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

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Banned from WP:ARBPIA-related AE discussions, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136#Nishidani, I can't find the log.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[1]

It has been 3 years and this sanction was imposed for a one time incident on my otherwise completely clean record. It is not serving any preventative purpose per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE at this point so can only be punitive.
I tried to appeal directly to Sandstein here per the instructions at the top of this page.

@The Wordsmith: I didn't have any particular participation in mind, to be honest. It's just that not only is this the only blot on my record, which I would like removed, I also got a little tired of people trying to use it against me, like here. It's been 3 years, this sanction can't possibly be serving a preventative purpose, if it even did to begin with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zscarpia: Thank you for illustrating the chilling effect this sanction has had on editors' willingness to complain about certain types of harassment. I didn't connect the two until now.

Please refer to my comments on my talk page linked to above. I haven't followed AE for some time now and leave it to more active admins to determine whether any grounds for granting this appeal exist. I haven't seen any so far.  Sandstein  05:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a sanction imposed three years ago ought to be removed without any requirement to grovel. Compare WP:SO. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's no need to grovel, but given the nature of the contribution(s) for which NMMNG's AE ban was imposed, it might help to know what sort of recent discussions NMMNG would have wanted to contribute to if he had been able. I'm not sure AE discussions are suffering from lack of input from highly-partisan editors, and it might well be worth looking for evidence that the nature of the proposed contributions would in fact be different from what we saw. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this appeal should be granted. A 3 year ban from AE for a very weak reason is enough time served in my opinion. Looking at past AE actions, I can see many actions that should not have been brought and not sure why this one warranted a block. Regardless, even if it were 100% warranted and NMMNG was a horrible rotten person, it's been three years and it's time to give him a break. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred not to comment, but Four Deuces below more or less espouses NMMGG's endlessly repeated thesis that I am a Jew baiter. That has been exhaustively reviewed, and dismissed, and protesting the decision is not material to NMMGG's request, which I have no problem in endorsing. Modern legal process, since Cesare Beccaria has rightly buried the religious idea that punishment is eternal, and even permabans, as in my case, can be revoked. I would appreciate however that The Four Deuces read my evidential reply to the nonsense jerry-rigged in the original complaint. This is no place to rehearse it, but it was so unfocused that, NMMGG could claim as evidence of my having symptoms of that pathology things like:

• Using the term "Chosen People" for Jews is part of an age old anti-Semitic canard,' when he knew, as everybody else knows, that many believe it to be

the cornerstone of Judaism: the idea of bechira. We believe that we are an am hanivchar, a chosen people, an am segula, a treasured people. I believe collectivist statements like this are incorrect, since it is obvious that there is no such thing as an ideologically inclusive definition of ethnicity, meaning 'Jews/Arabs/Eskimos/Americans/Russians/Chinese/Catholics/shamans all think or do this or that' are hot air, vapidly empty propositions, diagnosed as a category mistake with perduring inciveness by Gilbert Ryle in his masterpiece, The Concept of Mind. For several years, NMMGG has repeated his conviction that wiki arbitrators are tone-deaf to anti-Semitic utterances, most recently here and here, and is keen to rally back users disenchanted with the place, I don't know whether to that end or not. Precisely because sanctions, however harsh, should have a use-by expiry date if evidence exists of an ability to return and participate positively in constructing Wikipedia, and because refusal to repeal this would probably only confirm the, I believe, parlously flawed conviction arbs are intrinsically 'anti-Zionist' and complicit with anti-Semitic people (like, in his view, myself), the appeal should be accepted.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an editor whom No More Mr Nice Guy seems to be currently lining up for accusations of antisemitism [2], perhaps this is what he means by his current ban serving no useful purpose. (Apologies for the slightly tongue-in-cheek nature of this comment)     ←   ZScarpia   13:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original ban does not seem to make any sense. No More Mr Nice Guy had complained about an editor for "Jew-baiting, trolling and soapboxing." In their first example, the editor referred to Jews as the "Chosen People." It was an ironic reference, since s/he was mocking the Jewish claim to Israel. He called the Jewish holiday Purim a "a double story of attempted and successful genocide." S/he makes many other allusions references to Nazi Germany when discussing Israel, thereby implying that what Israel does today is the same thing. While a comparison could be made between racial policies of Israel and Nazi Germany, they are only relevant in a talk page if there is a proposal to add them to an article. Otherwise they are merely intended to provoke other editors.

I do not know if the edits were so objectionable they should have resulted in action by AE. But at least they were sufficiently inflammatory that a reasonable editor could complain about them.

TFD (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I guess? Never have I heard of someone desperate to get back into the fun of AE discussions. I suppose I'd be okay lifting this since it's been so long, but the filer hasn't indicated what they've learned/will do differently moving ahead. Filing AE requests vexatiously is affirmatively unhelpful. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further consideration, I don't see the need for this restriction to continue, at least at this time. I'll Endorse overturning the appealed sanction. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentatively endorse. The weak justification for the initial sanction, coupled with a clean block log and no sign of troublemaking that I can see in the last 3 years, makes me lean heavily towards vacating the ban. Indefinite is not meant to mean permanent. However, before fully endorsing, I would like to hear what sort of participation, if any, No More Mr Nice Guy plans to engage in at AE if the sanction is lifted. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to Endorse after seeing further comments. Unless something changes, I think we can close this in the next day or two. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I do sympathize with concerns about the motivation for this request but I also think it's valid to say it's just a poor thing to have hanging over one's head. We have ways of dealing with poor behavior if it occurs going forward. --Laser brain (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The AE request that led to this sanction could be deemed as valid by uninvolved editors and the ban seems like a disproportionate ruling. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Discretionary Sanctions
2. Also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

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

These edits are all at Jill Stein (clearly in scope for American politics):

Violation of 1RR restriction on GMO content:

1. I make this edit: August 31. SashiRolls reverts addition of a source: September 1, falsely claiming that the source does not contain the cited information. This is because the source is Physics Today, and a scientifically based publication undercuts the POV that what the community decided in WP:GMORFC about the scientific consensus is incorrect. Please note that the specific content is directly about the scientific consensus on the safety of eating GM food, which is exactly the topic of the RfC and the resulting DS.
2. I restore the source: September 1. SashiRolls removes it a second time: September 1. In that same edit (lower down in the diff), he also reinserts a negative connotation about a journalist, that I had tried to correct as a WP:BLP issue: September 1.

Against a background of repeated slow edit warring:

August 31, August 31, August 31. The other editor was actually correct: [3].

And POV-pushing:

1. permalink Does not like a source, so claims that the Washington Post is not a WP:RS. Other editors near unanimous in rejecting the claim as patently false and WP:POINTy.
2. Then goes on to edit war, to insert a disparaging "ref name" about the source: August 31, August 31, August 31, August 31.

Continues WP:Battleground after this AE has opened, blames everyone except self:

1. Opposition research: September 2, September 2, September 2.
2. More edit warring: September 2, September 2.
3. Resumes same edit war the next day, making 2 reverts per day to avoid 3RR but maintaining continuous slow edit war: September 3, September 3.
4. Refactors other editors' talk page comments: September 3. Deflects blame: September 3.

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

August 27, August 30, (also September 1).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I leave it to the patrolling administrators to assess how much SashiRolls is self-aware about the issues here, how well TFD understands what was determined about DS for GMOs after such a very long struggle, and whether there is any truth to the silly claims that I have been disruptive at the Stein page. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding specifically to where TFD said: "While the closing adminstrator determined the consensus of the RfC and set discretionary sanctions, those sanctions were not for disgreeing with the determination of facts in the RfC. Ironically, Stein has not said that currently manufactured GMO food is unsafe." The issue at the page was about saying in Wikipedia's voice that the opposite of the RfC language is true; there is no objection to quoting Stein as saying the opposite. The page quotes Stein as saying that the existing science says what the community rejected at the RfC, and SashiRolls has opposed citing critics of Stein's statements. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Please note that I just added diffs of continued edit warring today, and weigh that in whether a warning will prove effective. Also, although I accept that, in terms of possible sanctions, AP2 is more central that GMO, please consider that GMORFC was intended to put an end to arguments, and without a clear statement now at AE, some editors will continue to argue that anything goes on pages other than the pages listed at the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A warning will be fruitless, and ANI would be a drama-fest of arguing content. Either DS mean something, or let's shut AE down. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, NW! But before this closes, please someone clarify that the "Pesticides and GMOs" section of Jill Stein, but no other part of the page, does indeed fall under DS regarding "GMOs and agricultural chemicals, broadly defined". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

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.

Given Snoogannsnoogans' invective laden and patently false accusations, I will ask until Monday at 17:00 to respond completely, as Snoogannsnoogans hasn't really understood that Tryptofish may well be making a larger WP:Point, not entirely involving me, by bringing me here. Snooganssnoogans first censored me on the 13 Aug, here. Between the 11 Aug and 16 July he made 16 reverts (all of other people). His first revert on the page was the 29th of June. His reverts are of two types: to delete content that he feels support a positive image of Stein, or to do defend as the status quo content that he feels support a negative image of Stein. These are the facts concerning the user's interventions on the article.

Concerning Tryptofish's assertion that the 1RR applies in the GMO section, I solicited input from the closing admins of the GMO debate who declined to comment. The Four Deuces and I both looked into his assertion and do not find it credible. Tryptofish, who is apparently somewhat famous, is clearly a very experienced Wiki-warrior given his past interactions with the Arbitration Committee. Having learned this from a google search trying to find clues as to what the "trypto" could mean, I decided to proceed cautiously, including the entire "proposition 1" of that debate in the article (3-4 lines of texts with lengthy references), because Tryptofish seemed like he wanted to create trouble in that section. He reverted this commonsense peaceful solution here.

I'm also not sure why s/he wanted to include this article ("Media coverage thin for presidential candidates’ science awareness and views"), almost entirely about Clinton & Trump (with one sentence dismissing his own Weissmann reference) and pointing fingers at ScienceDebate.org to support his claim that many articles are calling Stein "contrary to science" (diff). This, in the context of a great deal of pushback concerning normal wikipedia spin-off procedures for political candidates pages (afd that he encouraged, but hasn't yet voted in (4 delete, 3 keep, currently)...)

POV-pushing (ref-name change): Tryptofish's 2nd and 3rd diffs in this section do not refer to my edits (cf. the chaotic (& snarky) removal of material and vast operation of multiple reference renaming, which added confusion to the page (I was not involved in these decision to snark with significant chunks of content). In sum I changed one reference name in the first "diff", waiting for the "stray link fixed bot" to come and pick it up. I stayed on the page to see if it would. It didn't. I fixed what I had done by replacing all 16 references to the same article, introduced all in one edit by another editor here. I admit this was to make a point after having seen yet another bit of (what I consider to have been) trolling cluttering the head of a sub-section that has caused much grief and hard work in the last month with a gossipy quote that had nothing to do with anything: (diff). I figred if Tryptofish could troll with impunity I could draw attention to a serious problem: Snooganssnoogans's particularly lopsided edit here, in which introductions and conclusions of Jill Stein's arguments were cited, but the argument itself strangely disappeared from at least some of the 16 quotes s/he added from the WaPo. (cf. talk here).

Tryptofish does not mention this context of consistent disruptive editing, nor does he mention his own, somewhat more troubling, history of it: he came to the Jill Stein thread on the 20th of August, with very pointed stated goals (vaccines, GMOs and pesticides interventions in the article) and added lots of "menacing" warnings about AE in his/her participation in the talk thread. I will not comment on the POV that Tryptofish may or may not be pushing, as I don't understand his actions.

Regarding the diffs that are said to relate to "slow edit warring". In an environment of (occasionally) diametrically opposed viewpoints, and on a page where one editor has been going up to 3RR frequently on a regular basis in July and August (I came to the thread only in August myself), it is not surprising to find that I made 2 reverts on a section recently marked by another user as non-neutral precisely because of the text concerned. Repeated requests have been made to the editor to rework the paragraph he has added and reworked over time, to no avail. [5]. I have likewise had to remove an unreliable source that the user deliberately smuggled back into the article at [15:10 27 Aug 2016, after admitting the source had failed a basic fact-check talk 15:04 27 Aug 2016 and should not be included.

