the past cannot be considered a "revert" of someone else's edits made some time in the past. My first edit was an edit, my second was a revert. By your logic YOU violated 1RR by restoring content removed two years ago. This is a revert of this. This is a revert of this--Monochrome_Monitor 18:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess not[edit]

Simon, you gave up on me a long time ago. You didn't respond to any of my comments on your talk page. Your emails have grown colder and eventually you ceased to respond to those too. Mere months ago you made glowing comments about my work on wikipedia. Most of my bans and offenses were before then. My edits have not changed- I've always made bold edits first and substantiated them later. The only difference is that when my bold edits are reverted, I expect the reverter to at least make the effort to address my concerns, and if they don't I continue to press for them. That's it. As for the Khazars, there was no "fiasco". I violated 3RR, that's it. If you want to make that into a cause for never speaking to me again, be my guest. At least have the decency to follow through with it and don't pitch in to my public humiliation after weeks of shunning me. As for Bolter, bless him, but the comparisons are ridiculous. When you took him under your wing you asked me to talk to him and give him advice, because I was your success story. I made the edit to Zionism against my usual POV as a compromise, this compromise was seen as an opportunity to make a radical change to the wording, which I reverted. And I get f*cked over it. I have been extremely careful in adhering to 1RR, and I did adhere to it. That's all I have to say.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Let's have a little reality check here Georgia. Do you remember how we first met? It was when you accused Nishidani of being an anti semite. I came to his defence. None of us had interacted before that. I saw good in you despite, and have since tried to help you, as has Nish. How many times have I made a damn fool of myself defending you on the boards now? This will be four. I do not regret any of them. What you percieve as coldness is a response to a disrespectful attack on Nish, a true scholar and gentleman, and your problematic edits on Khazars and the increasingly volatile edits you had made in other article areas. The attack on Nish hurt me. Please do not keep going on about my favourable comments about your behaviours a few months ago. They were referring to a different Georgia, not the person I and the community are presently seeing. But I forgive, and you overplay my percieved coldness to you a great deal. Anyone looking at My, Nish's or your talk pages can see the constant pleas by myself and others to distance your perception of self to the subjects you were editing. I am your ideal mentor, because I know how you tick, and where you are coming from. I will continue to play that role if needed. I must be mad, but hey, nutters make the world go round. The community needs an answer. I need an answer. Do you accept the mentoring terms or not? Your "public humiliation" is entirely self-inflicted. I have had many SIW's myself. Take responsibilty for your actions my friend, and be the real mensch I know is deep within you. Message ends.
Lastly[edit]

Before sanctioning me, which you seem ready to do, can you at least establish that I actually broke 1RR? Because the first example as I noted was discussed on my talk page and should not be opportunistically used against me, and the second example I still don't think was a violation- the first edit was an edit, the second was a revert.

I am learning, and that's why I have been trying not to break 1RR, and I believe I haven't. I've really been trying, and I want people to see that I'm editing in good faith, that's why I've been making these edits against my own POV. It would be unfair if after all of my genuine trespasses, I only get punished when I'm trying to atone for them. My POV in this area is not nuetral, but it's not extreme at all- I empathize strongly with "the other side". The people who get topic banned in ARPIA are some serious extremists, and there are many, many editors whose edits are far more controversial then mine, but they don't get into trouble because they get along better with other users. I alienated my greatest friend here, and that's entirely my fault. He's very non-confrontational and I thrive in the heat of debate, and I can cross the line of rhetoric into invective.

But when I say he "gave up me", I mean he's stopped talking to me. I don't mean he's been advising me for ages and suddenly stopped. I've been mostly independent, and that was working for a while. As he once said (a little over three months ago),

I am proud to have given you a measure of guidance, when things did seem critical. But you are still here and developing intellectually and emotionally and doing good work for the encyclopedia. Your honesty and directness will see you through.

I'm still direct and still honest. I believe what changed is that I started to conflict with Nish, whom Simon respects very much.

It's hard to ignore the damning comments, but please try and look at this from my perspective. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


Note: I said I would be fine taking a voluntary break (with sanction if I break it), 6 months freaks me out, I'll be a completely different person by then. But my most productive work, or at least the work with the highest ratio of production to hair-pulling, was interrupted by my reentry into the ARPIA fray (I can never remember that initialism)- and on the bright side I would like to return to it and this could be considered an intervention rather than an incarceration. A ban on Jew-related articles I think is excessive, considering the only area I've had conflict in in that domain is one I'm already banned from. Also, I don't think it matters at this point, but I would really like to know if I broke 1RR, for future editing.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC) If I wasn't clear enough, yes, I accept Simon's ultimate ultimatum. Also, did that edit I'm referring to count as a revert? --Monochrome_Monitor 01:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]

Please sanction Monochrome Monitor, who has repeatedly proven that she cannot edit with an NPOV. She is one of the most transparently ideologically driven editors I can recall from nearly ten years of editing, and she gets worse, instead of better, the longer she is here.

Today, for example, she removed a sentence from Land of Israel because she didn't like it, writing "now that's just wrong". It didn't matter that the sentence is supported by a reliable source written by a reputable historian, given in-text attribution, and easily verifiable.

Yesterday, she removed the categories related to war crimes and terrorism from Israeli articles and categories and added them to Palestinian articles and categories. When I called her on it, she initially made some noise about state actors and non-state actors. But she can't have it both ways—exempt Israel because it is a state, treat Palestine as a state when it suits her ideological drive, and deny it is a state when that suits her. (Here are a few diffs: [8][9][10][11]. See Monochrome Monitor's contribution history for dozens more. See User talk:Malik Shabazz#Please tell me... for the discussion.)

Monochrome Monitor is also allergic to discussion. Despite the entreaties of her mentor, and others (including me), she refuses to start discussions about (for example) where categories about terrorism and war crimes are appropriate.

Please. Enough is enough. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

The evidence is a small sample of a persistent wrongheadedness over numerous pages. I have an informal undertaking with MM's mentor to be patient. I lost that patience on just one page, Khazars, and requested she be suspended for a month from just that page. She was suspended for six, which I though somewhat excessive, and told her so. She was upset, but we smoothed things over.

  • Her reply to Malik is that he is ‘Complaining about something you don't understand’ because ‘State = war crimes. Non-state = terrorism. This is the definition wikipedia itself uses! It's not arbitrary at all.’

She got this from? Well, a wikipedia article, i.e. Definitions of terrorism.

Wikipedia articles aren’t authoritative. We have, in contradiction to that article Iran and state-sponsored terrorism, for example. Malik was quite correct to complain of a rampage over cats. A moment’s notice, rather that causing just one more lengthy thread to debate MM’s subjective judgements, would have sufficed to show that the concept of state terrorism is widely debated and accepted in the relevant scholarship. I.e. here, here, ‘This foremost distinction between State and sub-State (or individual) terrorism is now a generally acceptable component of the debate on terrorism.' or here. She read a conclusion on a wiki article, drew an opinion from it, ignored any quality check in readily available reliable academic sources, and barged over several articles to alter them.

The BLP violation may be piddling, but her mentors, people of loyalty, integrity and high intelligence, unlike myself, gave her the same advice as Nableezy and I did, and she refused to budge. The result, endless negotiationsa and hours wasted on researching the trivia that inform her judgements to show her how superficially sourced her information was for rushing to brand people antisemites. Despite those gentle remonstrations, she still has left unstruck those accusations against living public figures,Richard Falk and Gilad Atzmon, two Jews, are antisemites, and Erdogan is a loonie.

(ps.) Erdogan doesn’t recognize the obvious, i.e. the Armenian genocide. True. But if he is a loonie for that, then what do we make of authoritative Israeli figures who repeat that israel has no intention of recognizing the Armenian genocide.

I am strongly opposed to harsh measures generally, and if she merits a sanction it should be broadly on this topic area, but for no more than a month. She just has to get it into her head that endless drama, repeating the same behavior, and attritional attitudes that exhaust everyone's time and patience, including that of her mentors, will, the next time round, lead to less lenience. A last warning (of several) in shortNishidani (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not call falk an antisemite. I said "he has antisemitic views".
Let me translate. I did not call X a racist. I said:"X has racist views".Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I underwrite everything Simon (Irondome) has noted and recommended. Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Just seconding Simon once more (we have by the way no off-line exchanges on this), though, it's a subjective judgement on my part, a 2 weeks break is way too low., for the simple reason that the trouble this time round recurred very quickly after the Khazar topic ban. Something of the original proposal, 2-3 months, is fair. MM does need mentorship - otherwise she risks being a loose cannon, and, whatever the decision, she needs a period of reflection. Simon has done outstanding work in introducing a moderate voice in this once toxically impossible area. Taking on difficult mentorship is also something of a sacrifice, A willingness, on her return, to take up his offer would be a show of faith in the collegial way a good many of us have tried to establish here. Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Irondome[edit]

This statement may exceed 500 words. I would ask the reviewing administrator to indulge me. I will keep it as short as possible.

I am no longer MM's mentor. That arrangement ceased after the Khazar fiasco. I am no longer MM's mentor because one cannot mentor a fellow editor who refuses to be mentored. I am now merely an impotent observer, watching the gradual self-destruction of what I originally percieved to be a very capable young female editor with considerable potential. My final offer in terms of mentoring are documented in the Khazar AE. That offer still stands. My perception was that they were accepted out of a desperate attempt to continue editing in that topic. Not once have you, MM, asked my advice on a planned edit, or even on what topics you are editing. This is in stark contrast to Bolter21, whom with I also have an arrangement, (although Bolter arguably no longer needs assistance, after a very brief initial issue when he first joined.) Yet he continues to ask for advice and is a credit to the new generation of young colleague who are capable, and are serious about the project. What pains me is MM's attitude to other, well respected editors. Colleagues like Nishidani, Malik, and Nableezy, who I hugely respect and who have forgotten more than I will ever know in these topic areas and in many others, MM treats with an unfortunate, often rude tone. Differing POVs are no barrier to mutual respect, affection and even friendship. MM at this point is combative to a disturbing extent. I have noted a deterioration in your behaviour MM, and that the intervals between board visits are becoming shorter. MM and Gilad Atzmon are two sides of the same coin. Both are struggling, through radically different pathways, to make sense of their Judiasm and the enormous impact that the Jewish experience can have on the individual. It can be hard work being a Jew, as I well know. But it does not excuse bad behaviour, whatever your place in the wildly diverse spectrum of the Jewish intellectual and ethical experience. I will make one last attempt to reach out to you MM, based on my previous offer. I would ask you to voluntarily take a two month break from all IP or Jewish related topics. When you return, maybe we can talk, and resume our arrangement based on the terms laid on in the Khazar AE. With regard to this AE, all you have do is say, "You know what, my editing has been sometimes over-hasty of late. Im sorry to anyone I have irritated, and I apologise to the community. Let me make a clean start, let me reflect on my editing style. I take full responsibility, so give me one break here". It ain't hard G. This has not been a pleasant posting to make, trust me on that colleagues.
  • Clarification to non involved admins comments below I would like it to be clear that I have not withdrawn my mentorship. I am afraid I was being over-rhetorical in my opening sentences. MM states that she began acting independently of it a few months ago. There is a direct linkage to her increased issues and this independence IMO. I made a proposal at the khazar board visit for stricter mentoring conditions She did agree to it. If she formally agrees to the somewhat strict proposal I made I believe this would go a long way towards restoring the community's confidence in her. I await MM's formal acceptance here. I believe this would be a strong restraining influence on MM, and would help her get back on the rails. I am quite willing to take up the additional responsibility and restriction this would impose on my own editing time. I would ask the reviewing admin and non involved admin colleagues to take this into account. Original proposal follows:

You take an immediate 2 month wikibreak from IP and articles related to Jewish-related topics. When returning, you submit all areas you are working on to me, on an ongoing basis. All edits apart from grammar, etc, are to be submitted to me before making them for approval. It may take a couple of days, but if you edit without my consent I will recommend an indef topic ban. It may take a few days for me to get back to you. Tough. You are going to learn patience. Certain behavioural issues will be discussed off wiki. That's all I have to say. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly request that this be the main control mechanism that MM adheres to from now on, for a period of 2 months initially. If any edits of a controversial character infringing the above be made, then a 6 month IP and Jewish-related topic ban be immediately imposed upon notification of any such infringement to Administration. Monochrome Monitor I need you to accept this, urgently. Simon.

