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

Aquillion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Marcos12 (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_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#GamerGate :

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

Marcos12 has repeatedly violated the 1RR discretionary sanction placed on Gamergate controversy.

The most recent one, involving repeatedly reverting the lead to remove the word 'some', which he objects to:

1. 16:01, 13 March 2015 First revert
2. 19:52, 13 March 2015 Second revert
3. 00:16, 14 March 2015 Third revert

A related one slightly earlier, over how to describe or qualify the same section of the lead; in this case he did attempt rewordings, but I feel he was substantially reverting the thrust of the other person's edits (and intended to do so), especially with the first two:

1. 13:25, 10 March 2015 First revert
2. 13:41, 10 March 2015 Second revert
3. 15:32, 10 March 2015 Third revert?
4. 20:19, 10 March 2015 Fourth revert?

And an earlier one, for which he was warned (link to warning below):

1. 21:45, 23 February 2015 First revert
2. 21:50, 23 February 2015 Second revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 17:30, 24 February 2015 Previous warning for a 1RR rule violation on the same page.

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.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. Here.

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.

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

• Given that they have been warned for breaching 1RR in the past I've gone for a week long block. It's quite likely that next time will be a TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

A Gounaris (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:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions

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

• Persistent edit-warring against consensus of several other editors:
  • On Greece: [1][2][3][4] (at least 4 instances of re-inserting "Balkans" in place of "SE Europe"); [5] (rv of [6]); [7] (rv of [8]); [9] (rv of [10]); [11] (rv of [12]); [13] (rv of [14])
    (several of these are partial reverts, usually re-insertions of contentious material previously removed as irrelevant or tendentious by other editors, though sometimes slightly reworded. Similar behaviour is also seen on other articles.)
• Refusal to provide references for his insertions; edit-warring to remove {fact} maintenance tags
  • [15] [16][17][18][19][20]
• Incivility, personal attacks, casting aspersions about other editors' alleged motivation:
  • [21][22] (edit summary), [23] (edit summary)
• Long-term previous history of similar aggressive attitude and incivility: [24]
  • Update: His reaction to this report was this and this (plus yet another rv of yet another editor on the Greece article [25], plus the clumsy attempt at a retaliatory counter-report just below here) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further update: he is now at 3R over the removal of fact-tags at Languages of Greece ([26][27], [28]) and has engaged in yet more personal attacks in the form of spurious sockpuppet accusations (apparently all the different editors who have been reverting him are socks of mine: [29]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[30] (Arb notice from March 2013); also: [31] (Macedonia 1RR warning); [32] (standard 3RR warning)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[33]

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'm not much one for the drama boards, but I'm supporting Fut Per here. I have repeatedly asked A Gounaris to provide evidence for their assertions as can be seen in the edit summaries here and here. My exhortations seem to be falling on deaf ears. Furthermore, this revert of yet another removal of their edits, in spite of the report here having already been made, seems to indicate a battleground mentality and no desire to work with the rest of the community. This needs to stop. Dolescum (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have looked at the references provided, and I am not impressed by the abilities of A Gounaris to edit collaboratively and to accept criticism in editing on topics related to Greece. The enforcement request they obened below to "mirror" this one is a good confirmation. On the other hand, they have an empty block log. A topic ban might be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Ymblanter. Suggest the following result: "A Gounaris is topic banned for 6 months from all articles relating Greece, and the Balkans"--Cailil ^talk 21:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer an indef topic ban with appeals allowed every 6 months. Given some of those diffs, I'd like to see affirmative evidence of improvement before considering lifting the topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I have the Greece article on my watchlist I keep seeing new reverts and adventurous edits by User:A Gounaris. Usually these changes stay below the threshold of 3RR but these edits suggest that the editor doesn't feel the need for any support from others for their changes. People who are extremely confident that they are right and have strong non-mainstream personal opinions are usually not helpful on highly-visible articles such as Greece. The editor's talk page shows they have received numerous warnings. I would support User:Timotheus Canens' proposal for an indefinite topic ban from all articles related to Greece and the Balkans (which is essentially all of ARBMAC) with the possibility of review after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have absolutely no problem with going indef in this situation and support T Canens's proposal--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing. User:A Gounaris is indefinitely banned from all topics relating to Greece and the Balkans, with the possibility of review after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2015 (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

ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cwobeel (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:NEWBLPBAN

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

1. 03:43, 23 January 2015 Original insertion of an inaccurate, out of context, and less than half a sentence passing mention sourced to an organization with long standing disputes with Emerson.
2. 17:55, 23 January 2015 Adding: " One more source for good measure)" A tiny quip labeling him as an Islamophobe without any reason or evidence.
3. 4:27, 2 March 2015 Reinserting into lead after protection lapsed.
4. 16:31, 2 March 2015 Continuing after a month long protection to insert inappropriate material
5. 4 March 2015 Inserting the material again despite no consensus
6. Steven Emerson - Part 3 - A BLPN discussion is made and Cwobeel acknowledges WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE
7. 7 March 2015 Restoring the problematic material again during a BLPN dispute.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 12 December 2014 - Cwobeel was notified of the AC/DS for BLP.
2. 24 January 2015 He was blocked for violating the sanctions after I submitted a Arbitration Enforcement request when the user was restoring unsourced BLPs - and sourced them only to IMDb and arguing with an admin over whether or not it was appropriate.
3. 25 January 2015 A sanction was placed on "Awards and nominations" except for adding Reliable Sources - This sanction is not relevant here, but it was the end result of the previous AE about BLP.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This needs a bit of background. The source being used here is from organizations which Emerson has had legal battles with and has actually sued for defamation arising from said disputes. Cwobeel asserts that the sources are high-quality and reliable despite this. Biased sources exist, but accusations of bigotry are very serious and should not be sourced to less than a single sentence. Secondly, the only source which gives a "reason" is actually committing a very biased and judgmental attack on Emerson. Emerson has also highlighted that it is a partial quote being used.[34] Within hours of the Oklahoma City Bombing, media, law enforcement and even the FBI raised concerns of Islamic terrorism.[35] Emerson was not the origin, but merely one of numerous persons used by the media to further the Islamic Terrorism angle, he simply acknowledged the speculative and rampant rumor about six hours after the blast. Publications from the Wall Street Journal to the The New York Post ran stories with other experts (not Emerson) making clear the "middle east" terrorism links.

After the removal on March 4, the BLPN petered around a bit. Essentially the "gaff" is important and everyone agrees it needs to be in the article - but the "Islamophobe source" accusation is shown to be flawed and have no consensus to be included and Cwobeel re-added it anyways. Unfortunately this is not an isolated example because Cwobeel has also repeatedly edit warred to re-insert completely false material shown here removing an ACLU reference (containing the document) and replacing it with the erroneous and false claim saying it does not exist. I do not understand why Cwobeel does these things or has this attitude, but can the article also be placed on 1RR restriction since the 1 month protection failed to stop this?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[36]

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.