I do not anywhere say that the WaPo is an unreliable source generally, contrary to the claim made, and two of the four revert diffs have nothing to do with me. There was a great deal of intermediary sniping going on, while I tried to satisfy AndrewOne's concerns about the QE argument in the Education section (from [Talk] and [POV tag]). Cf. also these more worrying snark edits diff and diff

I also think ludicrous (lud = fun), and ridiculous (rid = laugh) are odd word choices that I see a lot on the talk pages. diff1 diff2. SashiRolls (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to additional comments from the accused party

I have responded at length on my talk page and at Talk:Jill_Stein#WP:DUE + cite Talk:Jill_Stein#from_WP:Edit_warring + diff of earlier menacing thousand-year comment from notifier, which I chose to remove from my talk page. SashiRolls (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take full ownership of this edit. In my defense, SashiRolls felt that the interview was accorded undue weight, so I figured I'd see what all would have to go if the source wasn't used. Turns out there was a lot. Well, I put it all back and received a (rightful) admonishment about being WP:POINTy, which I've taken to heart.

Anyways, SashiRoll's original complaint was vague, and a follow-up response clarified that the real issue was WaPo's apparent bias against Sanders (and by extension Stein, I guess). But that still comes across as "WaPo doesn't like my candidate so we shouldn't use it as a reference". It took a fair bit of needling to get any further explanation. I can understand the sentiment that no Wikipedia article should rely so much on a single article, but this wasn't a good way to go about making an objection since it wasn't clear to many people what the issue actually was.

As a final note: relying on the bot to fix the reference names probably wasn't the best idea, since over an hour passed between the first change and my fix, during which time the source was inaccessible to readers. clpo13_(talk) 23:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Stein is not a "page[] relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." Earlier, it was determined in a request for clarification in which Tryptofish participated, that Bernie Sanders was not a page related to GMOs. (See: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms.) Both Stein and Sanders are or were 2016 presidential candidates who are critics of GMOs.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms applies to 11 named articles and "will be implemented, broadly construed, for other articles in the subject area." Furthermore, there is no template for GMO on the talk page, although there is one for "American politics 2." 1RR is not part of U.S. politics general sanctions[6] and would be too draconian for such a wide topic area.

Trypofish falsely claimed at Talk:Jill Stein, "I want to make it very clear to editors that the content that I reverted violates the [GMO] Discretionary Sanctions linked above, because it alters the language that was established in the community RfC about GMOs. Editors must not make up alternative language, and doing so will result in Arbitration Enforcement." [20:55, 27 August 2016[7]] While the closing adminstrator determined the consensus of the RfC and set discretionary sanctions, those sanctions were not for disgreeing with the determination of facts in the RfC. Ironically, Stein has not said that currently manufactured GMO food is unsafe.

The articles in The Washington Post and others are cited in the article as the opinions of their authors, not as statements of fact. While SashiRolls unfortunately says the paper is not rs, he actually argues that it is biased, and provides an article originally published in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting ("Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours") as a source.[8] [22:43, 31 August 2016[9]] The paper's editorial board has called Trump a "clear and present danger."[10] although it has not yet endorsed Clinton. It is not a stretch of the imagination to assume that at least some of the opinions expressed in the paper have a partisan tinge.

The article by Steven T. Corneliussen, ""Media coverage thin for presidential candidates’ science awareness and views", in Physics Today, does not "clearly agree[] with the criticism" of Stein, as Tryptofish says. [1 September 2016[11]] It says only, "An opinion piece at Slate dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy. If anything it draws into question the extensive concentration on science issues that Trypofish has shown.

Tryptofish was an involved party in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. It appears that his interest in that topic has brought him to the Jill Stein article and blurs his neutrality. S/he has not provided edits on any Green-related articles except to add opinions that they are anti-science.

TFD (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat involved, though not deeply. Sashi's enthusiasm is admirable, but unfortunately their experience hasn't caught up with it yet, and disagreements stemming from that gap seem to have grown tensions to the point where assumptions of good faith have started to wane on all sides.

Mentoring could be an option here, given appropriate assurances by Sashi that they're willing to slow down a bit and take active steps toward being a bit more cool headed about things. TimothyJosephWood 12:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given their behavior over the past 24 hours, strike all above. TimothyJosephWood 11:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User is openly warring on the article, ([12], [13],[14], [15], [16]), being generally disruptive on the talk, mangling formatting and others comments to the point where I'm not even sure what diffs to provide. They've dropped any pretense that this is anything but a personal contest, and accused others on their talk of leading an "offensive" against Jill Stein, and apparently calling me a Nazi for suggesting that they take a break and edit something less controversial for a while.

Either sanction the user or close this because we would have easily already been at ANI or AN3 were it not for this open complaint. TimothyJosephWood 15:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user SashiRolls has for the last few weeks engaged in constant disruptive editing on the Jill Stein page. I'll try to limit this text to just recent examples of disruptive behavior. The user repeatedly:

• re-writes text into incoherent word salads full of weasel words. Yesterday, SashiRolls edited Stein's straight-forward position on student debt (she wants to cancel it using quantitative easing) into some incomprehensible mess that also features original research: "Stein has brought the idea of debt relief for student loans, much discussed after the Federal Reserve began quantitative easing,^[1][2][3] back into the political arena in 2016.^[4][5]"
• adds content of questionable reliability and relevance. The user repeatedly adds WP:OR which does not mention Jill Stein, the Green Party and usually comes from rubbish sources and does not relate to the subject at all. IIRC, the user has added 4-5 OR pieces to the article in just the last two days.
• cannot or will not tell the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable source. The user has, for instance, fought to include TeleSur, ShadowProof, Mint Press and Counterpunch as reliable sources while trying to get the Washington Post excluded from the page for being an unreliable source. Just today, SashiRolls restored ShadowProof and Counterpunch, which I removed for being unreliable. It's impossible to edit the page when the user cannot or will not tell the difference between a reliable source and unreliable one.
• acts in disingenuous ways to revert content. On the 31 August, I used up three reverts to revert SashiRolls' demonstrably false edits (the user claimed that a paragraph had nothing to do with Stein's education plan, despite containing the phrase "student loan" three times and being doubtlessly about Stein's plan to cancel student debt), at which point SashiRolls responded, "ok, you are at 3RR for today." The user repeatedly calls out users for approaching or being at the 3RR limit (or in the case of the GMO section the 1RR limit), usually always when reverting SashiRolls' ridiculous edits.
• casts aspersions on the intentions of other editors. The user has repeatedly over the last few weeks cast aspersions on at least three editors and Wikipedia as an institution. user:Neutrality has called SashiRolls out on this with little effect. The user has also repeatedly threatened to sanction me or have me banned, something I've never encountered before despite editing a lot on political pages. Despite being involved in contentious editing on a number of political pages, I have honestly never encountered an editor that has edited in such a disruptive manner as SashiRolls without being sanctioned for it.
• goes against consensus. SashiRolls created an RfC on 13 August 2016 where he/she proposed re-writing Jill Stein's position on Brexit. This was overwhelmingly rejected. Since having had the RfC rejected, SashiRolls has on three or four occasions re-written the Brexit section in ways that were rejected in the RfC.
• goes against the discretionary sanctions in the Stein article. SashiRolls has occasionally within 24 hours reverted the same content in the GMO section, which I believe is a violation. Other than that, SashiRolls continues to edit the GMO section in insincere and ridiculous ways.
• lies about the content of sources, the content of the Stein article and what happens on the talk page. In a particularly memorable talk, SashiRolls willfully misrepresents the user JayJasper's twice comment on the talk page[17] (once after having it pointed out to him/her) and also in the edit summary when SashiRolls proclaimed that he/she had consensus for a particular edit relating to that talk. Within the last few days, SashiRolls lied or pretended to be obtuse about the Stein's education plan, arguing that her proposal to cancel student loan debt through quantitative easing had nothing to do with education or student loans. SashiRolls repeatedly misrepresents the content of sources, there's no point running through the times.

• edit (one day later): I just want to note that SashiRolls just restored conspiracy and fringe websites twice this morning to the Stein (this is now the forth time in two days that he/she's restored them). Even though the user is on Arbcom, he/she shows no sign of taking the warnings and advice of other editors to heart.

- Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Snooganssnoogans and Timothyjosephwood others who have commented. On Stein and Stein-related articles, SashiRolls' sustained course of conduct has been completely unacceptable, and the array of problems is broad: everything from casting aspersions to personal attacks to POV-pushing.

I also agree with Timothyjosephwood that it would be wise to act on this report relatively rapidly. If this file weren't open, this matter might well be up at ANI for discussion of a possible topic ban of SashiRolls. Neutrality^talk 18:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I am concerned both about the behavior of SashiRolls enough to suggest a sanction. I would suggest that SashiRolls comment as soon as feasible. NW (Talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated to here mostly, but I am also concerned about the article being a battleground for people's opinions about politics writ large. Are we really using Counterpunch and Shadowproof (Firedoglake) within the Jill Stein article to criticize the coverage of The Washington Post on Wikipedia? NW (Talk) 18:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still stuck on this issue, and it appears that SashiRolls simply just doesn't get it. Quoting from the first draft of their statement[18], "A brief response to NW, who is concerned about Shadowproof. The article has not been disputed on any grounds, though many people have seen it. Had that subject been opened, I would have responded or withdrawn, if consensus was reached concerning it. This is an article about a US eco-socialist politician, so no, the Washington Post, as wikipedia's own subject on the paper might suggest, is not likely to be a reliable source concerning her politics. Jacobin, Democracy Now!: these are among "her" fellow-traveling media outlets; Counterpunch has frequently published her running mate. They are knowledgeable sources about the Left. Her sources will look different than mainstream news outlets." This is a fundamental failure to understand Wikipedia's sourcing and neutral point of view policies, and I do not see how a warning will be sufficient. I am going to issue a six month topic ban relating to Jill Stein under the post-1932 American Politics discretionary sanction. Further requests for action can be brought to here without prejudice. NW (Talk) 19:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I favor a one-time warning. I'm unimpressed by SashiRolls' behavior here, which amounts to POV-pushing in my opinion. I consider this to fall mostly under DS for American Politics—the fact that the content is related to GMO is an aggravating factor but shouldn't be used as a red herring to distract from the poor behavior. I don't quite think we are dealing with behavior that rises to the level of sanctions, though. Further edit warring to push a POV should be met with an American Politics topic ban of some length. --Laser brain (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've had some experience with SashiRolls on my talk page (User_talk:NeilN/Archive_33#Enforcement_request_and_COI - starts about one-third of the way down) which left me unimpressed. Plus there are incomprehensible statements like this. Any warning should highlight WP:1RR and instruct the editor to stop casting aspersions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification as requested: the Pesticides and GMOs section of Jill Stein certainly falls under discretionary sanctions regarding "GMOs and agricultural chemicals, broadly defined". NW (Talk) 19:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Orasis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#General Prohibition (WP:ARBPIA3#500/30):

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

1. 11 August Series of six edits at Ralph Bunche labeling the Zionist militant group Lehi terrorists
2. 11 August Series of two edits at Lehi (group) labeling the Zionist militant group terrorists
3. 11 August Series of two edits at Talk:Lehi (group) labeling the Zionist militant group terrorists
4. 3 September Series of two edits at Ralph Bunche labeling the Zionist militant group Lehi terrorists
5. 3 September Series of two edits at Yitzhak Shamir labeling the Zionist militant group Lehi terrorists
6. 5 September Edit at King David Hotel bombing labeling the Zionist militant group Irgun terrorists
7. 5 September Edit at Irgun labeling the Zionist militant group terrorists
8. 5 September Edit at Talk:Irgun labeling the Zionist militant group terrorists

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. None

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date

1. 11 August User:Epson Salts notified Orasis that as an editor with fewer than 500 edits, she/he was not permitted to edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including talk pages of such articles
2. 4 September User:Epson Salts warned Orasis that if she/he continued to edit articles she/he is restricted from editing, she/he may be blocked

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Orasis has now taken to vandalizing WP:ARBPIA3

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

I will not appeal shit, I will change my IP. The fact that only the Israeli view is allowed here is apparent. I will return, eat shit.