@Monochrome Monitor Do you accept the terms of mentorship laid out here? Just Yes or No G. Irondome (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Monochrome Monitor[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The comments and diffs above speak for themselves. It is rather apparent that MM needs to be sanctioned; I'm of the mind that a complete topic ban is in order. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that something needs to be done, but MM does seem to take some degree of responsibility when they said "I have let my own emotions spiral out of control on some talk pages. I have gotten into conflicts with editors that could have been avoided if I discussed my thoughts first and not after the fact, when they had already formed their own conceptions about my intentions." Given that statement, a total topic ban might not be necessary. I'm thinking a more surgical sanction, such as requiring MM to discuss potential changes in this topic area on the talkpage and gain consensus first. Any thoughts from the editors above? Would that adequately resolve the issues at hand? The WordsmithTalk to me 16:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • MM has a checkered history with controversial topics, including ARBPIA. She has been given a break numerous times but the problems continue. (She does not seem to be on a learning curve). As you can see above, her mentor has given up on her User:Irondome is no longer serving as her mentor because she stopped following his advice. So I think the best course here is a complete ban from ARBPIA (as proposed by User:Coffee) with the right of appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand, but from her comments she does seem to be learning, just slowly. A topic ban is such a blunt instrument. If people think that's the best way to go then I'll implement it myself, but with the caveat that if she can show me she can work productively in another area for a few months then she can appeal directly to me (as is allowed by DS policy) and I'll lift or modify it. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't mind seeing that, maybe some work in a less charged area could help to cool things down. But I think at this time, a topic ban is necessary to prevent disruption, especially with the failed mentorship. If that's not true a few months down the road, we can always take another look at that point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the acceptance of Irondome's proposal by MM, I'd be in favor of going forward with that for now. That being said, I would like Monochrome Monitor to understand very clearly that any further disruption, especially during that period of time, is almost certain to lead to a "hard" topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I would like to see a response to Simon's terms of mentorship; otherwise I support The Wordsmith's idea. I hate to issue a TB unless the user is a complete basket case with wanton disregard for the community. --Laser brain (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wuerzele[edit]

Closed without action for now. Any participant may reopen this at such time that User:Wuerzele returns to active editing if they still have concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Wuerzele[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Wuerzele (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#Wuerzele_topic_banned

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions


Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [12] Violates topic ban editing at Monsanto legal cases and returning to battleground behavior.
  2. [13] Casting asperisions
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Topic banned by ArbCom: "Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."[14]
  2. [15] Previously blocked for edit warring and general combativeness towards editors.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Wuerzele was previously topic banned for extremely combative behavior, constantly sniping at editors, etc. while edit warring[16] The discretionary sanctions and the topic bans handed out by ArbCom specifically say all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural chemicals, etc. broadly construed including the companies that produce them. The discretionary sanctions were specifically reworded by ArbCom[17] to include the companies themselves to prevent prevent a case like this where topic banned editors still try to hang around related pages and continue additional behavior problems.

In addition to the diff itself being in the topic ban page, the edit summary shows a return to the very sniping behavior that resulted in their ArbCom topic ban, "Undid revision 726362373 by Kingofaces43 (talk) who appears not to read the newspaper? common knowledge, decent coverage". It's that kind of sniping directly at editors that Wuerzele has shown they are incapable of stopping that resulted in their ban, so I would like an admin to weigh in on how to further deal with their behavior. This response was to me removing the content from a previous editor for poor sourcing.[18] The lawsuit in particular involved a branch of Monsanto that's using climate modeling, etc. to recommend pesticide, fertilizer, etc. applications for farmers, which puts this content squarely in the realm of the topic ban without even needing to consider broadly construed.

Wuerzele has also now engaged in apsersions: "No, I consider this retaliatory, because I exposed your relentlessly controlling, always pro-industry and negative editing behavior."[19] This was the exact attitude this ArbCom principle was meant to put a stop to and why Wuerzele was topic banned. That this is still continuing after their sanctions is a problem, especially since my edit removed content that actually favored the company (they were the one filing the complaint this time), which runs completely contrary to the hounding narrative Wuerzele is still trying to pursue against me.
At this point, a one-way interaction ban from me seems logical to diffuse this continued behavior. The only times I ever interact with Wuerzele now is responding to when they engage in this behavior when they still pursue my edits. There shouldn't be a need for a two-way interaction ban since I generally try to avoid Wuerzele and haven't had anything with respect to Wuerzele that would warrant the two-way ban since the ArbCom case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the WSJ source doesn't cover much detail, but other sources[20][21] regularly discuss things like seed choice, pesticide application, etc. as the core products of the decision making platform this company markets. There's really no way to say this doesn't relate to the topic ban in a broadly construed manner.

The larger problem though is the continuation of sniping on multiple counts I mentioned above. Arbs specifically expanded the DS to company pages saying that they didn't need to expand the topic bans as DS would take care of editors that immediately jump into behavior that resulted in their bans again while testing the edge of their ban.[22] (read the arb opinions on topic bans) That's exactly what's happening here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[23]


Discussion concerning Wuerzele[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 Wuerzele[edit]

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

Just before I found this AE, I had seen the edit in question and reverted it. This is really a no-brainer: the page is about Monsanto, and it absolutely is within the scope of the topic ban. It's a pity, because Wuerzele has been doing a good job of obeying the sanctions until now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

About being within scope, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions specifically includes "the companies that produce them". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Yeah, I see what you mean and you are technically correct. (At this point, Tryptofish mumbles under breath about ArbCom dropping the ball about GMOs yet again.) The way I see it, I really do not care whether there is a block or a warning. As I said above, until this flare-up, I've been impressed with Wuerzele's adherence to the rules while remaining otherwise a good contributor. Looking back at the Arbs' statements in their vote not to expand the topic bans even while they were expanding the DS, I note that a couple of them said explicitly that it would be reasonable to apply DS to companies if the need arises for topic-banned editors, so that would justify a firm and final warning here, instead of a block. I also note with a bit of irony that the justification they gave was that the topic-banned editors hadn't tested this boundary yet. And, as someone who watched the whole case very closely, I feel that I am correct in saying that the change in the DS language was never meant as an expansion of the scope, but rather, as a clarification. Thus, companies really were included all along in the "broadly construed" part of the topic ban language, and maybe that should not allow for a get-out-of-jail free card. So that is an argument for an AE block. I guess it comes down to what Wuerzele could reasonably be expected to have understood from what the Committee articulated. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, you make some very good points about civility and decorum. But I hope that the result of this AE will not take the form of saying "go ahead and edit through the loophole, but you are warned to be civil when you do so". If there is a warning, as opposed to a block based on "broadly construed" (and "broadly construed" really does need to mean something), I hope that it will be a warning that, in addition to civility, there should be no "company" edits going forward. Going forward, the inclusion of companies in the scope is clearly the Committee's intent. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not close this without a warning about civility and an instruction that companies are henceforth out of bounds. The fact that an editor has been inactive recently does not preclude a return shortly after this AE thread gets closed and archived. It would be a pity to have to come back here again because things had remained unclear. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

My understanding of the scope is that the companies are those that deal in GMOs and related agricultural products, and not other companies. There was an earlier AE (about Jytdog), about an edit to the Bayer company page (the company makes some GMO-related products among many other unrelated things) that did not relate directly to GMOs. The consensus then was that it is within "the letter of the law" to make such edits if they are entirely unrelated to GMOs, but that, given "broadly construed", it's a bad idea to get close to the edge. I think that would be the best advice. I strongly recommend that this AE be closed with such a warning, because you really should not want an unclear guidance to bring us back here again. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ed: I don't think there would be a problem with a company that makes chemicals that are all non-agricultural. But if you allow companies, what happens with an edit to Monsanto? It's not that hard to tell the difference: base it on whether or not the page has at least a section about agricultural products. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Wuerzele[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
@Tryptofish: Please see the linked page. In January 2016 the committee broadened the DS to include the companies but decided not to change the topic bans of those already sanctioned in the decision, including Wuerzele. They are still allowed to edit about the companies. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Even assuming there was no violation of the topic-ban, an edit summary like this one is uncivil and inappropriate. (The edit summary also reflects a misunderstanding of the edit Wuerzele was reverting; Kingofaces43 had questioned the notability or importance of Monsanto v. Chen, not whether the case exists or has been reported anywhere.) If Wuerzele plans to continue editing these articles to the extent permitted by (depending on one's viewpoint) either a limitation of or a loophole in the remedies, he should do so with civility and decorum. Subject to any explanation Wuerzele may provide, I would support a warning on this basis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Wuerzele: Please post a response to this request, addressing both the scope and civility issues, the next time you edit. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Wuerzele still hasn't returned to editing and there seems to be a desire to close this report. Certainly a civility-related warning is in order. The tougher question is whether the scope of the topic-ban should be extended to "company" related edits (even not directly related to GMOs), as Tryptofish has suggested and as appears to have some merit. I'm reluctant to expand a topic-ban in the absence of the affected editor—but it's probably in that editor's interest for him to stay away from the broader area anyway, as the disputed edits here illustrate. So perhaps the right result is to close this with the warning coupled with an expansion of the topic-ban as suggested, but allowing Wuerzele the right to reopen the discussion on this board if he wants to argue against such expansion when he returns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure we have the authority to expand to non-GMO companies. I can't see an interpretation of GMO companies "broadly construed" that stretches that far, though you obviously have more insight into what the Committee probably intended. It seems to me that if we were to extend it to all companies, not related to GMOs, that would need approval as a Community ban. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I don't believe that in the decision, the Committee focused specifically on whether the restriction would be broad enough to cover an edit that was about a company that is active in the GMO field but where the specific edit did not deal with GMOs. At least I know that I did not think about that one way or the other (or if I did I don't remember it). That said, "relating to ... broadly construed" is flexible language and is typically intended as such. What do other admins think? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Ah, I think I see now. You meant a ban on edits concerning GMO-related companies where the edit itself was not GMO-related. I think that is well within the scope. To me it sounded like you were proposing a ban on edits concerning corporations in general. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If there's problematic editing here, it seems to me that the simplest solution would just be to extend the ban to the full covered area, including companies. Even if the Committee didn't do that at the time, the extension could be made as a discretionary sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Since 22 June, Wuerzele has made no further edits that raise concerns. I would close this with no action, but don't object if any admin wants to log their own warning to Wuerzele. The other two editors that were sanctioned by the committee in WP:ARBGMO, but not banned from editing about GMO companies, were User:SageRad and User:Jytdog. SageRad has made no edits since May, and Jytdog is indisposed due to another problem. So if there is indeed a multi-editor loophole about GMO companies that wants closing, it isn't causing much trouble at the moment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Other admins are considering if the ban should be extended. We could then apply a new restriction saying that Wuerzele is restricted from all the topics that are covered by the discretionary sanction remedy. User:Seraphimblade most likely said the same thing above. It's unclear if he supports the change himself. My personal view is that the widened ban is not yet needed. In addition, User:Wuerzele has made edits relating to chemical companies in the past. (For example, he created Dragon Aromatics in 2015. Nothing to do with perfume, it is a heavy-duty industrial company like an oil refinery). These companies, or at least the edits, may be unrelated to GMOs. The widened ban risks excluding him from edits to many chemical companies. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I was throwing it out there as a general option, not necessarily supporting it. There's some borderline stuff, but I don't think extending it is required at this time. I would note to Wuerzele, though, that it would be wise to tread very lightly in these areas if at all. It's very close to the edge of the topic ban, and it would be easy indeed to put a toe over the line. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Closing without action for now. Any participant may reopen this request at such time that Wuerzele returns to active editing if they still have concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

TripWire[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 TripWire[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
TripWire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan: ARBIPA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 9 July 2016 (History of Gilgit-Baltistan) Reinstates an edit , for which another editor just got topic-banned. The edit comes with a combative edit summary: "They dont become unreialble because you say so." Dismisses the extensive discussion at Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan by the curt brushoff: "the sources are fine, it's your interpretation of them that is wrong."
  2. 9 July 2016 (Baloch Students Organization) Deletes content attributed to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) comparing it to "Facebook". Repeats the revert the next day, ignoring the talk page discussion.
  3. 8 July 2016 (Baloch Students Organization) Adds "separatist fighter" as a LABEL for the founder of the organization. This fails to be NPOV because the founder was not a separatist fighter at the time and plenty of other sources do not use the description. In the talk page discussion, doubles down on POV and starts comparing the founder to Osama Bin Laden.
  4. 4 July 2016 CANVASSing for an RfC at WP:WikiProject Pakistan without a parallel post to WP:WikiProject India. The subject at hand deals with alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan conflict. (The RfC itself is now closed because it was initiated by a banned user, but that doesn't mitigate the obvious attempt of canvassing.)
  5. 8 May 2016 (Balochistan conflict) Reverts well-sourced content of Bharatiya29and repeats the revert seven times further. The talk page discussion here and here is throroughly deadlocked due to TripWire's tendentious position and argumentation. The compromises I propose are obsturcted.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 3 July 2015 Future Perfect at Sunrise topic-banned the user from all edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts. FP's diagnosis: that you are a tendentious editor whose presence on Wikipedia is motivated almost entirely to a desire to push a certain national POV."
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 

The user came back from a topic ban about 6 months ago and went back to the old ways soon after. At the previous AE request on 10 April, I argued against a sanction because I felt the user was showing improvement and a lot of the activity at that time centered on a sock (MBlaze Lightning). That is not the case any more. The user's talk page discussion is merely stonewalling. They constantly tell others to seek consensus, but never strive for consensus themselves. The POV that they push is not merely that of nationalism but of the State. Even AHRC's objections are brushed off.

The edit that breaks the camel's back is the latest edit on 9 July (diff 1). This one reinstates the edit of a user that just got topic-banned, deleting content sourced to scholarly sources and replacing it with OR. Two fake citations (one pointing to the last page of a book's index and another to a newspaper opinion column) appear, neither of which supports the claim that Gilgit-Baltistan "unconditionally acceded" to Pakistan. This is merely the State's propaganda that is being pushed on Wikipedia.

Most other users that have tried to reason with the user have given up in exasperation. I am at wit's end. I think it is time to take action again.

Responses: TripWire's long-winded, rambling response illustrates the same frivilous attitude that pervades all their discussions. This is not the place for content discussion anyway.

  • Reinstating the banned user's edit at 20:42, 9 July at History of Gilgit-Baltistan was their first edit ever on Gilgit-Baltistan topics. The second edit at 20:48, 9 July at Talk: Gilgit-Baltistan was the brushoff: the sources are fine, which completely ignores the preceding discussion. I see no effort to obtain consensus in this approach, or any regard to reliability of sources and Wikipedia policies. Which sources were fine? The last page of the index of a book? An op-ed that has no mention of "unconditional accesstion"? Why TripWire suddenly got interested in Gilgit-Baltistan at this time is another interesting question. (My own contributions to the articles can be seen on Xtools here and here.)
  • The explanation that TripWire came to the page because of a twitter feed of anonymous Pakistani edits, is not likely. The last such edit on History of Gilgit-Baltistan was six months ago. It is much more likely that they saw the posts of Saladin1987 on my talk page or SheriffIsInTown's talk page and decided to be the Robin Hood. Saladin's versions on Gilgit-Baltistan could not be reinstated because they had been revdel'ed. History of Gilgit-Baltistan was next.
  • TripWire also conveniently hides behind the screen of "defending Wikipedia against socks." But a sock has to be reported and blocked before we revert their edits. If, in fact, TripWire had known the sock's identity, why did they canvass at WikiProject Pakistan for the sock's RfC? Besides the sock, plenty of regular editors have also defended the content: Bharatiya29, myself, Kashmiri and Spartacus!.
  • The defense that TripWire didn't know the relevance of the topic to WikiProject India is also disingeneous, because they themselves mentioned "India" over a dozen times in the talk page discussion. And, they claimed to be well-versed with the CANVASSing policies as well.
  • TripWire claims unawareness of Saladin1987 being topic-banned; fair enough. But then the question remains what due diligence they did before reinstating content reverted by two experienced users: Thomas.W and me. Did they even look at the citations that were given?

Nationalistic POV: TripWire asks where they exhibited nationalistic POV. At Wikipedia, we aim to provide a fair representation of all the views expressed in reliable sources (WP:NPOV). TripWire's position in diff 1 is that of the Pakistani State, viz., Gilgit-Baltistan voluntarily acceded to Pakistan. Scholars disagree and they are dismissed. In diffs 2, 3, and 5, they support the State's views such as Kulbhushan Yadav is an Indian spy and Baloch Students Organization is a terrorist organization. All contrary views are dismissed. Nuro Dragonfly, a neutral third-party editor that came to mediate on the Kulbhushan Yadav page, had this to say at an earlier ARE case: "All attempts to create a neutral POV consensus in the article have been rejected by either FreeatlastChitchat or TripWire on all occasions, especially once the subject matter turns to the fact that everything that Pakistan has said on the matter is just a claim, exactly the same as everything India says is just a claim."[24]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

TopGun comment: I am afraid TopGun throws up a number of red herrings to obfuscate and derail the case. All the reverts mentioned above are to the content contributed by me or Bharatiya29, not those of any socks. And, I am not raising content issues, but those of conduct. Yes, DRN is an appropriate venue when there is a genuine dispute. But if TripWire throws up nationalistic POV on a daily basis, DRN doesn't have the manpower to deal with it all. As for my taking responsibility for "sock edits," I only did so for MBlaze Lightning edits. I am sure TopGun would have done the same if people reverted Mar4d's edits when he got banned for socking. All this is irrelevant to the issues at hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown comment: SheriffIsInTown is absolutely right that I edit all South Asia topics with the same "state of mind," viz., NPOV. I am not sure why we are talking about me here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[25]

Discussion concerning TripWire[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 TripWire[edit]

Oh, so may WP:ASPERSIONS. Will humbly try to answer:

  • 9 July 2016. This was a perfectly fine sourced edit by another editor which was reverted by Kautilya3. I, having found the edit legit, reverted him back (my only edit on that page). Per WP:BRD, this is the normal sequence of events, why jump the gun instead of discussing it at talk? Second, there was no 'extensive' discussion as claimed, just a WP:WALLOFTEXT by him. He should have discussed the dispute instead of bringing it here.
And how would I know that some user has been topic banned? And how could Kautilya3 ascertain that it was that particular edit which caused the ban?
I gave FOUR reasons for the revert in the edit-summary, all ignored by him.
It's strange that Kautilya3 himself deletes/reverts sourced content (attributed to three RS: Express Tribune, Dawn and even a Book) in the same article, and when I revert his deletion of sourced content, he uses the same against me here. But when his own poorly sourced edit gets reverted, he ironically uses the same too against me?
Moreover, Facebook example was used to make Kautilya3 understand that online appeals launched by random people cannot be used to build WP, or can it be?? How can an appeal launched at "FB Causes" be synthesized into saying that Facebook "severely" condemns the whatever action stated in the appeal? Especially when the appeal itself does not even use the word severely?? A classic example of WP:FAKE and WP:NPOV.
Last, the edit followed WP:BRD, no edit warring, dear Admins, what's wrong in that?
  • 8 July 2016. This shows Kautilya3's bias. Kautilya3 used this Al Jazeera source and attributed it thrice in the article. But when I used Kautilya3's own source to add portion of info which was deliberately omitted (that the subject was a "separatist fighter"), I am projected as the bad guy?! I even mentioned this in the edit-summary and at the talk-discussion (ignoring of which was fine by Kautilya3, but he accuses me of ignoring talk discussions). How on earth can only Kautilya3 use portions of the source which suits his POV and omit, and then revert the portion of the SAME source (already used by HIMSELF) that does not line with his opinion? How can this be acceptable? Admins???
For clarity, Kuatiliya had made more than 19 edits at BSO in one day, and I made fol 4 edits (not reverts):
  • 02:16, 9 July 2016. add. I removed Kuatilya3's WP:OR which was not supported by the given source and replaced it with what the source said. (The complainant to please remind me which policy did I violate by doing so?)
  • 02:22, 9 July 2016. allegedly. I added the word allegedly which was supported by BBC. (yes, BBC! What's wrong in that when Kuatilya himself has used blogs and Baloch propaganda website frequently to build the article?)
  • 02:28, 9 July 2016. expand per source already used. I added "separatist fighter" by REUSING the source already used by Kuatilya3 (wonder why would he miss it at the first place).
  • 05:32, 9 July 2016. Got a blanket revert by Kuatilya3 alongwith a vague reason.
  • 14:30, 9 July 2016. Removal of sourced content. Did you even read the source? Stop pushing your POV. The ONLY revert that I had made to Kuatilya3. Prior to this revert, I also commented on the talk page. How else does WP work?
Now, everybody is welcome to point out where did I go wrong so that I may improve myself. If not, WP:BOOMERANG will be in order.
  • Regarding this 4 July 2016. One, how can a post about an RfC concerning Pakistan at WP:WikiProject Pakistan be termed 'Canvassing'? I seriously object to Kautilya3's poor choice of words. Two, I had genuinely thought of posting the same to WP:WikiProject India but didnt do it as the issue related to Balochistan and Pakistan. A Pakistani province (unlike Kashmir which is disputed) had no direct link with India, but may be I should have done it because the discussion did involve India. This was my first such post at Country Project Pages so I was unaware of the procedures, and if the Admins think I should have posted the same to WP:WikiProject India, I apologise for not doing it as a genuine mistake.
  • 8 May 2016. This is no diff. Just a facade. But allow me to explain what Kautilya3 wants to say:
Balochistan conflict has contentiously been infested with socks, particularly DarknessShines2, a notorious sockmaster. Just see how his socks have made POV edits at the page and opened up discussions which were fervently supported by Kautilya3:
  • The same sock then again caused disruption which was again supported by Kautilya3 which again led to a lengthy discussion namely "Edits by Freedom Mouse aka Darknesshines". Later, when the second sock got banned the discussion ended with a consensus against Kautilya3.
All these sock-edits were being diligently supported and fueled by Kautilya3. He even removed longstanding content on sock's suggestion and prolonged the discussion until the sock was banned and Future Perfect at Sunrise hatted the entire discussion.
That was me alone Vs 3 x socks and Kuatiliya3 and yet he cannot point out a single policy that I actually violated during the entire discourse. What does this say about me? Am I the bad guy here or the one reporting me? I fight 3 x socks, its supporters, follow polices, the socks then get banned and WP stays as it was before socking, and this is the reward I get in return? Can anyone deny that I wasnt fighting socks or that they werent banned during the discussion or that I upheld WP as a project? I am seriously getting tired of my efforts here. The bottomline here seems that if you fight socks, it's you who would get blocked even though you dont violate any policy but just give lots of diffs for people like Kuatiliya3 to quote here randomly while the socks who doesnt care for a block and its supporters go around disrupting WP.
Now, if challenging socks/vandals all while remaining within WP polices and following WP:BRD is wrong, please penalize me. But if I was able to prevent socks from disrupting WP without edit-warring and by participating in ALL the discussions and by following WP:BRD then why Kautilya3 is accusing me of doing 'seven reverts' i.e. digging up my entire history and cherry-picking random reverts that I might have made?
The real question here should be that why a guy who prevented socks from disrupting WP is being reported by the same editor who have been in support of these socks, and has been let scot-free?
  • Topic ban: I was topic banned a year from now (not 6 months). That's history. No need to bring it up over and again. I have improved, changed and my edit-history is a proof. By posting links to the topic ban thrice, Kautilya3, what were you trying to gain?
  • AE's: Just a way to divert attention. Last time, even the editor who reported me was about to get Boomeranged until he had to apologize and withdraw his AE report against me for the report being frivolous and false. I guess, had it actually boomeranged, things could have been simpler.
Kautilya3's Selective/Discreet Approach to push Nationalistic POV
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Kautilya3, apart from supporting socks, always advocate other editors not to use WP:NEWSORG to construct articles as he considers them to be unreliable. Two latest instances are on GB page and BSO page (more examples can be dug if required). What Admins should take note of is the second, BSO page example. He tells me not to use reliable WP:NEWSORG like BBC, Al Jazeera to add content, but at the same time he totally reconstructs the entire BSO page from WP:NEWSORG including blogs and unreliable websites which totally aligns with the Indian government's POV on the Baloch issue. Examples:
  • 2: Uses Aljazeera.
He ventures as far as quoting unreliable blogs, Baloch propaganda websites and even WP:OR to push his nationalistic POV, but when I reinstate a SINGLE 3rd-party book-sourced edit at Gilgit-Baltistan, he cast WP:ASPERSIONS and accuses me of POV-pushing? How can this be acceptable at WP?
All above edits are from the same article for which Kuatilya has dragged me here. I dont object to the content provided it is well sourced but then Kautilya should follow what he advocate to others and stop gaming the system.