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

• Well, this is fairly straightforward. The editor was just blocked by another admin for personal attacks. I think it's pretty clear they shouldn't return to this topic for some time. Their rather... succinct statement makes that readily apparent. Unless there's any objection, I'm ready to close this with a six-month topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur. --Laser brain (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Don't think we've seen the last of this, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sahrin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Discretionary_sanctions

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

The following starters are from the EWN case just a couple days ago the EWN case closed just a day ago

1. edit note "revert possible vandalism"
2. edit note "The source is given in the line. Gun zealots are taking over this page. Guys, what is it you hope to accomplish here?"
3. edit note "Since the section is disputed, I am reverting to the original version of the article before the article was brigaded by revisionist gun types"
4. here edit note: "Attempting to intimidate another editor is extremely inappropriate" (after getting 3RR and DS notice from me)
5. in the midst of that, Sahrin gave uw-disruptive1 template user talk warnings to User:Deli nk here and User:Rms125a@hotmail.com here and this warning about "harassment" on my User page. (those diffs not brought in the EWN case)
6. At EWN, Sahrin wrote this truly strange attack on me. No diffs, not true, and almost incomprehensible.

The EWN notice resulted in Sahrin being blocked for edit warring by User:Someguy1221. First three contribs upon returning:

1. 03:11, 2 September 2016 At the article Talk page, personal attacks on me and admin that blocked Sahrin for EW; WP:POINTy suggestion about deleting the whole section; and more or less incomprehensible argument. No questions or effort to discuss
2. 03:15, 2 September 2016 At Someguy1221's talk page, accusation of abuse of tools
3. 03:23, 2 September 2016 Further personal attacks now with "whitewashing", and yet more incomprehensible arguments at the article Talk page. Nothing about, say, how the sources support the content or asking what the issue is.

I took at shot at talking with them, ignoring the attacks and strangeness: dif

1. and here is the response: dif. This is impossible to follow (really - the stuff about "To suggest that somehow the entirety of the controversy is "AMA wants $10M in the budget for gun violence research, Congress rejects it" is, as I said in my original edit however many days ago spurious. But your brigade/sock poppets/etc continue to insist that it isn't spurious" .... it just makes no sense. And more accusations of "whitewashing", etc.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 24 hour blocked for 3RR on Aug 31

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have to imagine that this is why Arbcom sets up enduring DS on this topic; I don't even edit gun topics, but I am a "Gun zealot"? It is crazy. Every edit they have made since this started has been laden with personal attack and emotion; typical of these issues that have DS on them. But this is over top; there is no room to work here.

I don't want to bring content into this, but there is also a WP:CIR thing going on here, as the Dickey Amendment doesn't say what Sahrin thinks it does, - this is really simple;

• The content Sarhin was trying to add (dif): "The amendment specifically bans the CDC from reporting results that suggest gun control would reduce violence."
• What the amendment says in its entirety, which is in the article just above where Sahrin wanted to insert the content: "“none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (ref, p 244.

It is/was not even a hard issue to resolve in some ways. I ~think~ maybe Sahrin wants to say something about the effect of the Dickey Amendment on researchers but with all the aggression, attacks, and demands, and tangle, I can't figure out what that might be. The behavior and approach to other editors makes working it out way uglier than anything has to be in WP and there is no reason to put up with this. This is what DS are for; please apply them.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notice (sorry, I couldn't find the notice template, and I did this after I saved Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

• From Sahrin's second revert above and throughout their response below they have characteriized me as some kind of "gun zealot" or "passionate about this issue". As I noted above I don't edit gun topics in WP; Sahrin brings zero diffs to support that characterization; it is an assumption of bad faith on their part. I edit mostly health/medicine and this article (Center for Disease Control) has been on my since May (see my contrib history to that article) and I was simply reacting to bad editing (OR/editorialzing unsupported by the sources) as I do across articles I watch, and as has every one else who has looked at the edits Sarhin made to this article (1 IP and 3 editors besides me).

Sahrin does not seem to be able to manage this simple WP 101 content dispute without viewing and characterizing the people who have disagreed with their edits as being "gun zealots" or "revisionist gun types" (??) who "brigade" (??) and sockpuppet and vandalize. I showed this with diffs above. Sahrin continues to characterize me that way even here at AE. I have no idea what the rest of their editing is like but this has all been completely (and I mean completely) unacceptable behavior on their part, from their first response to opposition to their edits on this article (charactering the IP's revert as "vandalism") and on through their comments below. I don't see how it makes sense that they should continue to edit on gun control issues. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sahrin's remark at 2016-19-05 1746 continues to make misrepresentations while providing no diffs, shows no self-insight, and continues to locate the problem elsewhere. Law of holes in action, and flouncing away from the article is not a valid response. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I can only laugh bemusedly at this entire affair. From day one Jytdog has behaved aggressively and harassed me. Based on the evidence that is available in the logs, it can be seen that Jytdog's initial and repeated effort was to revert a consensus version of the article that was achieved a few weeks before this incident. He was saved from a 3RR violation only by brigading the article (ie, summoning either a like-minded user, or a sock puppet account to revert so that he did not jeopardize his own account). I admit I was not aware of the "bright line" 3RR rule, but overturning an existing consensus (which contained both the content of the law in question; as the initial 'other side' advocated; as well as the actual cause of the controversy (the effort to censor researchers) seemed grounds for aggressive action. I was banned, and was wrong to revert three times without logging into an alt account as Jytdog did.

The issue began, though, when Jytdog, after seeing my reverts, initiated an aggressive program of harassment - making three separate edits to my user talk page (all evidenced in his links above so I won't reproduce them) in response to a *single edit.* His every effort appeared to be to entrap me into a 3RR violation, including very strong language in comments in edit notes like "This is not optional." I admit, I was frustrated, and reverted three times. But the notion that anything is being done but normal revision of an article that is being interfered with by Jytdog is absolutely hilarious. His behavior has gone over the line time and again, and when this is pointed out to him (that he is harassing me and brigading an article) he responds with "personal attacks! personal attacks!" That's all fine, but the evidence just isn't there for that behavior. With the exception of the 3RR I have remained civil and results oriented at all times, meanwhile Jytdog seems to be interested in carrying out a personal vendetta against me...why I cannot say.

There are a number of problems with Jytdog's version of events:

• 1. He continuously references the original draft of my edit to the article, as if I have not changed in response to the community's feedback. A cursory glance of the edit history will show that I have made *numerous* changes to this draft. One wonders why Jytdog ignores these changes, and instead presents the situation as if I am stubbornly refusing to cooperate with others.
• 2. After the 3RR, seeing how heated the situation had become, I reached a compromise. It was very clear that Jytdog's faction did not want any mention of the censorship problem presented by the amendment in the article. It occurred to me while I was on 'vacation' that the entirety of the section was a silly thing to have in the encyclopedia in the first place! It's an agency with a $7B budget, without the censorship issue we are talking about (and Jytdog's faction's edit) presented the "controvery" as a dispute between the AMA and Congress over a $10M (million) line item in the CDC's budget for a single fiscal year...This is a controversy? This is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia? No, not really. So if we're absolutely certain that there is no evidence for a stronger problem, then let's dump the section altogether! We can 'whitewash' the problem as Jytdog's faction wants, while at the same time maintaining out commitment to notability? This compromise is apparently what set Jytdog off, because he immediately began threatening me with further sanctions.
• 3. I told him his threats and intimidation wouldn't work, and *continued discussing in a civil and results-oriented manner.* Jytdog responded by submitting this Arb Request.
• 4. The edit to Someguy1221's user page was specifically not about Someguy1221 or this situation. The comments even say so. I understand why both Jytdog and Someguy1221 would think that is was, except I indicated in the comments that it wasn't. Having experienced the "reporting" process myself now, I can see that it is not something I would willingly submit other users to, even if they are admins...so I can't go into further detail.
• 5. The sort of "Cherry on top" is Jytdog's last section above which begins, "I think Sahrin wants to say..." Like, dude, this is what you should be saying in the Talk page without all the threats and harassment! That's what editing is, discussing the issue! *sigh* I can admit there's a lot I don't understand about this community, but I have been here for a long time and I've never experienced this kind of behavior from another editor (the aggressive, adversarial, "get mom to intervene" behavior). I'm not the WP police and to each his own, for sure, but what's missing here is any evidence of any kind of wrongdoing except the 3RR violation. But instead of doing so, Jytdog carries the dispute into an enforcement action.
• 6. All of this behavior is what led me to the conclusion that there is a NPOV issue related to Jytdog.

In short, I don't have a comprehensive understanding of all the WP:Policy bits. I made an error before in the 3RR situation, and I apologize for that. But what going on here is a very passionate editor has lost perspective on a situation, and is trying to push his own feeling too far.

I've been editing WP for...13 years now, I believe. If the Arb committee decides it's my time to go, then it's my time. Thanks for the good times, it was a fun project to contribute to.

(Moved from OID section) I've seen the same kind of cryptic comments from Jytdog. "Nothing else need be said" "I refuse to say any more" etc. What secret mysterious world are you privy to that I am not, which includes this information? It's a child's approach to a situation. If there's a problem, say what the problem is. If you can't articulate the problem clearly, then perhaps there is not an issue and you're just responding out of emotion rather than reason. Sahrin (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added 21:30 UTC: So I have reviewed Jytdog's block log. It appears he has been banned permanently on two separate instances for similar behaviors, only to be unbanned after appealing to the Arb Committee. I can't see into the committee's deliberations myself, but if I've ever heard of a case of misplaced aggression/transferrance this appears to follow it to a textbook. In my entire history with WP I have never had any interaction with Admins or disciplinary groups, until Jytdog. Sahrin (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2016-19-05 1746 UTC: Comment on the admin's page *was not about this issue.* This was stated several times and for the record above. Comments regarding neutrality of other editors were made only after my neutrality was questioned, and repeated reverts were made without substantiation for the revert. As I noted, I became frustrated and committed the 3RR. I have already backed away from the dispute; I made a further comment on the talk page which failed to achieve consensus and have not said anything further on the topic. The evidence for "whitewashing" is readily available - there were repeated attempts to remove factually true information from an article to present a particular viewpoint (that there was no controversy), I must admit I find it frustrating that the admins in question have not seen this in the record; if agreeing to remove myself from the situation is what causes this to blow over then I'm totally down with it. As far as de-escalating, I will not have anything further to do with the topic or certainly the editor in question. I have received messages from several other editors criticizing the neutrality/behavior of the editor in question in the past, and need no further convincing that he is not someone I want to be involved with. Sahrin (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2016-09-06 1000 UTC: The editor in question did not follow the editorial process. If it is against Wikipedia policy to point this out, it seems like it would be impossible for me to end up in this situation (ie, accused of not following processes). This is the point that is unclear to me, and the reason that such comments can't be 'withdrawn.' The evidence is strong, and while I'm eager to work with all editors I can't ignore strong evidence. My question is: If it is acceptable for the editor in question to accuse me of violating wikipedia policy, why is it unacceptable for me to do the same? An answer from any neutral party could profitably resolve the dispute. Failing an answer, as I have said I will have nothing further to do with the editor in question so it's a moot point in either case. Sahrin (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note in the above statement where Sahrin accuses Jytdog of socking to avoid 3rr ("I was banned, and was wrong to revert three times without logging into an alt account as Jytdog did."). Dont think anything more needs to be said. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPA. You are accusing another editor of deliberately sockpuppeting in order to game the 3rr violation. Which raises a number of issues, 1. Its highly unlikely you have been around this long and do not know about assuming good faith and not making unsubstantiated personal attacks on other editors. 2. You claimed you were not aware of 3rr and yet clearly aware enough to accuse someone of sockpuppeting to avoid it. (Also AE is one of those pages where comments are restricted to editor's own sections - no threading.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Sahrin's conduct in this is fairly bizarre and I don't believe they weren't aware of the 3RR rule. I think a general warning to avoid personal attacks and avoid future edit warring would be sufficient here. The behavior seems isolated, so I wouldn't be comfortable imposing a topic sanction at this time. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree with User:Lord Roem if there were any evidence that User:Sahrin was willing to back away from the dispute. Sahrin is a long-time editor and it seems correct to describe his conduct this one time as fairly bizarre. A routine editorial dispute doesn't need to turn into a federal case. If people give evidence through the language they use that they may be unable to edit neutrally on a topic such as gun control, it is common to issue a topic ban. There may be time to avoid that. If we didn't want to use discretionary sanctions a one-week block for personal attacks might be considered, which could still be avoided. The thing that's hard to swallow is that he continues beating the war drums right here in his AE response. He has even suggested that he might report the admin who issued the 3RR block for abuse of admin privileges. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, you can definitely take his "whitewashing" remarks as evidence that they're unable to edit neutrally in the topic. I wouldn't be opposed to a non-DS block for these completely unsubstantiated personal attacks; if a topic sanction were issued, I'd prefer it be on the short side. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm hesitating on whether to accept Sahrin's concessions. What I find the hardest to accept is his suggestion (not withdrawn yet) that Jytdog engaged in sockpuppetry or recruitment of a like-minded editor, and his following text from the article talk page:

–EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing: User:Sahrin is warned that further personal attacks, or charges of socking or 'brigading' that are made without evidence, may lead to a block for disruptive editing. Your edits related to the topic of gun control are expected to be neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) : request 2 month topic ban on articles related to the 2016 U.S. elections.