  • In an another example of bending the rules and pushing nationalistic POV, Kuatilya here, who champions WP:STICKTOSOURCE, lectures everyone to follow RS and quickly revert others if content does not match the source conveniently bypasses WP policy and his own words and pushes the Indian state POV against long-standing agreed upon content which was WP:NPOV. How conveniently he changes "Indian-administered region of Kashmir" to "Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir" despite that the source precisely and clearly uses the term "Indian-administered-Kashmir". And then strangely enough ask others to gain consensus for reverting the POV edit back to what was already long-standing. Brave enough, he accuses others of pushing POV.
Response to Kautilya3's additional comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I get my feed from a twitter account that posts edits made by Pakistani IPs on any WP page. My edit-history is a proof that I have reverted many such vandalism from IPs. It's for the same reason GB article was on my watchlist, so obviously when I saw Kautilya3 reverting a perfectly sourced edit by a new user, I checked the sources and having found them correct reinstated the edit and followed WP:BRD by participating in the discussion. What diligence does Kautiliya3 expects me to show when I dont see any edit by Thomas.W on the recent page history and when all I can see is Kautiliya reverting a sourced edit merely by saying that it's not RS?
I wonder, all this is infact a content dispute that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily highlighting here which should have been solved at the respective talks.
All the rehtorics of topic-ban to that user is a facade Kautilya3 is trying hide behind. All I am concerned about is that the edit was sourced and was correct and was wrongly removed.
As regards his sock-comment, what does it has to do with he accusing me of canvassing? Kautilya3 himself is known for canvassing directly at editor's talk. The socks were reverted per WP:BRD and discussion carried out. Kautilya3 should be asked, when he knew that it were sock edits, why would he support them, not once but thrice?
His last point regarding canvassing, I have already admitted to the mistake, which otherwise is not an issue as already 4 editors mentioned by Kautilya3 himself were participating at the RfC, and the RfC was closed right after I posted it at WP:WikiProject Pakistan for being opened by a sock IP. He is just beating a dead horse. Moreover, as per my understanding the issue concerned "Wikiproject Pakistan". And WP:PAK is followed by many editors including non-Pakistanis. By raising this point it shows the bias Kautilya has against WP:PAK editors
  • No, Kuatiliya3 was not owning Bhartiya's edits alone, they were sock edits each and everytime. Bartiya29 was not even involved when the sock reinstated the edits and Kautiliya then had to even canvass Bharatiya29 to participate in the discussion restarted by the sock. This was just his way of covering his tracks that he was supporting a sock. But Bharatiya29 just responded to this canvassing at his talk and didn't bother to reply to the discussion at the article's talk.
  • Admins, can you please look into Kautiliya's repeated accusation of "pushing nationalistic POV" against me? WP:BATTLEGROUND?
  • Kuatilya is juts trying to confuse the issue. What a six-month-old edit has to do with the recent editing of GB article? An edit on a page that was on my watchlist was subjected to POV pushing by Kuatilya, I saw that and took action. What he wants to imply by bringing up this point is beyond me.
Response to Bharatiya29's comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Please clarify what do you mean by that my behavior "has been disturbing"? Please quantify. We all have already agreed that only third party sources will be used in the article keeping in view its nature being a conflict and that both the involved parties will (always) try to present their POV whatsoever, how neutrally worded it may be. Now, if you cant present a 3rd party source to support your edit why the mud slinging? Your and Kuatilya's biased approach can be seen from the fact that when you want to push something you even find justifictaions to use sources having a C of I, and but when the other party says the same, you go back on your words. I have amply highlighted this point above, and Admins must look into this selective approach which games the system.

*Re Pakistan government's POV": A baseless accusation as none of the sources used in the article which say that India is involved in Balochistan are Pakistani, but instead are 3rd party independent/uninvolved sources. Whereas, Pakistani govt have been raising the issue of Indian involvement in Balochistan at international forums but it has not gain much currency. Conversely, it is the Indian govt that have bee specifically giving air-time to Baloch dissents and their separatists leaders to farther their views which you and the socks have been trying to push in the article. Also, as all this info is ONLY sourced from Indian sources, to me it seems that it is rather you and Kautilya3 who have been trying to push the Indian government's POV in the article while cloaking it as being NPOV. How can I do that when no Pakistani source is allowed in the article? If a 3rd party RS like a renowned US politician or a known website like BBC says something which might be inline with the facts on ground, blame the source not the one who is using them per WP polices. But if you blame the source, then sorry, but you wont be able to use the same source to support your POV. That's commonsense.

*Re BSO being a terrorist organization: What "3rd party" sources did India or you present to declare All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF), Al-Umar-Mujahideen (AUM),Babbar Khalsa International (BKI), Communist Party of India (Maoist), Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) People's War, Deendar Anjuman (DA), Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM) etc as terrorist organization per Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, less the law itself?? BSO is a Pakistani organization which was declared as a terrorist organization per country's law just like any other country-specific organization. Sorry, you are just trying to muddy the waters, nothing else.

*Re Bhartiya's new comments: First he says that there's no 3rd party source that says BSO is a terrorist organization. I responded to that. Now he talks about BSO's notability which was never under discussion. The notability issue was with Kareema Baloch, but here he directs our attention to BSO itself. Bhartiya is just shifting his goal posts as he cant find any worthwhile points to complain about. Bhartiya, this is not BSO's talk page nor DRN where you are trying to resolve a dispute. You had time to do it at the talk, which you did not. Why do it here? Your comments concerning a dispute wont merit a response here.

  • ....complaints' "own conduct may be examined as well."

Re Regentspark: Sir, I do agree with you and will surely try to follow your advice. I cant help but mention that this is what I already have been doing - trying to gain consensus constructively by positively engaging with the involved parties including the socks. Surely, per your advice, I will try to improve if there's any shortcoming. No argument on that. As for the socks, well sir, if an info was not allowed to stay in the article previously, it means that there's been a consensus not to include it at some point in the past. Now, using socks to push it again wont solve the matter, nor would it automatically mean that the edit become legit because a sock is repeatedly trying to push it. Not unless fresh evidence is presented which may change the consensus, and I am all for it. Legit edits dont require socks to add them. That's what is observed in remaining Indo-Pak conflict pages. The rules regarding usage of sources were set by Kuatilya himself, and he alone cant selectively follow part of those rules, reject the other part that does not suit him, and then change the rules altogether when other editors try following them in letter and spirit. Thanks.

Statement by TopGun[edit]

I commented on the last TripWire AE and generally know most users/socks and disputes in this topic area so the admins might benefit from my views on this. I've been following three sets of socks closely and trying to get them blocked for a year now: [26] [27] [28]. All three of them are disruptive, persistent and try to create this kind of mess each time they return. Unfortunately, there are not many active editors who recognize them and by the time I or another experienced editor report them, the victim articles are under complicated disputes. The balochistan conflict topic area is facing the exact same situation. To add to the fuel, Kautilya3 has demonstrated that he wants to assume responsibility of all edits of socks (in wholesale) as he said here. This can not be done without him having to clear WP:BURDEN instead of asking others to do so and is an issue per se as well. The Darkness Shines sock was just blocked after my report and his threads were hatted (as it happened in his previous attempts at disrupting the same article)... however the same is happening here with the dispute dragging on and Kautilya3 taking up the dispute. It's over and there's no need to drag it and if an editor thinks another user is not agreeing to their arguments, it's the basic right of an editor to participate in consensus in that way as far as they are civil and WP:DRN exists to resolve that to form a clearer consensus as already pointed out by an NeilN at the end of that discussion, not AE. If the traveling circus continues even after the sock is blocked, their purpose is achieved.

  • Furthermore, notifying WP:PAK is not canvassing. This was established at this proposal that was infact made by me: Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing/Archive 5#Canvassing Country / Nation level Wikiprojects. If I, even being the proposer of a policy against such notices, can accept that consensus is against terming such notices canvassing, it should be easy for others to follow. WP:PAK is infact the right venue to notify per consensus. Canvassing would have been posting talkpage messages to select editors.
  • This report is not as complicated as it seems and has been plagued with sock disruption which is common in this topic area.
  • Both editors should be recommended to go to WP:DRN and if they can not resolve their issues by discussion, I would recommend a simple interaction ban where both can edit the article(s), participate in RFCs, discuss on talkpage (not with each other) but not interact with each other, reverting/reporting each other or edit parts of an article edited by each other. We need to get rid of reporting editors for the sake of reporting so add to this ban any other editors who are bent on wasting every one's time here at AE.

--lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Bharatiya29[edit]

TripWire's behavior at Talk:Balochistan conflict has been disturbing. He has constantly tried to block any attempts at making the article neutral and has objected to the addition of those contents which are not in agreement to Pakistan government's POV. The article has a section dedicated to Pakistan's allegations on India of supporting Baloch separatist groups. When I have tried to mention Baloch group's denial of this allegation, TripWire reverted me just because he maintains that the group is not reliable since it has been declared as a terrorist organisation by Pakistan government (although he hasn't cited any third-party sources to prove this). TripWire also seems to have an unfounded assumption that Indian media constitute Indian propaganda. His sole motive here is to confine WP to the views of the Pakistan government and he has argued against all other editors asking for NPOV.. Bharatiya29 13:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to TripWire's comments:What’s more disturbing than pushing a nationalistic POV? I never said that only third-party sources should be used; rather I have always said that the views of all the stakeholders should be mentioned with due weightage. Would you please explain to me that what does the Indian government have to do with interviews of notable Baloch nationalists by independent media houses? If you are really convinced that all the Indian media coverage is influenced by the Indian government then you must prove your point. I have repeatedly told you that the fact that Pakistan has declared BSO as a terrorist organisation is not enough to prove its non-reliability. Bharatiya29 08:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to TripWire's new comments:I have never said that only third-party sources should be used, instead statements by all the parties should also be given space. You should know that even if Karima Baloch is not notable as an individual, she is the chairperson of an involved party, and that is what makes her statement worth mentioning. I am being forced to discuss about all these stuff here since you are accusing me of having an biased approach. The discussion here is regarding your behavior, and so this was the last time I responded to your baseless allegations. Bharatiya29 15:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SheriffIsInTown[edit]

Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is about fact telling and should be about fact telling. It should not be used for political propaganda. Using an encyclopedia for political propaganda defies its purpose of being an encyclopedia. Kautilya3's editing has been nothing but political propaganda. He tries to find less than encyclopedic information which suits his POV and adds it to encyclopedia. He calls founder of a nation as "internet beast", a clear indication that he personally considers him a villain for pursuing to create modern day boundaries in South Asia. He also at one point said that he does not recognize modern day boundaries in South Asia and it seems like his edits are more centric towards an undivided South Asia. Not recognizing the present day boundaries in South Asia makes the region look like the map in Akhand Bharat article where there is no other country except India in South Asia. Going in with that state of mind and editing a contentious topic area such as WP:ARBIPA can only create neutrality issues. Neutral editors like TripWire are needed to ensure that articles are not sidetracked by editors who display such political prejudice. If we will start banning editors like TripWire who did not violate any principle set forth in WP:ARBIPA but only challenged less than neutral edits of Kautilya3 who clearly displayed political prejudice at several times in their editing then we will only make Wikipedia, a non-neutral politically motivated information portal which is not what an encyclopedia should be. If anyone who deserves to be topic-banned from WP:ARBIPA is Kautilya3 and not TripWire. I am not sure if these findings can call for a Boomerang but if they do then I will suggest one against the nom. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by D4iNa4[edit]

Report is legit and action is necessary, since TripWire came off from a topic ban just some months ago, he had to be more careful but he is not. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning TripWire[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The last time an Enforcement request was made against TripWire, it was dismissed as frivolous and was about to boomerang when another admin allowed the filing party to withdraw. This one is more complicated. As I am not an expert in India-Pakistan relations, I'll reserve judgment until some other editors and admins weigh in and hopefully offer more context. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @TripWire: Your statement is far beyond the limit. Please refactor for length, or hat unnecessary parts. Thank you, The WordsmithTalk to me 21:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to leave this to someone else to judge but TripWire should note that reinstating edits made by sockpuppets is perfectly valid and repeatedly invoking the fact that the edits were originally made by a sock is not constructive. At some point, you need to accept that there is support for that content and get down to the business of seeking consensus in good faith. If this closes with no action, I urge TripWire to constructively engage in the compromise discussion or resort to dispute resolution where sources can be evaluated, npov can be judged, and consensus wording hammered out. It is true that this area is plagued by socks and that their presence is disruptive, but that should not be used as an excuse to avoid a consensus seeking discussion. --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ranze[edit]