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

1. 00:39, 15 August 2016 "...your previous source - the Clinton Cash book - has been shown to be fringe nutjobbery."
2. 16:04, 6 September 2016 ""Clinton Cash". A fringe far right conspiracy theory book."
3. 05:17, 6 September 2016 "No, the extent of coverage between this and the email "controversy" is tremendous. It's mountain vs. molehill. Most of this article consists of POV laden WP:SYNTHESIS. The only sources really are a single AP story and then several stories slamming that AP story. And yes, the purpose of this article is solely to circumvent consensus on the Clinton Foundation article. The POV is obvious and obnoxious. As is the WP:GAMEing. This is also a cynical attempt to do a run around discretionary sanctions on American Politics articles. The creator of this article - and you as well - know from experience that adding garbage content to an existing article can be challenged, and then it is up to the person wishing to add it to get consensus for inclusion. It's painfully obvious that most of the content of this thing would not get such consensus. So you guys went and created a separate article for all the junk you know you wouldn't be able to get into the legitimate article. This is disruptive behavior, clear and simple, and it's actually fairly stunning in its cynicism and disrespect for Wikipedia policy."
4. 14:14, 25 August 2016 "How are we gonna deal with that? Man, this guy makes the life of a Wikipedia editor hard."

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 06:35 25 July 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The following comments are in explanation of the edit differences provided above:

Clinton Cash is a book by Peter Schweizer and published by HarperCollins. The book was reviewed in the New York Times[19] and other mainstream media. The Times review said, "“Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling [than other books about the Clintons], both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book."

While the author is a conservative and his analysis of the Clintons may differ from liberal observers, there is no suggestion that he is far right, a conspiracy theorist or a nutjob.

Volunteer Marek's tone has also been abrasive and dismissive in speaking about other editors and the Republican presidential nominee.

I asked Volunteer Marek to remove his comments on Clinton Cash,[20] which he rejected.[21]

TFD (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, referring to an established journalist and author as a nutjob right-wing conspiracy theorist is in my opinion defamatory or at least a violation of biography of living persons policy since it impugns the integrity or judgment of someone whose career is based on a reputation for integrity and judgment. It is also an attack on the publisher, because reputable publishers do not publish such works, which is why they are reputable and their reputation is a key element in their success. Ironically, your objection to Clinton Cash was that "BLP applies," in that case that we could not "add this junk" which you saw as prejudicial to living persons. (18:16, 14 August 2016) Your comments on Trump ("Man, this guy makes the life of a Wikipedia editor hard.") shows a personal preference against him, yet in the previous edit above, you accuse other editors of being so influenced by political bias that it affects their judgment. TFD (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

23:23, 6 September 2016

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.

Sigh. So you can get dragged to AE now for criticizing a ... book. While other editors run around Wikipedia creating POVFORKs and game the DS system. Right. Here's links about the book (already provided in relevant discussion plus some more) Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes Clinton Cash: errors dog Bill and Hillary exposé – but is there any 'there' there?, [22]. According to the Guardian "the book is an unrestrained attack on the former president and first lady." Sources - though obviously not all - do call it a "conspiracy theory"

Anyway, why is this even being brought up to AE? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I genuinely have no idea what is suppose to be wrong in this diff presented by The Four Deuces. I'm sorry, you lost me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it's expressing an opinion about the quality a source. An opinion which is actually shared by other reliable sources. Stop being silly. Or WP:BOOMERANG for obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stalk watch most of these articles. This seems like a silly report mostly for expressing a dissenting opinion, although somewhat lacking in tact. VM has made numerous BOLD but beneficial edits on these and related pages. If we're coming to ArbCom, we should be doing so with more than hurt feelings for talk page posts. TimothyJosephWood 00:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBAPDS remedies are intended to address behavioral issues like edit warring, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system. The diffs presented as violations of these remedies don't nearly justify arbitration enforcement. What I see here is legitimate criticism of sources and pushback on what is arguable a fruit salad of an article, the purpose of which may be to cast a living person in a negative light. While Marek's passion could stand to be dialed down a notch or two, nothing evident here, in the article talk page, or the article edit history, rises to the level of a sanctionable offense in my opinion.- MrX 14:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Marek was right on the essence of the issue. In particular, Peter Schweizer was described by Media Matters for America as someone who "has a disreputable history of reporting marked by errors and retractions, with numerous reporters excoriating him for facts that "do not check out," sources that "do not exist," and a basic failure to practice "Journalism 101." (see here). My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is crap and it was created by experienced editors whose history shows they're smart enough to understand the SYNTH, OR, BLP slams, and failed Verification they put up. They were also well aware of ARBAP2 and BLP discretionary sanctions. What's infuriating is that Arbcom/Admins are looking the other way while preposterous POV-pushing is proliferating. Even the few Admins who venture a peek say "just a content dispute" or some other reason to turn their backs. This article should have been aborted as soon as it went up. Who really wants to waste time pretending this is normal content editing editors who should long ago have been TBANned from American Politics continue to game the system? We're nowhere near the election in WP-time and if the sanctions are not enforced 2016 is going to make past political dust-ups look like a picnic. Kudos to Marek for trying to do the right thing. Oh gee, he's peeved. We should all be peeved and worse. SPECIFICO talk 11:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm struggling to see what the point of this report is or what the sanctionable behavior is supposed to be. Suggest a rapid closure unless someone sees something I don't. --Laser brain (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• As someone who had some concerns about VM in a previous AE request... I find this completely vacuous. Their comments are reasonable points about controversial content; nothing was disruptive, not even angry, really. Agree with Laser brain-- close with no action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

DS 1RR restriction on Jeremy Corbyn [23]

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

1. 5 Sept, 10:57, "Reverted good faith edits by MShabazz (talk)" revert obvious in the edit summary
2. 6 Sept., 10:04 "+ citation about Corbyn's association with alleged antisemites & Holocaust deniers (*one^ sentence on this issue, plus citation, is not tendentious one would have thought)", is a revert by virtue of restoring mention of Corbyn's alleged "anti-Semitism", previously added twice by Philip Cross on 2 Sept. e.g. here (immediately following deletion by a different editor). The edit summary of this most recent edit shows awareness that there have been previous attempts to add something along these lines.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The second revert uses a different source (i.e., not the same as with his first attempt to add this material on 2 Sept.). But it is a revert all the same insofar as it attempts to have the Jeremy Corbyn article include implication of the idea that he is an anti-Semite (has been accused of, is indifferent to, etc.). Different sources and different ways of expressing the idea don't hide the underlying impulse here. Also worth noting is that the issue is under discussion on the talk page ([24]), where it's entirely evident that there is no consensus to add a particular passage along these lines.

Finally, attempt to raise the point with the editor on his talk page did not succeed: [25].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[26]

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.

Most of the other users on the talkpage opposing any mention of the issue of Jeremy Corbyn and the antisemitism issue are stonewalling in my opinion, and unable to acknowledge any other viewpoint as being valid. The citation ‎Nomoskedasticity mentions was on 2 September, not within the last 24 years. In the 2 September addition, I did not claim Corbyn is "indifferent" to the issue in the article itself, nor make a direct claim about his attitudes. The objection of other users is to a tweet I added by the Times journalist Oliver Kamm (cited to a reliable source) and is a matter of interpretation over which there is disagreement. The issue of Corbyn's past association with (quoting from my edit today which Nomoskedasticity cites) "alleged antisemites and Holocaust deniers" has repeatedly been referred to in the British media, and internationally, yet other editors cannot accept this is notable and should be included in the main Corbyn article. My new mention of this issue consists of one sentence, and a citation. Hardly excessive. There is a related issue concerning the talkpage discussion. Many editors are unwilling to countenance the inclusion in the article of the issue of online sexist and homophobic, as well as antisemite abuse, by people who claim to be Corbyn's supporters. The issue of Corbyn's apparent inability to deal with the abuse issue has again frequently been raised. For instance, by many of the former shadow ministers who resigned from Labour's shadow cabinet last June, other Labour MPs who were among the 172 who supported a motion of no confidence in Corbyn, and commentators in the media. Since this complaint was filed, I have added Corbyn's responses. I usually add opposing views, or opinions I do not share, in such instances. The Labour Party is split over the issue of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, probably the most serious crisis the party has faced in more than 80 years (the party had a major split in 1931, and a more minor one in 1981), with a new split being openly discussed because of Corbyn's leadership, yet this article barely touches on any of this. Philip Cross (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a WP:1RR violation, it was pretty minor and borderline. There's lots of discussion on the talkpage, both before and since. Normal content dispute procedures are being followed. Suggest closing with no action. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It's late here so apologies if I'm missing something obvious. I see DS are on this page--presumably with the BLP DS area?--but where was the 1RR restriction imposed? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As expected, I missed the diff that showed the 1RR restriction. I'll take a look more in-depth soon. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based off the little evidence presented, I'm inclined to agree with Kingsindian. Unless someone strongly disagrees, I think this should be closed with no action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User-multi error: "SashiRolls" is not a valid project or language code (help). – ~~~

Sanction being appealed

6 month topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

diff

Notification of ArbCom

10 September 2016 by email.

On 01/09/2016, Tryptofish asked for Arbitration Enforcement against me because 1) I deleted an article that s/he claimed supported the contention that Jill Stein had made statements that were "contrary to science". The article does not support this claim, but notes that Jordan Weissmann (a business and economics editor), author of "an opinion piece at Slate[,] dismissed Green Party candidate Jill Stein as “a Harvard-trained physician who panders to pseudoscience” concerning genetically modified organisms, pesticides, “quack medicine,” and vaccine efficacy." This is the only sentence in the article pertaining to Stein, and so -- in my view -- should not be added as a separate indictment since the text (quoted in full above) is hardly a recommendation of the article by Mr. Weissmann and takes no explicit position on Jill Stein's positions (though the language suggests the author does not concur with Weissmann. Farther down in his complaint, Tryptofish accuses me of inserting a "disparaging remark" about Jordan Weissmann in the Wikipedia article, referencing the text: "Weissmann subsequently wrote a retraction of one part of his article related to the effects of pesticides on honeybee populations."^[1] I do not see how this could be disparaging, as both the title and the content of the article indicate that Weissmann (a business and economics editor) is making a retraction of a significant error about science in his original article.

Next, I was called out for 2) changing the name of a reference from :03 to WaPoArticleCitedSixteenTimes and waiting for a bot to come correct the other 15 references to the article. I plead guilty and apologize for the error of judgment. An editor quickly objected to this change so I changed all sixteen references to avoid links becoming unavailable. Waiting for the bot was a regrettable technical mistake, as was the polemical name I chose for the over-cited reference. The legitimate point on the oversourcing of the article to half-quotes from the Washington Post interview the day after it appeared (a move which was criticized here, here, here, here, and here) got lost in the process.

The error I made was made shortly after I had to revert Tryptofish's non-constructive edit diff in the science section, an attempt to discredit Jill Stein's peer-reviewed published views on science in the preceding sentence, which subsequent to my ban from the topic Tryptofish removed. I admit that my view of legitimate editing behavior was influenced by my accuser (Tryptofish's) addition of this (IMO unhelpful) citation for the section "science":

Stein has said: "For science geeks, you can show yourself if you have any doubt that I too am a science geek."^[2]

Nevertheless, my error was an error, despite the fact that it was motivated by frustration with the inappropriate behavior of two other users. Three wrongs don't make a right, I concede.

Finally, Tryptofish accused me of 3) slow edit-warring, adducing as evidence two reversions (which are reversions of reversions made by Snooganssnoogans) on a subject that AndrewOne suggested (correctly in my view) needed urgent correction and contextualization here and here. Since Snooganssnoogans continued to ignore the sensible call for balancing perspective, I read all of the source material provided by AndrewOne, found another article from a source that Snooganssnoogans had previously argued was an RS in an effort to address the neutrality problems in this section (cf. non-neutral POV tag added to the section on 31 Aug (diff)).

The editor objects to information being added from Forbes, the Atlantic, the Roosevelt Institute, and Yes! magazine here to provide context concerning the economic argument about quantitative easing, and has used the Arbitration Enforcement discussion (concerned primarily with Tryptofish's distracting actions in the GMO section of the article) to delete this balancing information suggested by AndrewOne, but which only I was "bold" enough to add (here), given the polemical atmosphere that has been created by Snooganssnoogans' 30+ reverts in the last two months. This will be the subject of a separate call for disciplinary sanctions against Snooganssnoogans (see context I deleted [27] to show Lord Roem good faith).

I would like to complete my appeal by noting a few procedural elements related to this disproportionate 6-month topic ban. First, two administrators (Laser brain and NeilN) spoke of possibly warning me, the former saying that my behavior did not rise to the level of sanctions (calling the actual motivation for bringing me to DS (GMO) a "red herring"), and the second stating that any warning should mention 1RR. (NB: the administrators had not yet looked into the context of Snooganssnoogans' consistent pattern of edit-warring since mid-July). I asked to be given until the 5th of September 5pm to formulate my defense. However, NuclearWarfare chose to go well beyond their suggestions and sanctioned me for 6 months on the 4th of September, before I could finish formulating my defense. I subsequently asked NuclearWarfare (on the 7th of September) to explain the grounds for his/her decision here, but as of the 10th of September I have not received any acknowledgment of my request. Based only on what s/he wrote in the decision, his/her concern was with my contention that the Washington Post article was being given undue weight on Jill Stein's WP:BLP, saying that I "just didn't get it", concerning this specific reversion concerning NPOV and RS. It is worth noting that I was reverting an entire paragraph that had been deleted by Snooganssnoogans, and not just a single reference to the sources that NW considers partial (articles written by Kevin Gostola and Peter Lavenia). Articles appearing in Al Jazeera, Democracy Now! and the Free & Equal Elections Foundation were also deleted, as well as any reference to Media Coverage / Media Access. It would seem logical that if an editor has a problem with a reference to an article published in Counterpunch or Shadowproof that they should eliminate the sentence that cites those sources (only) rather than all of the surrounding material unrelated to these sources. It is certainly not narrow POV-pushing to note that a major and widely reported concern of Jill Stein's is that she does not have equal media access. Concerning the bias of the Washington Post (which is the subject of contention), it is worth noting that there have been numerous claims related to its bias, some of the (older) sources of which have been included on Wikipedia (Cf. The Washington Post#2000-present), though not yet the newest claims / evidence, including the article from the independent Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting about 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours on March 8, 2016..^[3]

Finally I would note that I have never before been accused of any inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia, which is not the case for either Tryptofish (who brought the complaint), or for Snooganssnoogans (who has been WP:Bludgeoning the process at Jill Stein for over two months (preventing over a dozen editors from balancing the POV s/he is pushing) and engaging in edit wars elsewhere... cf. the warnings from 22 May, 5 June, 30 June, 18 July, 20 Aug, 27 Aug, 28 Aug, 30 Aug on the user's Talk Page here.)

I would strongly urge that this appeal not be granted. For brevity's sake, I note only a few points:

• Since SashiRolls (SR) was barred from the area (a mere week ago), the articles have been stable and rather peaceful editing has occurred. As SR's long (and rather self-serving statement blaming others) signals, if the topic ban is lifted, SashiRolls will undoubtedly return to the same scorched-Earth, battleground mentality that seeks to wear other editors down through attrition.

• SR does not understand reliable sourcing. SR believes that the Washington Post is not a reliable source on Jill Stein, a position that SR apparently continues to hold, as his/her statement here indicates. At the same time, SR believes that Russian government-controlled and Venezuelan government-controlled media outlets are reliable sources, although scholars identify these sources as propaganda. Editors have unanimously or near-unanimously rejected SR's view, but SR is apparently unwilling to accept this.

• SR continues to maintain that editors who disagree with him/her on content, including myself, are "shill" editors, secretly in league with the Clinton campaign. This is false (and ridiculous), but SR continues to bring up this contention at every opportunity, creating a toxic editing environment.

--Neutrality^talk 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This request is without merit. Almost all of the request completely misrepresents the facts, and it is fundamentally a demonstration of unwillingness or inability to understand SashiRolls' own misconduct that resulted in the sanction in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• First thing's first-- SashiRolls, you need to substantially cut down your statement in size. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I'll take a look at the substance of your statement soon. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reviewing the statements, the topic ban should be endorsed. NW was well within their discretion to impose this sanction. SashiRolls continues to litigate their content dispute in the bulk of their appeal which leads me to believe the POV-pushing behavior would continue. I'm thankful they reduced the huge size of their statement to not as enormous, but there's nothing there that convinces me NW did anything unreasonable. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with the above. Nothing here was an unreasonable exercise of administrative discretion, and NW's decision was the right call. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :

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

1. 10:55 Sep 6 First Reversion
2. 9:56 Sep 7 1RR from WB to Palestine
3. 9:57 Sep 7 Continuing revisions
4. 9:57 Sep 7 Again...

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. I am not sure, but I think user was blocked or TBANNED previously.

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

• I couldn't find the specific template, but user is aware of sanctions. There was a discussion on his page and Arb. Drmies mentioned it to him. User_talk:Makeandtoss/Archive_1#January_2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is about a site located in the West Bank. Since calling it State of Palestine is POV, I changed it to West Bank since that is technically where the location is. I then continued to expand the page finding live links, adding more refs, etc. User then came back with his NPOV edit and edit summary.

It would be the same POV if I said Israel, which would not be allowed. I even made a suggestion of removing West Bank and just labeling it in the Jordan Valley, since a few sentences down it mentions the West Bank, but calling this part of the State of Palestine, and not even Palestine (region) is extreme POV.

To Makeandtoss, you violated 1RR not necessarily 3RR. There were also around 10 edits in between your edit and your first reversion. As for the category, that is funny, considering that the article has a Tourism in the Sate of Palestine cat already.

Tracy McClark is being a little disingenuous with the numbers and reverts. My initial edit wasn't a revert, I then modified it to make it more neutral, and that is not a revert, making two edits in a row is not counted especially since I was improving the neutrality and making small edits to the article. All one has to do is view history to see the truth.

Nishidani, I added that cat only because there was a cat for the Palestine one. You need both to be NPOV. What Cliftonian suggested on his userpage was a cat for Tourism in the West Bank. It might get convoluted but it should work since anything else is POV.

• Since Cliftonian has published a modified version that is more neutral, I withdraw my complaint. I'm not here to have anyone sanctioned, so this can be closed since the article has a more tolerable and neutral wording.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMakeandtoss&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=738196630

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.

I did not revert three times, I reverted once because there are no intermediate edits by anyone.

State of Palestine is recognized by 136 (70.5%) (more than two thirds) of the 193 member states of the United Nations. Meanwhile, Israeli occupation of West Bank is not recognized by anyone, not even the USA/EU/UN. I fail to see how you can make that resemblance. I fail to see how you think its OK to this as a site in Israel but not as a site in the State of Palestine? Neutral you said? Interesting. --Makeandtoss (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about turning the focus on the filer's 3 reverts within 24 hours?

Initial revert/content here

1st revert here

2nd revert here, here

3rd revert here (added twice today)

Sir Joe, you have a right to challenge editors who prefer ‘State of Palestine’ for anything in the West Bank. But when you reverting them on this, while adding a cat for Tourism in Israel you are contradicting yourself, and reality. All Israelis know that the West Bank is not in Israel. Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if the parties involved referred to a Wikipedia:Third opinion or other peaceful means instead of asking for a Enforcement. Thnx. I succeded in cooperation with Makeandtoss on the other sice of the Jordan, at the Al-Maghtas article. I think that both sides of the debate here have not been acting properly. Don't go into detail of the overall conflict, check what the category means. I guess that 'Tourism in israel' is just about the tourism managed by the Israel ministry of tourism and does not imply a decision about the appropriate ruler of the territory. Polentarion Talk 14:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• If we start to see many reverts between 'Israel' and 'Palestine' terminology it may be proper to put the ARBPIA template on the talk page. People should take a look at the current state of Tourism in the Palestinian Territories, which I consider very neutrally worded. Check out how they refer to the major sites. They are usually described as being in the West Bank, and not in Israel nor the State of Palestine. How to describe these places is a matter for consensus and not to be decided by admins, but if we see continued warring I guess we will need to enforce 1RR. To me, it seems provocative to put Category:Tourism in Israel on this article, while it seems innocuous to put Category:Tourism in the West Bank. One way to close this might be to warn people of blocks if they change the categorization again without consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would close this with a warning to User:Makeandtoss that if he continues to mark West Bank locations as being in the State of Palestine, without getting a prior talk page consensus to do so, he may be blocked or topic banned. In the past we are used to editors supporting the Israeli side trying to extend their turf into the West Bank, and in this case an editor who appears to favor the Palestinian side doing the opposite. If Wikipedia starts to mark places as being in the State of Palestine a large number of article leads would have to change, and I see no immediate prospect of such a change being agreed to. So far we have an article on the State of Palestine; see its talk page for status. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing. User:Makeandtoss is warned he should get consensus before marking places as being in the State of Palestine. Wikipedia's handling of contested geography is a possible venue for the I/P dispute, but admins may take action if it continues there. Changes need discussion and agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – KamelTebaast 00:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

30-Day Topic Ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Notification

As I understand, Wikipedia’s appeal process is similar to a parole hearing. The prisoner/editor should take full responsibility for his/her crimes/policy violations, not blame anyone, embody full contrition while showing an eagerness to improve, and promise not to repeat the crimes/disruptive patterns that led to the imprisonment/block or ban.

However, I still do not understand how I violated policies in order to be sanctioned, let alone given a 30-day topic ban. I suggest that getting banned while not understanding why only promotes recidivism. I believe that I stayed within Wikipedia’s WP:BOLD and WP:BRD policies, while it seemed that policy guidelines were not followed in terms of possible (uninvolved editor/administrator) warnings, intervention, or proper discussion about any editing problems prior to my being sanctioned. I brought an editor to AE, and I ended up being topic banned. Experiencing WP:BOOMERANG firsthand is like living Kafka’s The Trial.

During the AE, Nishidani leveled many accusations against my editing and me. I will address only two specific areas of editing prior to my being topic-ban:

A persistent thread runs throughout Wikipedia that Jews illegally stole Arab land in (pre-1948) Palestine (and that it continues today in Israel, but that discussion is for another forum). With that background, there was a sentence in Kibbutz Beit Alpha’s lede that read:

The kibbutz as well as the archaeological site nearby containing the remains of an ancient synagogue, got their name from the Arab village that once stood here, Khirbet Bait Ilfa.^[1]

In examining the source, I learned that the exact quote is:

"The city is named after the nearby ruins of Khirbet Beit Ilfa; it shows no occupation before the Roman period."

In other words, the kibbutz does not sit on top of what was once an abandoned Arab village. Subsequently, I deleted the sentence.