Closing as moot. This sanction already expired on 4 April 2016. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
Ranze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Ranze (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
1 May 2015 Gamergate topic ban:
I am imposing for an indefinite period the standard Gamergate topic ban, which prohibits you from editing "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."
Discussion related to (not sure about resulting in) this sanction was a 2 week overall block I received by @EdJohnston: earlier the same day
special:diff/660255380 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive171#Ranze
This was for allegedly violating a topic ban I received from Gamaliel on April 4:
special:diff/654927319
The cited reasons were redirecting Milo Y to Milo Yiannopoulous (presumably because he wrote some articles about Gamergate, as if that's all he does...) and special:diff/659243811 where I admittedly did include information about the Calgary Expo expelling a group of women who had gamergate related information. The reason I thought that was acceptable was because this was in no way connected to Zoe Quinn, which was the original concern of this whole GG topic ban thing. According to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate there are no general Gamergate sanctions anymore they are superceded by specific ArbCom sanctions. @HJ Mitchell: classified these as "obsolete" on 17 November 2015. It was demoted to historical status on 29 January 2015. So basically, when Gamaliel placed these sanctions on my in 2015 on April 4 / May 1, I did not take them seriously at the time because I was under the impression that Gamergate sanctions did not exist and he was trying to apply an undated policy. In the message left to me, Gamliel claimed that "This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision" linking to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final_decision. The link given was not very specific and I was looking at the wrong section, got confused, and didn't get the further feedback I requested to explain the justification. I mostly just shrugged it off and strove not to edit the topic, go watch a bunch of TV, renew my love for pro wrestling, etc. I'd like to know if such broad restrictions are still justified. I've left the Zoe Quinn article alone and that was the crux of what led up to this. Should I have such harsh and broad sanctions when I've stayed away and not reintroduced the pseudonym? For those interested in what preceded the April 4 intervention by Gamaliel I believe that is covered beginning at Talk:Zoë_Quinn/Archive_2#Gamergate_Harassment_sub-section_under_Career. It's coming back now... what had happened was on the talk page, I used template:cite tweet and the number of a tweet made by an account verified by reliable sources to belong to her. I introduced the tweet for discussion for its use as a potential source in the article, regarding the comments the tweet made about a prior career. Given that what I posted has been redacted, I can't refresh my memory on the specific phrasing, though I expect admins have access to the redacted diffs to do so. My thoughts on the potential inclusion of the restraining order (a primary source legal document) was that secondary sources (maybe also Breitbart) had brought up this restraining order. WP:BLPPRIMARY does allow for the referencing of primary sources if they support details established as notable by secondary sources so I didn't understand the problem with doing this. I would very much like to make amends for anything I did wrong, if I did, but my requests for explanations about the specifics of it never got answered in detail enough for me to understand it, so I would like the opportunity to have this better explained to me so I can understand the rules I broke, apologize for doing so, and in knowing better the specifics, better avoid doing so in the future. Ranze (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
special:diff/729012441 (page says retired)

Statements by Ranze[edit]

Best-case scenario I would like the sanction lifted altogether. Next-best, I would like it to be modified to only apply to Gamergate only, as in (a) but not (b) because "any gender-related dispute" is so vague that people can try to make anything relating to people seem like it falls under that.

I pinged Gamaliel but then realized on checking page the user is listed as retired so I would require a different administrator to modify or remove it.

Since it's been 14 months since this was put in place my memories on what led up to it aren't the clearest. As best I can recall I had brought up on Zoe Quinn's talk page a Breitbart article which I wanted to include as a reference which mentioned a modeling pseudonym, and this was construed as some kind of attack on her.

I'd also like to remind everyone that the tweet that spawned all this was relating information which the Tweeter explains she was 'open about' highlighted in secondary sources:

"Gamergate Zoe Quinn's statement in full as she drops harassment lawsuit against ex responsible for vile 'hate movement'".

Really all that should have come of that was a reply like "since a tweet is a primary source, the information in it should be mentioned in a secondary source to establish its notability for the article" on the talk page. I would have understood that and not pushed to include it in the article on the basis of just a primary source until I had found such verification. But instead got slapped with fuzzy sanctions about pretty much everything because I linked a public statement from a verified Twitter about a past career which the BLP topic maintains they have been open about. Ranze (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @The Wordsmith: Why the rush to close? Can't you leave it open long enough for a wide scope of people to give input? Like UNINVOLVED people, for example? I don't think conveniently timed enforcement requests should derail a request for reconsidering a block that was done on gray grounds to begin with. This all began because I linked a still-present tweet from the Twitter verified to belong to the article subject, information that I did not rephrase negatively as is wrongly implied above. Ranze (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: given that you said 'unblocked and/or' and I have been unblocked, does that mean this can now be opened without prejudice? I would imagine the validity of such a wide-scope restriction is worth discussion regardless of it's being enforced. Given that the justifying edit for the sanctions is mentioning on the talk page a career past which Zoe Quinn was open about at the time (and remains open about now) and is reported on by secondary sources, there was no valid basis for sanctions to be placed to begin with.

special:diff/654927319 4 April 2015 Gamaliel broke the rules when he afflicted a 'standard gamergate topic ban' which is illegal since the concept was disbanded in December 2014. When called out on this abuse, he tried to save face on May 1st: special:diff/660280525 by abusing the ArbCom sanctions process associated with this.

That was only to be done December 2014 for people who already had those bans, not to instate new ones.

Gamaliel misrepresented himself as an uninvolved administrator to get this done. You can see this at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranze&oldid=660280525#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction but it is not apparent through a direct diff since "This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision" was inserted via the substituted template.

Gamaliel had no authority to apply this since he was an involved administrator. This is why I basically shrugged it off as weightless, since it was fraudulent.

Prior to May or April 2015 on 1 September 2014 per special:diff/623722973 Gamaliel participated in editing Zoe Quinn's talk page. You can also see at Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_1 that Gamaliel was actively involved in discussing gamergate issues since 10 September 2014.

So why was a clearly involved administrator allowed to claim to speak for ArbCom as an UNinvolved administrator and apply generalized sanctions on April/May 2015 which were disbanded December 2014? Ranze (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Strongjam: regarding the two cases you brought up:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision#Gamaliel_reminded occurred January 2015. It was discussing actions prior to that. His having assessed as uninvolved at the time he made those prior edits would not automatically make him uninvolved as of May 2015. The bans he made which were endorsed and converted were the ones prior to that: keep in mind that this conversion happened as the concept was being retired in December 2014. It did not give him authority to continue making those decisions and receive automatic endorsement from the ArbCom as he claimed.
Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#GamerGate:_Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_2 from March 2015 is a closed discussion with no obvious answer in place even if I had been directed to read it in April 2015. Robert McClenon mentions 'resolved by the committee as noted' in the upper right, but doesn't specify where that's noted. The linked-to section has no obvious bolded answer at the start for understanding how thorough a consensus there was. @Euryalus: also mentions there that it can be done on a per-section rather than per-article basis, which @Dougweller: supports. Ranze (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
PeterTheFourth: Do you have any proof that I alleged this? I can't check the editing diffs since they're crossed out but I'm pretty sure I didn't say that, as I have never considered ZQ to have done pornography. I think it was probably 'model' or something. The way I define porn does not encapsulate anything I am aware of from her.
What you claim is MY allegation on April 4 was simply citing a direct statement from the article subject. One which is still unredacted. Her words are actually a description of the work which I don't even agree with, but when quoting people I can't simply alter the quote= field to suit my taste, I have to use their own words. The 'title=' field is necessary using cite tweet because that's all tweets have as a title, the message itself.
You can see this very easily. In its present state the Zoë_Quinn article lists http://www.unburntwitch.com/ under 'Website'. If you visit there are 7 headings: WORK BLOG ABOUT CONTACT TWITTER SUPPORT MY WORK GUESTBOOK
If you click Twitter, it is a link to https://twitter.com/unburntwitch
What you call an allegation was simply using template:cite tweet for a tweet from that account, a statement posted 24 March 2015 and still present today. I didn't even do this on the article, I brought it up on the talk page and asked if it was something worth including. Ranze (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Nblund: My making Milo Y a redirect really was no basis for a block. Articles are the conveyance of topics, not redirects. I only did that because the guy has a very difficult to spell last name and I kept forgetting it and I checked first at Milo (name) and no other Milos had a last name beginning with Y so it seemed like an innocent convenience. This was before I discovered auto-fill in the search bar, I don't know when that was introduced so obviously I wouldn't need a redirect like this now. This edit was not in any way related to Gamergate, it was simply related to me wanting to read about the journalist more easily because his surname felt impossible.
Nblund you mention "apparently" as if this was some discovery thrust upon me, you do realize I mentioned this above right?
The edits I made about BlackLivesMatter were not about GamerGate at all. Trying to call grounds for sanctions only supports the argument that the wording of the sanctions are incredibly vague and are leading to a bunch of people taking shots in the dark trying to say that completely unrelated events are suddenly Gamergate events. Ranze (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Above responses moved to your section. Please comment only in your own section, threaded discussions are not allowed at AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


Statement by Gamaliel[edit]

Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]

I don't believe that allegation that somebody featured in pornography is as innocent as you suggest when you express bafflement over it being 'construed as some kind of attack'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nblund[edit]

Sorry if I'm in the wrong place. I haven't interacted directly with this user, but one of his edits has caused a lot of consternation at several entries that I have edited recently. As it turns out, he was patient zero for a (really poorly sourced) paragraph about Milo Yiannopoulos that was added to four separate articles in June this year. Relevant diffs:

This user was apparently given a 2 week ban by EdJohnston for violating a topic ban by (among several other things) making an edit to Milo Yinnopoulos entry in May last year (diff). These don't deal directly with GamerGate, but, given that he was previously sanctioned specifically for edits related to this individual, it seems like this user has blatantly violated the topic ban in the very recent past. Nblund talk 22:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam[edit]

Gamaliel's edits that Ranze links to where discussed during the ARBCOM case. He was not determined to be WP:INVOLVED and the topic bans he gave out were endorsed and converted to arbcom bans. — Strongjam (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

Ranze's last sanction for GamerGate and related topics were over a year ago. The conditions for having the topic ban rescinded were to demonstrate an ability to edit without violating BLP and related policies. Certainly a year of edits has demonstrated this. The Topic Ban is hardly related to gender. Rape is a crime and there is no gender based argument for rape. There are no groups that advocate for rape. "People vs. Turner" was controversial for the punishment imposed, not gender which is what would be required for a "gender related controversy." The Topic Ban should be lifted as no longer necessary and unduly punitive. --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Result of the appeal by Ranze[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Given the Enforcement Request below, I recommend closing this request without prejudice. If the enforcement request results in no action being taken, then it can be reopened. However, given the diffs below, this appeal is not likely to succeed anyway. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree this section should be closed without prejudice. It can be reconsidered if Ranze is unblocked and/or it's determined they did not violate their sanctions. --Laser brain (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • On further review, I think this should remain open so we can evaluate the validity of the sanction. --Laser brain (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this appeal should be evaluated independently of the request below as to whether the topic ban was breached. Even if we find the original sanction to be invalid (not saying it is or isn't at this point, I'll have to review it further), it's still expected that the editor subject to a sanction will follow it until and unless it is lifted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I do indeed have some concerns about the validity of the sanction as of right now. Here's where Gamaliel imposed the original sanction, as a 12 month topic ban, on 4 April 2015: [29]. Somewhat later, Gamaliel makes an edit where he uses the AE template for clarity's sake. The template does say "indefinite", but Gamaliel says in that same edit "This is not a new sanction", and the ban is only logged as a 12-month restriction. No extension of the ban to indefinite was ever logged. I'm therefore led to believe that the use of "indefinite" was an error in use of the template, and that therefore this sanction wasn't intended to be indefinite and has already expired as of 4 April 2016. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I hadn't looked at that particular angle, thank you for bringing it up. It does indeed seem to have been imposed as 12 months, and the "indefinite" part of it would appear to be just a template error and not backed by the force of Arbcom. Even if he had returned, Gamaliel is banned from administrative action here, so he can't reinterpret it for us (plus, many of his bans have needed multiple clarifications and modification anyway). Given the circumstances, I move that we declare the ban to have expired, and therefore the request below is void ab initio The WordsmithTalk to me 14:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Per the comments of User:Seraphimblade and User:The Wordsmith, this appeal should be closed with a note that the ban has expired. The complaint below can be closed as well since it requests enforcement of a ban no longer in effect. Ranze has been alerted to WP:ARBBLP so the matters at People v. Turner fall under that case if it turns out that more action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ranze[edit]

Closing with no action as this sanction expired before the edit in question was made. It should be noted that due to an error by the sanctioning administrator, the filing party filed this request in the good-faith belief that the sanction was still active. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:30, 15 July 2016 (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 Ranze[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 09:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Ranze (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
4 April 2015 Gamergate topic ban (elaborated on by enforcing administrator here.)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 10 June 2016 People v. Turner, a criminal case regarding rape, is a 'gender-related dispute'. Ranze's edits to the article are not insubstantial.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 1 May 2015 Block by EdJohnston for violating his topic ban.
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 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notification.


Discussion concerning Ranze[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.

Statements by Ranze[edit]

The word 'gender' does not even appear on People v. Turner, alleging that this legal case is a 'gender-related dispute' is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:SYNTHESIS on the part of PeterTheFourth. All criminal cases are 'people-related disputes' but just because people have genders doesn't make all criminal cases gender-related disputes. Rape and/or sexual assault can be done by either gender and to either gender, as can murder or theft. Their presence does not make it a gender-based dispute. The sanctions are about gender-based not sex-based disputes. Sexual acts are not inherently tied to gender and this is a false conflation.

Am I to be limited to only corporation vs. corporation legal battles where the gender of all witnesses and lawyers and judges is kept unknown so as to be certain gender could not possibly be involved? Why are you trying to broaden the use of already excessively broad terms? How is this related to Zoe Quinn?

@Wordsmith: what violation are you talking about? None of my edits to PvT are a violation, it is a criminal case about assault not a gender-related dispute.

@Carwil: I have addressed your claims below in special:diff/729137899 but had to remove it to fit under the 500 character limit. I would like to request permission from a reviewing administrator to wave this limit since I am an involved party. Ranze (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: thanks, although "here" in sense of the overall section since the bottom is for admins... I envy the convenience of threaded responses you guys enjoy below. As @Laser brain: suggests I strive to avoid editing PvT until a result is reached regarding whether over to block me on doing so or if sanctions apply to it. I hope to find some other recent and less-explored criminal cases which I can apply my efforts to which you might find less objectionable, any suggestions? Looking into this one has been an exercise in learning better referencing which could benefit the articling of assault cases where alleged assaulters and alleged victims are of identical sex and perhaps less likely to invoke the response I have seen here. Even though being limiting to same-sex crime cases seems like far too big a reaction for detailing open career statements on one person over a year ago. Ranze (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I would be happy to pre-empt Carwil on this as this is nothing I intend to hide. For 'repeatedly' to be true you'd need two times, which is true:

  1. July 9 special:diff/729282614 I changed 'the victim remained unresponsive' (which is WP:SYNTHESIS) to "the woman remained unresponsive" because it was the wording used in Sue Dremann's article. Changing 'woman' to 'victim' by whoever introduced this was not being faithful to the source.
  2. July 8 special:diff/728866550 I changed 'the victim remained unresponsive' to 'Emily remained unresponsive' (same line as above) because the reference used 'Emily' throughout and I believed that to be the most efficient way to refer to this person. Also in the interests of efficiency, in the same edit I changed "the victim was breathing" to "she was breathing", "he and the victim" to "he and Emily", "Turner stated that the victim" to "Turner stated that Emily" (in retrospect I think "Turner stated that she" would be better since Turner neither said 'victim' or 'Emily', obviously) and "Kianerci and the victim" to "Kianerci and Emily" and "The victim described" to "Emily described".

I stand by them because I believe they made the article more neutral and/or more concise. Carwil was accurate in describing my behavior, but I think inaccurate in implying it to be dismissive. Repeating 'the victim' throughout is not only not NPOV and cluttersome, but it also victimizes Emily Doe by stereotyping her in a way she has asked not to be. "I am not just a drunk victim" she reminds us in her victim impact statement, so calling her "Emily" avoids victimizing her by primarily referring to her as a victim and characterizing her in a single way which causes her distress. Ranze (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Carwil[edit]

A summary of Ranze's recent BLP violating editing is offered here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#People_v._Turner. Ranze's has repeatedly objected to the characterization of "the victim" in the article text of a case on a rape conviction, inserted "false accusation of rape" as a keyword to describe the case, and sought out unrelated behavior of a sexual assault victim to add to the article. These are tendentious gender-related edits to a gender-related article.--Carwil (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Let me amplify my earlier comments slightly to note that not only is Ranze's editing problematic, but it demonstrates a refusal to engage with policy (for example, after multiple comments on the police report violating BLPPRIMARY, he added an extended chronology sourced entirely to the same police report; plus a complete incapacity to understand the ethical obligations under BLPNAME despite explanations on Talk:People v. Turner and User talk:Ranze), a refusal to accept consensus (on "victim" being a NPOV description, on the unconscious state of the woman assaulted as determined by multiple witnesses, police, and the jury), and a tendency to filibuster the talk page (notably through 31 of the last 80 diffs at Talk:People v. Turner, many of them excessively lengthy). These problems, plus the seemingly endless regress of "I don't understand how X policy applies to me" were the key problems I remember on my brief time editing Gamergate controversy.--Carwil (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Here goes, @Laser brain::
  1. Ranze objects that calling the person sexually assaulted "the victim" is POV: Special:Diff/724584068, Special:Diff/725651941, Special:Diff/725731738
  2. Ranze objects that labeling victim "unconscious" is POV, despite it being an element of the conviction: (Discussion here: Talk:People_v._Turner#Does_not_seem_neutral_or_balanced) Ranze removed it here: Special:Diff/726305219 Special:Diff/725818752 Special:Diff/725651941 Special:Diff/725539304
  3. OR, PRIMARY, and BLPPRIMARY warnings re: police report (Special:Diff/726700659 Special:Diff/728386039, Special:Diff/728386039, Special:Diff/728155148, Special:Diff/727865007) Ranze proceeds to add an entire section sourced entirely to the police report: Special:Diff/728557737.
  4. Ranze adds "public urination" (a term for a misdemeanor crime) as a keyword for the case based on victim's behavior as reported in the police report Special:Diff/728719211
  5. Ranze offers "false accusation of rape" as a keyword for the case — Special:Diff/728718689 — despite no RS describing it this way.
--Carwil (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey administrators (@Newyorkbrad:, @The Wordsmith:, @Laser brain:), could you please clarify whether Ranze's topic ban under Gamergate Arbitration will still apply to People v. Turner, only parts of People v. Turner "related to gender," or not at all. Ranze has never conceded that it does per his recent comments on his own talk page: Special:Diff/729455572.--Carwil (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kyohyi[edit]

Question for admins on this. This is an article about a court case. And there are a number of controversies over this court case. So what percentage does an article have to cover a controversy for the article in total to be about the controversy? I'm asking this in response to Laserbrain's comment about the lead referring to rape culture, and how broadly construed relates to articles. My understanding is that if an article is not largely about a topic, then only the sections relating to that topic apply to the ban. In this case "rape culture" is mentioned once in the lead, and once in the body. That's not a particularly large amount for the size of that article. So, is People vs. Turner a gender based controversy on the whole? Or does people vs. turner contain sections that describe the gender based controversy? Then again these questions might be moot if someone provided a dif of Ranze editing a section that specifically calls out a gender based controversy. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

From looking at this further I see that Jonathunder has participated in a move discussion over this topic [30] as well as edited the article removing content from secondary sources using the rationale "remove timeline--unencyclopedic, not prose" [31]. Jonathunder's warnings and postings here should be considered no different than if they were from any involved editor. I would like to further state that when Ranze has asked for diff's or explanations as to what people have issues with he has either been given nothing, or general directions to WP: OR. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Campus rape is not a good comparison to this article. The campus rape article has a lot of content that breaks down demographics by gender, and in turn has extensive analysis and theories about gender. To give an example the term "women" is only used in people v. Turner once in the article, whereas our campus rape article uses the term women approximately 90 times, and throughout the article. (I was going to compare the term men, but men shows up in words like statement and I didn't want to do an individual count.) --Kyohyi (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
This comparison to the campus rape decision appears to me to be a Fallacy of division. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sfarney[edit]

In my personal frank and blunt opinion, "gender based controversy" is a bogus category -- very difficult to apply. ("Gender" is really a grammar category, not a personal attribute.) Some here would stretch such wording to cover the current presidential election, while others would forbid mention of David Bowie, whose sex was somewhat controversial. I would say the sanction is not enforceable. Nevertheless, Ranze's endless wrangling (whether a person convicted of molesting is truly a molester, whether the woman was unconscious, whether she did anything that transgressed a law, whether the jury established the truth, whether Turner's defense story was given adequate weight and credibility, which fingers were used, how much each of the parties ate, how drunk was each party, ...) is exceptionally wearisome. One wonders what the final product would be if Ranze were given a free hand and had not been reverted by a half-dozen others. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 17:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"...beyond cavil" -- Dumuzid's phrase is elegant and perfectly appropriate. This is one of the few cases in which it is not ambivalent. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 17:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by James J. Lambden[edit]

Regardless of scope, admin Jonathunder is clearly involved in the article (diffs in Kyohyi's section.) His warning should be seen as an editor warning, not an admin warning, and his indefinite block aside from being disproportionate and enacted while this request was ongoing is a violation of "involved" standards. It's preventing Ranze from addressing concerns here and in the appeal above. Sanctions should be decided here by uninvolved admins. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: after removing the SPA tags I left PeterTheFourth stalks me to an AfD discussion. He hadn't edited the discussion, the article itself or the article's talk page prior. His vote appears to be retaliatory. This request may be merited but I'd ask deciding admins to consider that it was brought by an aggressive SPA.
Question for admins or those more familiar with policy: were my SPA tags inappropriate and if so can you explain why (preferably on my talk page) so I don't repeat the mistake. Thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam[edit]

A previous clarification request regarding whether campus rape was covered by the GG topic ban I think is relevant. The result of that discussion was that it is.— Strongjam (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dumuzid[edit]

I wanted to comment briefly on what really boil down to procedural points. First of all, I quite agree that the category of "gender-based controversy" is nebulous and subject to interpretation. There are certainly liminal examples on which reasonable minds might differ. People v. Turner is not such a case. It seems beyond cavil (to me) that the gendered "rape culture" aspect of the case is precisely what makes it so notable and the angle (either pro or con) almost all the reliable sources have taken. That a term might be ambiguous in some uses does not mean it is ambiguous in all. Secondly, as to a retroactive examination of the original ban, I think such a thing is fine, but I think it is inappropriate to do so here. Let people appeal bans when they think there is a reason to do so. Setting a precedent of "appeal by repeated violation of topic ban" strikes me as unwise. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


Statement by DHeyward[edit]