In Talk, more sources were provided (confirmed by Nishidani here) that the village of Khirbet Beit Ilfa was nearby Beit Alpha, not below (as was written in the previous article). In the same discussion I learned from Nishidani that had I simply changed 'that once stood on the site' to 'nearby’, my edit would have been acceptable. In any case, I dealt with those issues in Talk, acquiesced, became a catalyst for change to improve the article, and I added the following line in the Geography section (that still stands):

“The kibbutz was founded near an abandoned Arab village, Khirbet Bait Ilfa...”

However, a recent Nishidani edit in the History section reads:

“The kibbutz as well as the archaeological site with the remains of the synagogue nearby took their name from the abandoned Arab village, Khirbet beit Ilfa, which once stood on the site.” [Emphasis mine.]

The sources state that the abandoned village was “nearby” and Nishidani knows it. Is this not POV-pushing? Is that not disruptive editing? Is Lord Roem not “troubled” by this?

I believe that my edits in the Beit Alpha article do not in any way exhibit a pattern of disruptive editing, and further show that I am willing to engage in dialogue and edit with consensus while improving articles.

To many people globally, not just Israelis, Yasser Arafat was first known as a terrorist before he marketed himself/was elevated (however one views it) as a statesman of peace. I also understand that consensus trumps facts on Wikipedia. Yet Arafat’s lede is written and sourced to portray him almost entirely as a humanitarian. That is hardly neutral. His Nobel Prize is highlighted with virtually no violent history preceding it.

The entire lede is POV, pushing toward a Palestinian nationalism viewpoint: “popularly known as”, “was a Palestinian leader”, “He was Chairman of…”, “President of…”, “and leader of…”, “he founded”, “he modified his position”, “faced off with”, “...engaged in a series of negotiations with the government of Israel to end the decades-long conflict between it and the PLO”, “received the Nobel Peace Prize”, “after effectively being confined within his Ramallah compound for over two years by the Israeli army”, and “The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people”.

Where is the neutrality from this career? Even when there is a hint that Arafat had a violent history, his organization, Fatah, is given the modifier “former paramilitary group”.

In the entire 350-plus-word lede, the term for what Arafat was known as, “terrorist”, appears once—the last word. Even then it was “balanced” by framing it that only Israelis (the bad guys) believe it.

With this background, my first edit on Arafat’s page read:

“As History's biography wrote, "For two decades the PLO launched bloody attacks on Israel, and Arafat gained a reputation as a ruthless terrorist".[5]

Nishidani reverted my edit for, “Fails RS; adopts the nonRS POV; duplicates higherup the POV given below, without the other POV for balance”.

I did not revert Nishidani’s edit nor did I edit-war with him. Rather, I took his direction and I reviewed the sentence that he referred to in his revert. It read:

“Arafat remains a controversial figure. The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people, while many Israelis have described him as an unrepentant terrorist.[8][9]”

That sentence’s POV, as I discussed with Nishidani in the Talk page, is heavily weighted toward the Palestinian nationalism cause. Here are the reasons:

1. “majority of the Palestinians” vs. “many Israelis”. Doing the math, many could mean a few hundred people, while majority of Palestinians means millions. In essence, this could mean, subtly, that only a few hundred people view Arafat as an unrepentant terrorist.
2. The belief that he was an unrepentant terrorist has been limited only to Israelis while a plethora of sources show that many globally also view him as a “terrorist”. Source Source Source Source Source Source Source
3. Five aspects pertaining to Arafat’s stature were given pushing the Palestinian POV:

1. “heroic”
2. “freedom fighter”
3. “martyr”
4. “regardless of political ideology or faction”
5. “symbolized the national aspirations of his people”

Only one was given from a large and opposing and viewpoint: “unrepentant terrorist”.

Other than “many Israelis viewed him as an unrepentant terrorist”, there was virtually nothing in the lede to give any context as to why they viewed him as such. There was virtually nothing written about his decades of murderous attacks, primarily aimed at civilians, which led to the loss of thousands of innocent lives. Therefore, two days following my previous edit in another section, I tried to bring neutrality with this edit:

The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people, while many Israelis and people worldwide have described him as an unrepentant terrorist because of his decades of violence, aimed mostly at civilians.^[2][3] [My edit in bold]

Ohnoitsjamie reverted me here with “unnecessary POV.”

I reverted Ohnoitsjamie here based on “Limiting to just Israelis is POV“

Nishidani reverted me here.

Most importantly, I discussed this in Talk here and I made no further edits.

In comparing the aforementioned edits to another editor and his/her edits in the Jewish Voice for Peace article, I made this initial edit:

“JVP endorsed the platform of the Black Lives Matter Movement, which, among other things, accuses Israel of "genocide." Source

Malik Shabazz followed up with what I believe was a revert, adding his/her POV “fixing hyperbolic addition”:

In 2016, JVP endorsed the platform of The Movement for Black Lives, which, in one of its many points, uses the word "genocide" to describe Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. [Bold for MShabazz’s edits]

Epson Salts, clarified here:

For those editors who are having difficulty seeing the 1RR violation:

According to WP:ANEW, "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Kamel Tebaast added this line to the article - 'JVP endorsed the platform of The Black Lives Matter movement, which, among other things, accuses Israel of "genocide" ' Malik's first revert, at 13:03, 7 August 2016 , removes the words "among other things, accuses Israel of " and replaces them with his own formulation. That's the first revert, a partial one, which undoes the work of Kamel.

More importantly--not stated by Epson--M.Shabazz changed Black Lives Matter to the Movement for Black Lives, an entirely different organization. The source did mention that Black Lives Matter endorsed this platform and that BLM is one of the participating organizations in the Movement for Black Lives. However, to paraphrase User:Kingsindian here, had MShabazz simply added the “Movement of Black Lives”, with Black Lives Matter as one of the 50 participating organizations, that would have been an edit. He didn’t. He completely deleted the (household and sometimes controversially recognized) name of Black Lives Matter.

In any case, according to Softlavender, Kingsindian, Nishidani, Drmies, and Lord Roem, M.Shabazz’s edit was not a revert, rather only an edit, yet these same editors and administrators found that my addition on Yasser Arafat was a revert, not an edit.

To be specific, adding “one of its many points” and “to describe Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians” (and deleting and replacing the name of one organization with another) is “editing” while adding “and people worldwide” and “because of his decades of violence, aimed mostly at civilians” is a “revert” and POV-pushing.

This inconsistency that persists throughout Wikipedia regarding a lack of clarity among policies and sanctions, varies among editors and administrators. Even Nishidani wrote: “Now I have always admitted that I have no understanding of 1R, except to think that...I know it's simple, but I can't figure it out.” I surmise that Nishidani’s inability to understand the 1RR is due to the difficulty to differentiate between an edit and a revert.

Wikipedia’s definition of a reversion is “an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit. The typical way to effect a reversion is to use the "undo" button in the article's history page, but it isn't any less of a reversion if one simply types in the previous text.”

My entire appeal comes down to two things: 1) Did my initial edit reverse the sentence? 2) Was I POV-pushing?

In following WP:BRD, it seems to go in one direction. Edits are made and editors are revert-happy, while the policy clearly states:

Consider reverting only when necessary. Reversion should be a last choice in editing: the first choice in editing should always be to improve an article by refinement, not to revert changes by other editors.

Were there zero merits to my edits? Was there not a way to refine them? Only reverts were made and I, who was simply trying to bring neutrality, was sanctioned for, among other things, disruptive editing.

Observing the flow of the proceeding when it veered from complaints against MShabazz and turned into an assault on me was an interesting case study that seems to justify legitimate criticism about Wikipedia in general and against administrators in particular.

Ironically, it began with a contribution here by Johnuniq, writing: “There is an ANI report where Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs) (account created on 30 May 2016) uses perfectly formed procedures. Naturally no one can prove anything except for the obvious: WP:ARBPIA is not working.” I wrote “ironically” because Johnuniq reverted my revert of another revert regarding this exact criticism of Wikipedia. [Johnuniq was later reverted and the quote still stands.]

Johnuniq made no comment regarding my editing, just popped in to push forward unfounded accusations against me from another proceeding that I am a sockpuppet, or someone else is a sockpuppet of me. [That gossip was started in another proceeding by an editor who was later banned indefinitely. You can’t make this stuff up.]

During the previous ANI, four editors or administrators agreed with each other to stop unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry:

Robert McClenon: “I suggest that this thread be closed with a warning to Bolter21 that any future allegations of sockpuppetry that are not actually reported at WP:SPI will result in a block.”

Blackmane: “Editors have been blocked in the past for persistent accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence. As the saying goes, "put up or shut up"

Cameron11598: The proof is in the pudding so to speak, if you have evidence for an SPI file one if not stop with the accusations.

Drmies There is no evidence whatsoever that Comment, please is a sock of Kamal (and bringing up a sock in a highly-visible forum is really stupid anyway), and as was said before, put up or shut up. Unfounded sock accusations are frequently used as ammunition in conflicts, but they are a denial of AGF. So don't do it again.

Yet, what happened? Two administrators not only picked up Johnuniq’s statement, but carried it forward. Softlavender wrote:

" I agree with Johnuniq -- the details of that ANI are pretty damning and indeed the OP's entire edit history including this AE is pretty telling.

Bishonen’s entire deliberation revolved around everything other than my editing:

“Kamel Tebaast is obviously not the user's first account, per Johnuniq above and other QUACK-y indications. I'm not sure whether the previous account[s] is/are blocked or topic banned, though it seems likely.” Then Bishonen deduced that I’ve been here for a long time because I knew that M.Shabazz is a former administrator. [I showed Bishonen that I was actually first informed about it here.]

At least Admin Drmies took his/her own advice and didn’t engage in the sockpuppetry accusations.

So, is my 30-day topic ban based on unfounded speculation that I am a sockpuppet, or because of the editing, or both? This is the exact Kafkaesque nonsense that permeates Wikipedia.

In terms of the sanction, Kingsindian wrote: “In general, Kamel Tebaast seems amenable to reason and willing to compromise, so I see no reason they can't continue to work productively in this area.”

Nishidani--who leveled most of the accusations against me--wrote:

“...there is no need for draconian measures, and we should heed Kingsindian's point that he does use the talk pages, (if only, too often, after an editorial fait accompli on articles). I think a verbal slap on the wrist insufficient, because there is a repetitive pattern even after warnings. Probably a week or two in porridge would get the message over, that, whatever the POV and its strength any editor may have, high standards, detachment and care in sourcing are fundamental.”

Yet, based on those three edits, I was given a 30-day topic ban.

I believe that my ban was unjust and did not follow the spirit of Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive:

It is interesting that Nishidani--who brought most of the complaints against me and my editing--received an 8-hour block for Disruption by revert-warring and breach of three-revert rule; two months later a 24-hour block for Three-revert rule violation; and just two months after that a 72-hour block for Edit warring, yet I received a 30-day topic ban for allowable edits at best, and questionable at worst.

Because I have virtually no interest in editing on Wikipedia other than in articles that tend to fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict, a 30-day topic ban is tantamount to a 30-day block.

Based on all of the above, I formally request a complete reversal of my sanction (even if the sanctioned time elapses).

Thank you. KamelTebaast 00:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Blade of the Northern Lights: and @The Wordsmith: your general accusations about my "attacks above" and "series of attacks and aspersions on fellow editors" is, again, indicative of my criticism of Wikipedia (above), particularly by not writing about specifics. In order for me to learn, could you please be specific as to what I wrote that is unacceptable and link it to a specific policy. Otherwise, I can only learn through the actions of other editors and administrators. For instance, when Malik Shabazz referred here to another editor, Brad Dyer, as "Jewboy" and "one of the dozens of pro-Israel single-purpose accounts that plague Wikipedia", and he called another administrator, Chillum, a "jackass", yet virtually nothing was done to him. So I'm very interested in learning what I wrote above that is worthy of a 90-day extension, when in comparison to M. Shabazz, who I think was given a one week block that I believe was reduced to one day?
• Regarding my editing in the Arab-Israeli Conflict area, I heed your warnings and I will edit with added caution. If not, there are checks and balances, and you have the tools to instantly block or ban me, so your suggested 90-day additional ban-time seems draconian, but unfortunately not surprising. KamelTebaast 23:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Seraphimblade: Thank you for your common sense response. Yes, piling on new sanctions during an appeal process basically defeats the purpose of the appeal. Then again, it lends itself perfectly to more Kafkaesque and justifiable criticism of Wikipedia. KamelTebaast 21:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the sanction expires on Tuesday (it was only for one month). It was imposed after a disruptive series of edits; the sanction was and still is proportional to a first-level remedy. The appeal should be rejected. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that at this time, the sanction has expired. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Tebaast thinks that the way to appeal a sanction is to attack other editors.

At Beit Alfa, a fairly minor dispute it must be said, Kemal's main objective was to remove the statement that the Kibbutz was named after the Arab village. See the talk page section "Kibbutz Beit Alpha was not named after an Arab village" that he/she created.

On Yasser Arafat, it is obvious that someone who wants to repeatedly add text like "people worldwide have described him as an unrepentant terrorist because of his decades of violence, aimed mostly at civilians" is a problem for the project. The presence of unacceptable text in an article has never been an excuse for adding more unacceptable text, but that is the only argument I see here. Zero^talk 02:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can only echo what Zero0000 has written and wonder what Kemal Tebaast is thinking when her/his "appeal" consists mostly of attacks on other editors.

Has Kemal Tebaast still not learned that copy-editing a sentence is not a revert, no matter how many times she/he and her/his best buddy call it one? Perhaps reading WP:Reverting might help. Or maybe not.

Evidently Kemal Tebaast also cannot see the log in her/his own eye and recognize her/his own POV-pushing in saying that a group "accuses Israel of 'genocide'" when it made no such accusation. (Yes, Kemal Tebaast, that sort of exaggeration is called hyperbole, and your sentence was a "hyperbolic addition".) As I wrote, in accordance with both the facts and NPOV, the group "use[d] the word 'genocide' to describe Israel's treatment of the Palestinians".

Needless to say, I think this appeal should be rejected. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I make no comment about the appeal nor the initial application of sanctions. I'm just leaving a note, with regards to my name begin quoted by Kamel Tebaast, to say that at no time have I claimed to be an administrator. Blackmane (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A massive tl;dr wall of text laced with attacks on other editors... agreed this should be declined with a very firm warning that attacks like those above will rapidly lead to blocks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the fact that the appeal contains no acknowledgement that Kamel did anything wrong (they did) and consists of a series of attacks and aspersions on fellow editors, I'm inclined to not only decline this appeal but also extend it to an additional 90 days. Bans are intended to be preventative, and Kamel gives every indication that when the ban expires they intend to continue disrupting as before. I believe a longer restriction is necessary to prevent tendentious editing in this topic area. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am generally hesitant to endorse additional sanctions for an appeal or conduct during it unless it's dead obviously in bad faith. While this appeal is unconvincing and I agree with declining it, I don't think it rises to that level, and so I would oppose the proposal to add time to the sanction. Editors are allowed to appeal AE sanctions, and I think we should be very careful of chilling that. I would, however, strongly caution Kamel Tebaast that ARBPIA is not an area where one will find very much tolerance for disruptive conduct, and future sanctions, if they should prove necessary, will become more severe very swiftly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mewulwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bolter21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Amendments :

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

1. 16 Sep 2016 First revert
2. 16 Sep 2016 Second revert two hours later

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• 1RR rule appears clearly when editing the page

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bolter21&diff=739770589&oldid=739665073

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.

As it seems while I was away from keyboard, my dear colleagues simply explained I self-reverted myself the moment I saw his notice, but he didn't bother to tell me he reported me here. I needed User:Epson Salts to tell me I was reported, which is not a thing I bothered to check, considering the fact I self-reverted.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice Bolter self-reverted as soon as they were notified about their violation. Given this, I think it would be very harsh to invoke any form of sanctions.

This does, however, highlight one of the flaws of the 1RR rule, in the fact that it effectively means editors don't have to bother respecting BRD as they can always out-revert someone who undoes their edit. Number 57 00:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a hair-trigger response. I don't see anything here warranting sanction. It's fair to watch future edits by this editor, but there is really nothing demanding robust action right now. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Number 57. Bolter self-reverted and, as Chick Hern made famous: "No harm no foul." Does not deserve a sanction. KamelTebaast 00:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bolter21 is a good editor and this is at most a minor infraction. I think it would be inappropriate to apply a sanction. Zero^talk 08:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bolter is a very good editor, the error was an oversight immediately self-reverted. We all do that. This is a nuisance complaint, and the case should be closed immediately.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No action required in view of self-revert. And why give first a warning, actually headed "Warning", and then, one minute later, file an AE report? In what sense is that a warning? The warning diff appears above under the heading "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested", but it certainly isn't that; as Bolter says, there was no notification. I can understand that the AE report template straight-jacket can constrain people into putting stuff under the wrong header; but all in all, I don't think this complaint was well done or well timed. Not proposing any boomerang sanction, however. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• This was a minor error and was corrected by Bolter21 as soon as it was brought to their attention. I do not see the need for any action to be taken here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There doesn't seem to be any harm done here, and it seems like an honest mistake. I suggest we close, sooner rather than later, with a "don't do that again" caution and no sanctions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 12:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The filer is a long-term editor and really ought to know better. Should we discuss sanctions for treating Wikipedia as a battleground? NW (Talk) 14:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Monochrome Monitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3 : disruption

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

1. 17:34, 15 September 2016 removing the fact that the villagers were all Muslim in the 1922 census and the 1931 census from the Hizma village.
2. 17:42, 15 September 2016: removing the fact that the villagers were all Muslim in the 1931 census from the Beit Iksa village

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 16 November 2015

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I told Monochrome Monitor that removing this information was "Totally unacceptable", and gave her a chance to reverse her action. She declines to do so. Huldra (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Seraphimblade the ethnicity, or religion, of people living in a place is about the most controversial item there is in the ARBPIA-area. If I removed, say the number of Jews living in Hebron at any one time, would that be just "a content dispute"? Huldra (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• notified, Huldra (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'll repeat what I said on my talk page.

I thought it was obvious that if you start with "they were all muslim in 1800" and end with "they were all muslim in 1945", it can be assumed in the interim they were all muslim. At a certain point it becomes an issue of tone. I repeat, at a certain point it becomes an issue of TONE. See what I just did? That's not wikipedia's voice, it's mine. Wordings such as "they were still all muslim" and "segregation barrier" are not wikipedia's voice either, they are the words of an impassioned editor trying to convey a particular message. Of course the article is about a Palestinian village and its natural it would be biased towards that narrative. So I don't expect it to talk about the suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians leading directly to the establishment of the west bank barrier. Instead it describes the barrier and its effects on palestinians (and not Israelis)- again, all natural. You don't need to describe the barrier as segregation, which is blatantly POV, and should just let the reader decide based on the information that is offered them. Since the information offered is that israel (for mysterious reasons) wants to separate israelis in the west bank from palestinians and makes their lives miserable (for mysterious reasons) the message is sent implicitly. I'm being completely straight with you. Everyone knows articles edited only by editors in specific niches are naturally biased. What I'm saying is you can convey the same point you're trying to make in the voice of wikipedia rather than your voice- which from my perspective as a reader can sound angry at times.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

— blockquote

That is all. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it seems like a content dispute. It doesn't seem like something that requires any sanction and in my opinion there was no reason to rush here. I checked the edits in question and read the arguments in the talk and I think this is something that should be solved in the relevent talk pages.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Removing census data, which is included in all these village articles, where possible, is not a 'content dispute' with the editor adding them. The rationale was totally subjective, and of course, the editor in question probably wouldn't think it anomalous, and requiring removal for 'tone', if 'all Jews' was registered, instead of 'all Muslim', on a parallel page. At this point, if someone adds dates concerning historical events, and has them reverted out over several pages, it's just a content dispute, goes to RfC, Wikipedia:Third opinion, WP:Dispute Resolution, etc.etc.etc? The place is bad enough without leaving yet wider scope for this kind of vexatious challenging or annoyance. We're here to provide data into articles, not to frig around even disputing attested facts.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE is a blunt instrument: this is mostly a content dispute and it does not rise to WP:AE level. I only remind Huldra that they can revert MM themselves instead of waiting for her to do it, per WP:BRD. If there is disruption or edit-warring over the edit, then a complaint can be brought here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This looks to me like a content dispute. I don't see any obvious reason to believe that these edits were disruptive in nature. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Seraphimblade. Content dispute, use dispute resolution such as an RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

6 month block imposed here.

Administrator imposing the sanction

The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[28]

As I have written elsewhere, though I no longer support the project I do keep an occasional eye on some topics for reasons of personal safety and to assist those seeking legislative or regulatory solutions to the threat that Wikipedia now poses to society. In doing so, however, it seems churlish to neglect to pick up litter I come across: typos, illiteracies, and blatant examples of harassment, racism, and anti-Semitism.

In this case, an IP user with (I believe) no previous edits had blanked a section on Anti-Semitism and White Nationalism on a page about a discussion site that had been (and continues to be) widely reported as a hotbed for anti-semitic and racist memes -- in particular, racist imagery that has been retweeted by Donald Trump and his children. Blanking the section seemed indefensible, though the section itself has more prevarication than a bushel of weasels. I assumed that this was mere pointy vandalism. Similarly, I have reverted repeated attempts to claim Margaret Sanger to be a racist, a canard of which alt-right extremists are fond despite her life-long affiliation with W.E.B. DuBois and her eulogy by Martin Luther King.

Neither Margaret Sanger nor Donald Trump’s anti-Semitic attack on Hillary pertain to Gamergate. Neither has anything to do with video game journalism or with Gamergate’s victims -- several of whom continue to be harassed through Wikipedia’s pages. The political nature of this action and it implications for the future of Wikipedia will not be lost on any observer.

Is it disruptive to revert the blanking of a section on Anti-Semitism and White Nationalism when that topic has recently been discussed in a host of newspapers? Is it disruptive to revert the introduction of misleading falsehoods in a biography?

This result was obtained through a concerted action, actively plotted off-site and immediately cheered there.

As I said, I no longer support or condone the project, but I am perhaps willing to help clean out such litter as I happen upon. I submit this reluctantly at the request of people who retain more faith than I in Wikipedia. Any questions may be directed to me via email or correspondence to my office. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said on my talkpage, Mark is banned from editing pages related to Gamergate. 8chan has discussion of Gamergate in the lede, a subsection dedicated to Gamergate, the Gamergate navbox at the bottom, and a template on the Talkpage that specifically says the article is under Gamergate discretionary sanctions. The content of the edit doesn't matter, as it isn't covered under WP:BANEX. In fact, Mark's edit reverted back in material about a living person that was challenged by an IP as being defamatory, without consensus.

A few editors here have questioned the length of the block. When deciding on 6 months, I took into account that this was Mark's third block for violating his ban in less than six months. I also took into account his block log, which shows 3 blocks in 2015 for violating his previous General Sanctions topic ban from Gamergate. Six violations show that Mark has no intention of complying with the terms of his restriction, and most other editors in DS areas would have been indeffed by this point (and many have been for less). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't see the reversion of obvious vandalism (blanking a section with no explanation) as a violation of a topic ban if the material being blanked is not related to the topic ban. 8chan is related to Gamergate, but that does not mean all material mentioning 8chan automatically falls under the Gamergate topic ban (nor does all information regarding America fall under the American politics topic ban, etc.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith has elaborated more on the reasoning behind his ban of Mark Bernstein here on Reddit, discussing it with Salvidrim and Wikipediocracy member Vigilant. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't touch the 8chan page, I consider myself involved from previous confrontation with MarkBernstein within the GG ArbCom actions

8chan was specifically createdbolstered (per Strongjam below) from actions resulting from Gamergate (specifically, when Poole blocked all GG discussions on 4chan, 8chan became the defacto chan-site for this), and 8chan is noted many times to be strongly associated with GG. So in terms of being related to the GG-ban, it readily falls into place.