The edit to "People vs. Turner" was not a gender related dispute. Rape is a crime. The controversy was regarding punishment imposed for the conviction. To the extent that people extrapolate the case to "rape culture", Ranze didn't mention, add, or discuss rape culture. Also even for such an extrapolation, there are no advocates for "rape culture" just as there are no advocates for "murder." To get to a "gender-related dispute", the edit would necessarily have to include differences based on gender such as Title IX reporting and/or University policies that are gender biased/based. This case is very much beyond "gender-related dispute." It's rape. It's a crime notable for a light sentence. The criminal sentence was the dispute and Ranze did not edit anything about the sentence or about the controversy of the sentence. It's at least two large steps away from the sanction imposed. --DHeyward (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Ranze[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The fact that a violation occurred seems unarguable. Before I recommend an action to be taken, if any, I'll have to look more into the history here. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
In considering what action should be taken, it is relevant that Ranze continued to edit People v. Turner even after I left this this warning on his talk page, and even now I do not get the sense that he realizes his edits are a problem. Jonathunder (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I see a clear violation here, as an article about a sexual assault that has raised clear questions about rape culture (not my term; it's in the lead of the article) is clearly within the "gender-related dispute" part of Ranze's sanction. If Ranze was in any way unclear about this, they shouldn't have ignored the warning supplied by Jonathunder, and instead asked for clarification. @Ranze: I am OK with a concise statement addressing Carwil's concerns, but please keep it focused on why you believe this article has nothing to do with gender issues. --Laser brain (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jonathunder: I really think it was a poor idea to apply a block while this request is open, and when you have edited the page in a substantive way. There are many completely uninvolved administrators who can apply such blocks, and I don't see what the hurry is—this discussion can run its course. I encourage you to unblock Ranze while this discussion is ongoing as I'd like to get additional input from others. @Ranze: If you are unblocked, I expect you to refrain from editing the article in question until this is settled. --Laser brain (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that it was a bad block. However, AE blocks must be assumed to be valid until consensus determines otherwise. I would be in favor of overturning it until the issue of what is covered by the sanctions is sorted out. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I've unblocked him so he can comment here. Jonathunder (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Carwil: Please provide diffs for your accusations, including "has repeatedly objected to the characterization of 'the victim'". Otherwise you are casting aspersions without evidence and you'll find that isn't much appreciated in this venue. --Laser brain (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • After further review, and especially taking into account the ARCA posted above, I stand by my statement that the violation was clear and obvious. I don't know if this is willful ignorance or a WP:CIR issue, but either way it needs to be handled. However, I find the indef block applied earlier to be excessively harsh, given that the previous one was just 2 weeks. I think 6 months would be more appropriate, and then if there are further violations we can look at indefinite blocks. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @James J. Lambden: Your additions of the SPA tag were unnecessary and needlessly provocative. Anyone who has participated in AE for the Gamergate area knows who PeterTheFourth is. Unlike an AFD, AE is a very small crowd so we tend to know the major players in all the topic areas. Also, what he does outside of GG isn't actually relevant here. His Enforcement request is clear, concise, and shows an obvious violation. Whether he is an SPA or not is subject to interpretation, but there's no reason to tag his edits as such other than wanting to put a scarlet A on his chest. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Upon further review, I realized that the original ban was put in place by Gamaliel, who had a lot of issues in this area and was almost certainly WP:INVOLVED. As such, we should review the ban itself to determine its validity (several of Gamaliel's sanctions have been overturned on appeal) and examine whether a regular editor would be sanctioned for these edits. That's just my opinion though, I'm welcome to hear from others whether we should reevaluate the original ban. The WordsmithTalk to me 08:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree on both counts. I don't think there's much to debate in terms of whether campus rape falls under gender-related disputes. However, we should back up and discuss whether the sanction was valid. --Laser brain (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have not reviewed the edits in detail at this point, but have a couple of general comments:
    • With regard to the question of whether the original sanction was valid given subsequent developments re Gamaliel, I don't see that as a relevant issue. If we have a strong ethic of "an AE sanction, even if challenged, remains in effect unless overturned by a consensus" then it would seem to follow even more strongly that "an AE sanction cannot be invalidated retroactively". I can imagine an exception for "sanctions" that were absurd on their face, but this isn't that.
    • I respectfully disagree with applying the concept of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" in the context of an editor not knowing about the outcome of an ARCA request. Consistent with my comments in the American Politics ARCA request now pending, if an editor genuinely isn't aware that his or her edits are improper, then he or she should be told so before being sanctioned for them. Of course I am speaking here of genuine or potentially genuine unawareness, not feigned ignorance or rules-lawyering game-playing. But we should not expect, or encourage, most editors to spend their lives studying the arbitration pages.
    • I will take the credit and/or blame for the concept of a "gender-based dispute or controversy". The context was an original proposal to extend sanctions to "articles relating to gender", which I think we can agree that that was even broader and more nebulous. This wording was an attempt to narrow the scope to the articles where editing by sanctioned parties was most likely to be contentious or problematic. If someone has a better wording to suggest, I'm all ears, or at least I would be if I were still on the Committee.
    • Although theoretically a violation of a topic-ban is a violation regardless or whether an edit is good or bad or debatable, in practice I'm a lot more upset when a topic-banned editor continues to edit improperly, as opposed to making innocuous or helpful edits. I don't know whether others agree with me on this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you've said, as usual. The concept of the scope is nebulous and hard to apply consistently. Perhaps that ARCA decision should be publicized somewhere so people are aware of how it applies? Regarding a better wording, maybe "gender politics and gender-related controversies" might be a bit more clear? The one point I'll disagree on is whether or not the original sanction is relevant. A sanction can be overturned with a consensus here, as you know. Ranze has also requested appeal of her sanction above. I do think Gamaliel had an itchy trigger finger in this topic area, and also in this case specifically. While the sanction is valid and in force by policy, the penalty is up to us uninvolved admins. Given your profession I'm sure you are familiar with the option to not punish, or give a mild sanction, if we believe the ban is unfair or should not apply to this. While this isn't something anybody wants to encourage, I think this might be one of the extremely rare instances where it might be applicable. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree that we have the option of giving an infraction a pass or imposing only a nominal sanction, where the facts warrant it. (In fact, I suspect I'd support such outcomes more often that you would, FWIW.) I'm just reluctant to see a situation in which everyone brought her for breaching a restriction disputes the validity of the restriction rather than whether it was breached. Speaking for myself only, I'm open to considering such arguments in an appropriate case. However, the mere fact that a particular administrator levied the sanction is not a strong argument, especially where the sanction was originally imposed more than a year ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you there. We don't want to set that sort of precedent, and yet we also need to be flexible enough to respond to unique situations. With that in mind, my recommendation is, in this order, a block of 16 hours (with credit for time served due to the 16+ hour bad block yesterday by Jonathunder) for the topic ban violation, proceed to the already-open appeal of the topic ban above to discuss its merits, its current usefulness in preventing disruption, and whether or not it should be overturned, and when its all done I suggest a trip to ARCA to see if we can make the scope of the DS somewhat clearer and more specific regarding gender. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As I said in the appeal above, I don't think this sanction is still in force, or was as of the date of the edit in question. The original notice of sanction by Gamaliel on 4 April 2015 specified that the ban was for 12 months: [32]. Gamaliel then followed up by using the formal AE sanction template with "indefinite" in it, but appears to only be attempting clarification and explicitly states "This is not a new sanction" in that edit, and seems to make clear he's only clarifying what he did before: [33]. Gamaliel logged the sanction as being for 12 months, and never logged any extension to indefinite. I'm therefore led to believe that "indefinite" in the sanction template was simply an error in template use, and that Gamaliel didn't intend to extend the ban to indefinite. If that's the case, this sanction expired as of 4 April 2016. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree. Furthermore, after thinking more about the issue, while the "gender-based controversies" is absurdly vague, I do not believe it applies here. This is an article about an court case prosecuting a rapist. Courts are not gendered, and rape is not a gendered crime. The fact that this one happened to involve a male and a female does not make it gender-based. Many in the public believe the judge is sexist (which has been picked up by some RS), but that is a very small part of the article and not, in my interpretation, sufficient to make the entire article a gender-related controversy. Ranze does not appear to have touched those parts. Given all of these procedural issues and holes in this request, plus the fact that Ranze has already been blocked and served time for it, I move to close this request and move to the appeal, followed by ARCA to clarify the scope. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Khazen48[edit]

Editor blocked two weeks by EdJohnston for repeated violations. The block may be lifted if the editor agrees to follow the 500/30 restriction going forward.
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 Khazen48[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Bolter21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 13:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Khazen48 (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:ARBPIA3#500/30 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

All of those are part of some 100 edits this user made, predominantly in the I/P conflict area and as this user has less than 500 edits, he is not allowed to edit this area. I have reverted the majority of the edits he made, as many of them included undiscussed removal of sometimes sourced content, many times with no edit summery at all. I have informed this user about the restriction twice in his talkpage and in every edit summery in my reverts but he doesn't seem to even notice it. This user contribute through his phone, and if he can't learn the rules of Wikipedia through his phone, he is not suitable for editing here.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

none

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

In his talkpage.

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

Discussion concerning Khazen48[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 Khazen48[edit]

Statement by DavidLeighEllis[edit]

It might be helpful to place all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict under extended confirmed protection to prevent future incidents such as this. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Khazen48[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • A straightforward violation of the 500/30 rule on ARBPIA pages. The user was warned as long ago as June 17 (see their talk page). It is time for a block, which might be lifted if they will agree to follow the rule. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, a block would be in order. So far the user has chosen not to react, which might be explained by their ow edit count (they likely do not understand what is going on).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • They resumed editing I/P articles on 17 July without responding to this complaint, of which they were warned on July 15. I have issued a two-week block to be sure to get their attention. The block can be lifted by any admin if they respond and agree to follow the 500/30 rule. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sepsis II[edit]

Sepsis II (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2016 (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 Sepsis II[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
AnotherNewAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Sepsis II (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/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Tendentious editing
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  • 23:41, 26 May 2016 Removal of sourced material and ensuing (non-1RR-violating) edit war, and is ultimately reverted by Jeppiz.
  • 16:17, 27 May 2016 Six minutes after being reverted, makes gratuitous, bad-faith snipe against Jeppiz on his user talk page.
  • 00:51, 30 May 2016 Removal of sourced material. Tendentious edit summary.
  • 16:03, 9 June 2016 Massive unexplained removal of apparently well-sourced material.
  • 16:28, 9 June 2016 General assumption of bad faith. Implies user Debresser and other editors are part of some sort of editing conspiracy. Possibly also implying various 30/500 accounts are Debresser socks?
  • 19:34, 9 June 2016 Soapboxing. Assumption of bad faith against some reasonably new editors whom have passed the 30/500 restrictions (whom he believes are gaming the system).
  • 16:23, 12 June 2016 Strawman argument.
  • 20:00, 12 June 2016 I don't know what to make of this. A version in compliance with Wikipedia policy is the "incorrect" version in his opinion.
  • 20:57, 12 June 2016 Treating talk page as a forum. Whilst telling opposing editor that this is not a forum.
  • 19:47, 15 June 2016 Revert of good faith edit by casual user as "vandalism" as well as 30/500.
  • 19:48, 15 June 2016[53][54] General bad faith attitude towards above casual user (who has less than 500 edits but has been editing since 2006).
  • 16:16, 19 June 2016 General bad faith and tendentiousness; opposing editors "miseducated".
  • 16:55, 19 June 2016 General tendentiousness; his facts are "facts", opposing ones "propaganda". Soapboxing.
  • 21:04, 27 June 2016 Removal of sourced material. Tendentious edit summary. No further explanation - not even to justify his supplied version of events.
  • 23:23, 27 June 2016 Bad faith use of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 to censor well-sourced and pertinent material clearly added in good faith by an IP. The article in question, Well poisoning, wouldn't ordinarily come under the 30/500 restrictions. I believe Sepsis II simply removed this material because it didn't sit comfortably with his ideology.
  • 17:28, 28 June 2016 Bad faith revert.
  • 21:46, 8 July 2016 Tendentious dig. The place "where other editors originate" he was aluding to was clearly Israel, and was a probably a reference to a dispute he was having with Israeli user Bolter21 elsewhere on that talk page.
  • 18:21, 14 July 2016 Tendentious. Struck part of his previous, reasonable comment and replaced it with this tendentious snipe. Totally unnecessary.
  • Finally, I distinctly remember Sepsis II making an extremely bad faith remark to a newish editor who met the 30/500 threshold on (I believe) 2016 Ramadan attacks, a now deleted article. Something along the lines that 30/500 was supposed to "keep editors like you off [these articles] permanently". Unfortunately, administators have refused to undelete this article for me to review. If I've misremembered, or I am mistaken, I apologise. I usually like to research my AE requests thoroughly before I submit them. (Struck per Sandstein, it appears I was indeed mistaken.)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive152#Sepsis II
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 

Sepsis II is a single-purpose account who edits with a strong pro-Palestinian bias on the usual collection of Israel-Palestinian conflict articles. He was topic banned from this area for six months a couple of years ago for a variety of poor editing practices, and stormed off with very bad grace at the time. He returned only a few months ago, but he seems to have continued with exactly the same kind of behavior that got him topic banned in the first place.

I ripped apart Sepsis II's consistently biased editing fairly comprehensively in a previous AE request he issued against GHcool some months ago. That AE request was archived without closure, though I stand by the claims I made there. Sepsis II seems to have changed his editing very little since then.

In general, Sepsis II seems to contribute very little new content or do anything overly much to improve the encyclopedia overall. He may occasionally remove some vandalism or make some fixes here and there but much of his editing consists of reverts on various grounds and talk page opining and soapboxing, all to the end of promoting his favoured view (pro-Palestinian), and marginalizing any opposing view. Mainspace changes which are not reverts are usually wholesale removals of content he dislikes (see above diffs) or revisions of content to match his POV (examples: [55][56][57]) regardless of whether these changes are in line, or likely to become in line with consensus.

Sepsis II seems convinced that every new or nearly new editor who edits contrary to his own views is a sock, and a constant theme in his talk page interactions is the idea that opposing editors are a party to some kind of conspiracy to take over the encyclopedia.

Sepsis II has a rather bizarre obsession with Israeli and Jewish editors. He seems to view these editors as having some sort of inherent conflict of interest, and shouldn't be allowed to edit the topic area at all. For years, he maintained a rather bad faith user page where he documented alleged conflict of interest editing by Israeli and Jewish editors on various Israeli and Jewish organizations of little note. Most of these editors had only a handful of edits; many had not edited for literally years. When challenged on this, he responded with his usual "sockpuppet" mantra; I've come to the conclusion that to Sepsis II, "sockpuppet" is merely a codeword for "editor I don't like".

Most frustratingly, Sepsis II violates the very editing standards he demands of other editors. For example, how does he reconcile the sentiments expressed in this post with his own ideological removal on another article? He will frequently tell other editors to cease soapboxing whilst continuing to soapbox himself - sometimes in the very same post (see diffs). He also believes that some editors who recently attained 30/500 privilieges were "gaming the system" when he himself clearly "gamed" the system by his own standards by making several obvious "waiting edits" to be able to edit the semi-protected Israeli-Palestinian conflict article back in 2012. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Done.

Discussion concerning Sepsis II[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 Sepsis II[edit]

I deal mostly with socks and POV-pushing, things can get heated on all sides, can I be solely to blame? A selection of edits taken from arguments which many editors in the IP area get into could show many editors in a poor light.
Most of the diffs are content disputes, perhaps I BITE a few people, sorry, anyways, back to work. Sepsis II (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The comments by others made below verify what I've said; I'm followed by socks and those with strong opinions about I/P or 30/500. I'm sure many editors hate me for not allowing them to ingrain their ideologies and false realities into wikipedia just as those who protect articles related to climate change or Northern Ireland or such have editors who hate them. What should I do? Sepsis II (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, THIS IS A SOCK. Sepsis II (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Debresser's comments are mostly just personal attacks and nonsense. There was a discussion going on here at ARE about Balady Citron and I noticed various unsourced edits to that page changing the name between Palestinian Citron and Israeli Citron so I asked for sources at the talk page, never editing the article page, as I couldn't find anything in English. Debresser uses this edit as proof that I can't even stand the word Israel. This whole case is just a matter of throwing enough diffs in hoping that something sticks, the original filler had a good intention but Debresser's comments should be sanctionable. Sepsis II (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The Blade of the Northern Lights, I know you won't like me asking this, but what do you think about the sock that posted here? Sepsis II (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Three admins lining up to block me without giving any specifics, great. Sepsis II (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
You didn't need to comment Lord Roem, I already had you marked down. Sepsis II (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Itch Eye Bear[edit]

Aside from the detailed evidence presented by User:AnotherNewAccount, which should be more than enough to warrant a topic ban for this tendentious editor, I'd point out that it is beyond obvious that Sepsis II is not their first account , and I have good reason to believe this is the same editor as User:Factomancer/User:Factsontheground/User:Eptified/User:Dr. R.R. Pickles

Factomancer supposedly was leaving the project for good, and it is only because of that that they were not indef-blocked by User:PhilKnight - see [[58]]. But here they are again, with the same tendentious behavior, the same SPA-focus. Itch Eye Bear (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Darwinian Ape[edit]

As someone who is uninvolved, I must conclude that there is a problem with this editor after an examination of the diffs provided by the filer. I am mostly concerned with the general bad faith they demonstrate and the unexplained or poorly reasoned reverts and blanking of sourced materials. Their defense seems to be an example of WP:NOTTHEM with an admission of biting. Given that the editor was topic banned for six months and that they don't seem to understand the problems with their edits, I believe an indefinite topic ban is warranted. Darwinian Ape talk 06:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Gestrid[edit]

It should be noted that there was a rather lengthy discussion involving Sepsis II and a few other users regarding whether a discussion should be started here, as can be seen here. The discussion started with Sepsis II bringing several users to our attention, but then turned to a discussion about Sepsis II's behavior in those same articles, including his suspicious behavior with immediately after being autoconfirmed. (30/500 didn't exist back when he created his user.) The discussion started as a discussion on Kamel Tebaast's userpage. I admit that I was involved in both discussions, and I ended up taking a semi-wikibreak because it was just too much to handle. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by User:Debresser[edit]

I completely agree that Sepsis II is an extreme POV editor,who had best be topic banned from all ARBPIA = IP-conflict related articles.

Some of the more unreasonable and unacceptable examples I personally have noticed:

Request by User:Debresser[edit]

RolandR has noticed that my post exceed the 500 word limits. My post has 583 words. Since both the original poster as well as I see the problem in the case of Sepsis II not with a specific violation, but with a pattern of tendentious editing, it would be impossible to make this point without extensive examples. This being so, I would like to ask that the 500 words limit be eased to 600 words in this case. Especially since the difference is less than 20%. Alternatively, Sepsis II could be given additional time to respond, although it seems to me he has no intention of adding any additional responses.

By the way, neither my post nor the original post violate the 20 diffs limit, as claimed incorrectly by RolandR, nor does the original post, which originally counted 490 words (and now 407) violate the 500 words limit. How RolandR came to say "Both the original post, and Debresser's comment above, significantly exceed the permitted 500 words and 20 diffs limit", which claim is wrong in 3 out of its 4 details, leaves one to wonder about RolandR's impartiality or at least his seriousness as a contributor to WP:AE.

In addition, I find it strange that the same limit hasn't been applied to the Statement by Nishidani, which has 737 words, in the case against me above on this same page. Rules should be applied equally. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

Sepsis II's second comment made me comment. His response is what people are complaining about. It's a chilling environment when you faced with being called a sock just because you have pro-Israel POV. His sole purpose of editing seems to be reverting (without discussion), tracking Jewish and pro-Israeli editors and bring sock investigations. We don't need that here.

Statement by RolandR[edit]

Both the original post, and Debresser's comment above, significantly exceed the permitted 500 words and 20 diffs limit. They need to prune these to an acceptable length if Sepsis is to make a reasoned response within the permitted limits. RolandR (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

In response to Debresser's quibble about this above, I count the original post as having 1091 words and 35 diffs, and Debresser's first comment as having 583 words and 27 diffs; both of these are indeed significantly in excess of the permitted limit. There is a reason for the limits, and it is no defence to say that another person breached this in another case. RolandR (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kamel Tebaast[edit]

Sepsis II first used my name here while making charges that I and Epson Salts "gamed the system" to circumvent WP:ARBPIA3#30/500. It was in that thread that I pointed out that:

  • Sepsis II's 10th edit on Wikipedia was in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
  • In 2012, when Sepsis II began editing in Wikipedia, s/he waited exactly nine days before editing in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
  • In just more than 1900 total edits, nearly ALL edits of Sepsis II are in the "ARBPIA area".
  • It was Sepsis II who was leading the charge about editors too quickly delving in to the ARBPIA area after completing the 30/500 (which Sepsis II never did).

From there, User:Comment, please detailed some of Sepsis II's infractions of gaming the system, at which point Debresser researched more in depth and brought the issue here.

Aside from the aforementioned, I would suggest that Sepsis II engaged in Wikihounding me here, here, and here.

That said, my preference is that Sepsis II is NOT banned from the Arab-Israeli area. That can easily, and already has, become a dangerous double-edge sword. KamelTebaast 23:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Bolter21[edit]

  • As for Kamel Tebaast comment, the Arbitration decision to force a 500/30 restriction was made in 2015 while Sepsis II is here since 2012. I was also here before the decision was made and my first edits in the I/A area. This is not a valid argument. Also, User:Comment, please is obviously a sock-puppet of one of the users involved in that discussion and you mentioning him is raising deep concerns about wether this sock belongs to you.
  • As for Sepsis II, I think AnotherNewAccount has provided enough about his behavior here. Insteed of showing my own complaints about Sepsis II I"ll go straight to the point and say the only solution I find is mentorship.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Sepsis II[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • As the admin who deleted 2016 Ramadan attacks and to whom an undeletion request was addressed, I can confirm that Sepsis II was not among the editors of that article or its talk page. I have no comment on the merits of the request.  Sandstein  15:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is someone who needs to be editing this topic area. It's bad enough as it is, and yet another person with a strong POV here is only adding more venom and toxicity to the editing environment. Given that the previous 6 month ban doesn't seem to have gotten the point across, I think an indefinite topic ban with very stringent enforcement is the best option. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights. Indef topic ban. --Laser brain (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sepsis II: Since you asked, I don't think edits like this are helpful, especially when you try to push it repeatedly. It's a POV edit, and we don't need POV editors in this space. --Laser brain (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've taken the time to go through most of the links above and agree with the suggestion for an indefinite topic ban. There doesn't seem to have been an improvement in behavior since the original 6-month ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Barring any new information, I plan to close this with an indefinite topic ban for Sepsis II, as agreed by the uninvolved admins commenting on this request. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

SageRad[edit]

SageRad (talk · contribs) is blocked for five days for violating their topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2016 (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 SageRad[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Only in death (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 23:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
SageRad (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#SageRad_topic_banned : SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 19/07/2016 Editing Glyphosate, an agricultural chemical.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Blatant breaking of topic ban imposed by Arbcom. As per their comments here where they describe Arbcom as a kangaroo court and that the topic ban is a pile of shit, its clear they both knew in advance they were breaking their ban, and that they have no intention to abide by it. Other recent activity include allegations of McCarthyism and 'industry aligned forces of darkness who control wikipedia'. Apart from being blanket personal attacks, it is telling that the final decision of the above case included the finding of fact SageRad engaged in casting aspersions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified

Discussion concerning SageRad[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 SageRad[edit]

Discussing glyphosate with some folks, i said that over 200 species had developed resistance to the herbicide. They said that it was a lower number like 36 and asked my source. I said it was Wikipedia, and i clicked to the article. There i saw that it did indeed say 211 species were resistant, and i clicked over to the source for that statement. I saw that it was blatantly incorrect, and so i corrected it. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You see a mistake and correct it.

People get in such a hissy fit. Seriously? People got issues. People are enacting a battleground mentality all the time instead of simply working toward good articles by following the principles of Wikipedia in good faith. Anyway, Trypto put the edit in his name. You want to ban me? Your loss.

Sage

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

Enforcing admins, I don't know what to tell you. Here are the details as I see them, and you decide what to do. On my watchlist, I saw SageRad do this: [71], and this: [72]. Unambiguous topic ban violation, and also an improvement to the page (opposite to SageRad's usual POV). I told him this: [73], and he replied: [74]. So I did this: [75], [76], this: [77], and this: [78]. Your call. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43[edit]

Not much to say except that it's disappointing that SageRad has returned to not only violate their topic ban, but especially gone straight back into the battleground behavior that got them topic banned in the first place. The references to McCarthyism, etc. in Tryptofish's diffs should be more than ample to demonstrate this violation was not in good faith at all.

The specific part I'll point out is how SageRad came to the talk page of another topic-banned editor to rant in a discussion where that other editor was reported to AE as well.[79] Their topic ban would apply to this conversation anyways, but in addition to McCarthyism and aspersions ArbCom violations about being the industry aligned forces of darkness who have come to control Wikipedia, there is also That is the attitude of Kings, and the opposite of the principles of democracy or integrity. This latter play on words is a return to the same type of personal attacks directed towards me (i.e., my username) they've used in the past such as King of Scoundrels.[80] The topic ban was meant to keep SageRad's behavior out of the topic entirely to put an end to that kind of pot stirring. I don't think a warning for this blatant behavior after being directly sanctioned by ArbCom is going to do any good, but I don't really care about the end result as long as they stay clear of the topic on articles and on user talk pages so those of us in the topic don't have to deal with it antagonizing an already sensitive topic area. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning SageRad[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is unquestionably a violation of the topic ban, and clearly a deliberate one. I do see some mitigation in the fact that the edit has indeed proved to be uncontroversial and other editors seem to agree that there was a clear error, but banned is still banned, and the attitude toward it doesn't give me much confidence that this will be repeated. My suggestion here would be either a logged final warning that any edit falling outside of the ban exceptions will be sanctioned in the future, or a short block, given that SageRad has not to date been sanctioned for any violations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not particularly inclined to block for an uncontroversial edit fixing a blatant factual error, at least when it's an isolated incident and not a pattern. A warning should be sufficient. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Seraphimblade that a final warning or short block would be appropriate for the violation. I'm leaning towards a short block based on SageRad's statement; they either don't understand the topic ban or, more likely, they don't care. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree with Laser brian below. I think the nature of the violation is a mitigating factor re: the length of a block, but not a defense to a clear violation of a topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm closing this with a short 5-day block due to the unambiguous violation of the topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not of the opinion that a "helpful violation" of a topic ban is less deserving of a sanction. The editor is basically blowing his nose at the topic ban, and unless we're prepared to start on the slippery slope of selectively allowing violations we deem worthwhile, we need to treat everyone equally. This is like showing up somewhere where you have a restraining order active and saying, "Oh, I'm just mowing the lawn." --Laser brain (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)