As for the edit, while topic bans do not block editors from removing clearly contentious BLP-violating material nor combating vandalism per BANEX, this was addition of possibly contentious material (there should be discussion though about the inclusion of this on the talk page given that the sources are reliable). It's difficult to qualify the IP's edit that was undo as vandalism (the page didn't show a history of such, nor do we have enough on the IP beyond this single contribution to judge. Plus the reasoning the IP used does point to a valid issue of contentious material, so it wasn't like a trolling flyby that is easily judged.

So the topic ban enforcement seems to be valid. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add, while the main GG page is under 500/30 editing restrictions, this is not applied default for any pages that would fall under the GG topic area. I don't see this restriction yet for the 8chan page (nor any need at least based on current editing history). If the 500/30 restriction was in page, there may be justification for MarkBernstein to undo the removal by an IP editor in violation, but even then, that could have been handled by asking an admin to undo the issue for them to avoid the topic ban. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Margaret Sanger nor Donald Trump’s anti-Semitic attack on Hillary pertain to Gamergate. That must have been very difficult to write. I considered the block a good one because MarkBernstein's biggest problem has been considering anything and everything he doesn't like to be part of Gamergate (broadly construed). If he's really turning the corner on that, I think it deserves some leniency. I would still advise him to avoid 8chan and alt-right without a clear WP:BANEX reason. Rhoark (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was the one who pointed out that Bernstein violated his topic ban to Wordsmith, I will admit that I thought the edit would be considered stale and nothing would be done about it. I do believe, however, that he that he is being intentionally ignorant about why he got banned. He's pretty much trying to game the system and avoiding the fact that he clearly violated his topic ban, somehow making this a anti-semitism/alt-right issue. He's been pushing peoples buttons for too long. I don't know how he thinks he's the good guy these days. GamerPro64 02:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend declining this appeal. MB is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. No, his edit wasn't about Gamergate. Yes, it was to a page related to Gamergate, and in fact one whose talk page has a discretionary sanctions warning that links to the Gamergate ArbCom decision. Mark has been a source of continual trouble in the Gamergate topic area, and has demonstrated no intent to abide by the terms of his topic bans as shown by his two previous blocks for violating it. I don't buy that he somehow didn't know that he shouldn't be editing the 8chan article. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein is a deeply disruptive and profoundly unproductive editor.

He has been topic banned from Gamergate controversy related pages 3 times; has breached each of those topic bans, usually more than once; and has been blocked for those breaches 6 times. He has also been blocked or warned for personal attacks on other editors in this topic space multiple times. NOTE: See WP:DSLOG.

In the 5 months since the topic ban was implemented, MarkBernstein has made 129 edits - Mainspace articles: 13 (including 9 reverts); Talk pages: 6; his own User_talk pages: 42; other editors' User_talk pages: 14; Wikipedia space pages: 56.

Assuming all mainspace & Talk edits are productive, that's a rate of slightly less than 1 productive edit per week.

As stated in the appeal, the maximum benefit that Wikipedia might receive from lifting this sanction is that MarkBernstein continue to gift us with litter collection of typos, illiteracies, and blatant examples of (things he determines to be) harassment, racism, and anti-Semitism; presumably at the rate of 1 edit per week. I do not see that this outweighs the cost to the project of the continued grandstanding, gaming & toeing the line of sanctions, and effort spent on noticeboard discussions such as this one.

Should MarkBernstein decide that he wishes to actually contribute to the project, in a collaborative manner not as yet displayed, I would encourage some demonstration of that intent through productive editing of other Wikis. (Simple English would be the obvious choice).

Until then, I urge that the appeal be declined.

NOTE: Additional off-Wiki evidence indicating that disruptive editing is likely to continue available to Administrators on request.

- Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct a misconception here. 8chan was founded October 2013, a year before Gamergate happened. It did however get coverage because of the number of users migrating from 4chan to 8chan after discussion of Gamergate was banned from the former. — Strongjam (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple observations:

1. I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to observe that 8chan's relation to GamerGate is the reason 8chan is on MarkBernstein's radar. Very simply, he has written about Brianna Wu's harassment including about the threats causing her to flee her home. See his edit here [29] which references this Kotaku article documenting "the pro-Gamergate message board 8chan" where the threat originated. Whether other editors are aware of 8chan's connection to GamerGate or not is not relevant, MarkBernstein is very familiar with its connection. Even if other descriptors for 8chan are apt, such as anti-Semitic, alt-right or white supremacist - its foundational description would be "GamerGate harassment site" that is known for "making threats against female game developers."
2. The block for the GamerGate topic ban misses the mark (forgive the pun). While its length covers the election, the real issue, as I see it, is a self-described WP:NOTHERE editor seems to be openly stating a desire to insert particular political views (under the guise of correcting wrong ones) would be better handled with an AP2 topic ban. Fixing slurs made against Sanger, who's been dead for 50 years is not a big deal. Making edits that ensure current political candidates are associated with controversial or offensive symbols - not so okay from a NOTHERE. It's difficult enough working on political topics with editors here to improve content. NOTHERE editors working political topics for their own ends should be topic banned at least until they wish to improve the project. If the block is lifted, an AP2 topic ban seems appropriate. --DHeyward (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Peter that this doesn't look like a violation of the topic ban. The content involved in the offending edit does not have anything to do with Gamergate. Also, note that Mark was previously warned about editing alt-right because, like 8chan, the page mentions Gamergate. However, The Wordsmith found there to be no violation of his topic ban in that case. clpo13_(talk) 21:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If we're going to call 8chan a Gamergate topic, let's throw Reddit into that pot as well. KotakuInAction has been involved in Gamergate just as long as the 8chan boards have. Or better yet, let's not paint an entire website based on the actions of a subset of its users. clpo13_(talk) 22:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article is marked as being under discretionary sanctions, I believe the blocking admin was technically correct with the action that they took. However, given that the edit in question did not affect material that was even indirectly related to GamerGate, and given that the edit was already over a week old when action was taken over it, I don't think that this block passes the pub test. My preference would be to reduce the block to time served. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Good block. The topic is explicitly labeled as being covered by discretionary sanctions, so this isn't a case of the editor stumbling into trouble in a tangentionally related topic. The standard for WP:BANEX is *obvious* vandalism for which "no reasonable person can disagree."

This was a poor edit, removing a paragraph for the stated reasons of (and I again quote) "There is literally no reason to mention this. Nobody got hurt, no controversy was made, it's just another defamatory remark." The paragraph should not have been removed, but it's not *obvious vandalism* which is the bar that's needed to pass here. The editor is trying to make it into obvious vandalism through a typical mulligan stew of innuendo, skylarking, and black helicopters. If this is considered *obvious vandalism* by virtue of any connection the editor conjures out of thin air, then *any* edit he doesn't like on the topic can be made so.

Given that the editor has failed to make his affirmative defense under WP:BANEX, this is a reasonable block, even if slightly on the trigger-happy side. Based on the history of this editor, it seems absolutely fitting for Wordsmith to err on the side of caution. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the hippest or smartest guy here, and that 8chan came out of GamerGate was news to me--I don't see it in the article either, though it does say "Several of the site's boards have played an active role in the Gamergate controversy". But this edit does not relate to that. And I don't see the GamerGate box at the bottom because I didn't scroll down that far--I don't see the need to, and at any rate that doesn't mean much anyway. I do believe this block came too quick, and is too long.

In general, I think MarkBernstein is a bit too much of an activist for my taste, but by the same token it is disconcerting to see other editors trying to get rid of him on technicalities (couched in weasel words: "Some sources have connected the alt-right and Gamergate". In that case The Wordsmith said "no violation" since that article wasn't all that connected to GamerGate. In this case, as far as I'm concerned it's really not that obvious that this article is so GamerGatish and, as others have noted, the edit has nothing to do with GamerGate. So to see The Wordsmith just drop a six-month ban bomb, with no discussion, is disconcerting to me.

I understand that MB has appearances against him, and I know that he is partly to blame for that being so outspoken, but this was too fast and too much for an edit that is in itself unproblematic, and any editor would (or should) have made the same revert--removal of sourced content by a drive-by IP editor, obvious POV and untrue edit summary ("Nobody got hurt, no controversy was made"--yes, there was and still is controversy, and that "no one was hurt" from a major party candidate's retweeting of Nazi symbolism is ..., well, you find the word). Should he have? It was maybe unwise, but given the circumstances I do not think this six-month block is just. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8chan existed years prior to GamerGate and contains a multitude of unrelated boards. It is, and was always, presented as an alternative to 4chan (which they routinely refer to derogatorily as "halfchan"). Yes, many GamerGaters moved there after 4chan's then-owner expressly banned all talk of the topic, but its GamerGate content has never been more than a fraction of its total content. It is not "inherently" a GamerGate website. That said, Bernstein makes clear in his statement that he considers Wikipedia a "threat... to society". He also states he is involved in "assist(ing) those seeking legislative or regulatory solutions" against the site, that he "no longer support(s) the project", and that his only actual purpose here is to nitpick typos and otherwise accuse actual editors of "blatant examples of harassment, racism, and anti-Semitism". Collectively and partially, these statements demonstrate a lack of good will or honest intent regarding his ban. He seems instead intent upon skirting its technical boundaries, and given his existing attitude it is likely he will return to edit-warring the moment he has the opportunity. Calbeck (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Wikipedia supposedly isn't a bureaucracy; it appears highly bureaucratic to block MB, for six months yet, for a non-Gamergate edit to 8chan, an article which isn't in any of the categories Misogyny, Sexual harassment, Video game controversies, Video game journalism, Women and video games, or any other category that hints at Gamergate. (I picked the list from the categories at Gamergate controversy.) All 8chan has is a framed line with an orange hand, on the talkpage, stating that "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully", in amongst a shrubbery of other top templates. You have to read that with far more interest than most people ever take to the bloated top stuff on talkpages, and then click on the link hidden in the word "subject", to even see a mention of the Gamergate sanctions. This warning was added by Mike V on 22 November 2014.[30]. (Reformatted by RGloucester on 19 March 2015 when the community discretionary sanctions for Gamergate had been superseded by ArbCom sanctions.[31]) Apparently discretionary sanctions mean that any single admin can put any article under discretionary sanctions indefinitely, at their discretion. The article isn't mainly about Gamergate, and MB's edit wasn't about Gamergate at all. In my opinion the block should be vacated, or at the very least shortened. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• I frequently see enforcement requests and appeals where editors want to split hairs about whether certain content within a DS-covered article is related to the topic. We shouldn't be in the business of determining that. Editors get banned from pages, not individual paragraphs or sentences within pages. Sanctions aren't that granular, nor should they be. We also shouldn't be in the business of arguing whether a page should be included in DS for a given topic, in this venue. "I don't agree with this page being covered under DS for this topic" isn't a valid excuse for violating a topic ban. I don't believe that Mark wasn't aware the 8chan page is covered under Gamergate DS. He has repeatedly flouted his topic ban and if it were me applying the original sanction, I would have indeffed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would decline the appeal. Mark Bernstein's attitude might yet change, but here is his current position: "As I said, I no longer support or condone the project, but I am perhaps willing to help clean out such litter as I happen upon. I submit this reluctantly at the request of people who retain more faith than I in Wikipedia." This 'cleaning out of litter' tends to be in the penumbra of Gamergate, in this case the 8chan page. It appears that Mark feels compelled to act in service of the greater good, but these actions are usually at the edge of his topic ban and are bound to stir up the conflict. if we could be sure that Mark would observe both the letter and the spirit of his topic ban, and stay away from grey areas things might be different but the pattern has continued for long enough that such a change in his thinking seems unlikely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks to me like 8chan was formed by people involved with Gamergate, in response to Gamergate proponents being restricted or kicked off from other forums. Given that, the article is clearly related to Gamergate—I don't even think one needs to "broadly construe" very broadly at all to conclude that. A topic ban means to stay well away from the banned area. Tiptoeing around the line will often result in stepping over it, and in this case, it did. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This is plainly gaming the system. Everybody knows that 8chan was one of the sites used by Gamergaters. This is not even broadly construed, it's bang in the zone. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Everybody knows? Maybe I'm nobody, because I don't know an 8chan from an 8track, but I'd say give the guy a break. Jonathunder (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's split feelings here, but there's clearly no consensus to overturn. I've closed this as such. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]