This AE filing is a gambit in a content dispute. It's fine for the OP to disagree with the proposed edit, but when several other editors dissent from the notion that it's a BLP violation [37] it's very poor form to state that notion here as if it were an indisputable fact. The basis for the claim includes the idea that because Emerson sued a couple of scholars over the way he was characterised by them the scholars are therefore unusable as sources about him. That's a very strange idea, and again it does not enjoy consensus in discussions about this article. What that means is that "the 'Islamophobe source' accusation is shown to be flawed" is a matter of the OP's opinion. I really don't see how all of this adds up to a need for an immediate block, nor a block at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, there's a context here that's worth knowing; I've just addressed your point via a post on BLPN; perhaps it's redundant to repeat it here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it standard practice to allow the accused to make a statement on their own behalf in Arbcom enforcement cases, especially when the case is opened in the middle of the night? I'm deeply concerned about the strained interpretation of WP:BLP being advanced here, on the basis of original research and without the consensus of the community. In my opinion, these types of blocks based on novel interpretation of policy have a potentially chilling effect on open editing of any BLPs and the potential for seriously affecting neutral POV by keeping any and all negative information out of articles if anyone objects. - MrX 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: The diffs you provided are not evidence of Cwobeel violating BLP. The first three are complaints from you and ChrisGualtieri. Specifically, in the first diff, ChrisGualtieri conflates source bias with reliability. The second diff is not evidence of wrongdoing by Cwobeel, or Coffeepusher for that matter. The third diff merely shows that ChrisGualtieri objects to this edit sourced to The Guardian or maybe it was this edit sourced to a WP:NEWSBLOG on the Washington Post by Adam Taylor who writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post. This bold merge that you claim is tendentious editing, is neither tendentious nor a BLP violation, although it may have been WP:UNDUE. Callenecc protected the article because of edit warring/content dispute, and apparently because he thought there were BLP violations, contrary to finding at WP:BLP/N. We need to protect BLP's from real policy violations, and get out of this groupthink culture where editors can falsely claim BLP violations, and repeat it over and over until good editors start questioning their own judgement.- MrX 19:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could only struggle to say that this is a bad call, because simply it's not. It is a good call. Very straight forward. With that said however I'm not sure this case calls for a straight forward call. [38] This diff really seems in good faith. While I did suggest Cwobeel seek a formal closure,it does seem his view of the consensus is correct. Perhaps he should have waited longer before instituting the change. In this case a direct warning and pointing out the problematic behavior may very well suffice. The thing is the article was just locked down for a month. I'm not sure this does anything to target the disruption to the article, just perhaps Cwobeel's. I'd hate to see DS to be used as a replacement for consensus making and reviewing related conversations of the subject of Steven Emerson I question if that may be what is happening. I'd like to ask you to consider over turning this block and I would like to also ask that you consider Chris' request above to institute 1RR in the article if you haven't already.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this was unarchived to address HJ Mitchell's concern in which he states that I'm concerned that Cwobeel has a tendency to revert without discussion and to dismiss good-faith BLP concerns that he personally deems to be invalid rather than waiting for consensus on noticeboards and talk pages, here is my response:

• I have learned my lessons from previous sanctions, and striving to be more careful.
• In this specific instance I initiated a BLP/N discussion and waited for consensus to emerge before reinstating the material. As per other editors commenting here, I may not have been the best person to take that initiative, and I should have waited for someone else to perform that edit, but that was a mere technicality.
• The block was uncalled for if HJ Mitchell had taken some time to look at the context. There was no reason to assume that I would revert, because I did not. Other editors did that and for good reason as there was an established consensus to override WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.
• We need a better process to deal with situations in which editors use BLPREQUESTRESTORE as a blunt instrument, as I believe it was the case here. I respected BLPREQUESTRESTORE, started a thread to solicit uninvolved editor's input at BLP/N, got consensus, and still the OP felt entitled to post an AE and waste an enormous amount of time.
• AE requests are serious matters, and there is an expectation that admins take some time to evaluate the situation before pulling the trigger, and assess the OPs arguments not just prima facie.

I hope to continue editing BLPs in my area of interest, and will strive to be extra careful when BLPREQUESTRESTORE is raised, using BLP/N and DR as necessary. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it would have been preferable for Cwobeel to edit more patiently, the same is true of ChrisGualtieri. It takes two to edit war. This enforcement request looks above all like forum shopping and an attempt to sudo a content dispute when BLP/N looked to be leaning Cwobeel's way. BLP matters should be treated carefully of course, but when there's consensus that the burden of proof has been met for BLP restoration only little concession is due to an editor refusing to acknowledge that proof. The actual dispute seems to have more to do with due weight than BLP, concerning use of the word "Islamophobic". Having no prior knowledge of the article subject, I turned to Google. In the first three pages there was not one source that discussed Emerson in any context other than making false statements with the effect of inciting fear and anger against Muslims. Some used the word "Islamophobic" and some did not, but if that's not an accurate paraphrase I don't know what is. There are many more incidents than just Oklahoma City. I'm sure there's probably much more to the man, but Islamophobia seems to be his principal area of notability. Other paraphrasings are possible, but as a general matter it belongs in the lede. Given there was definitely disruption on the page, it was appropriate to provisionally block, but I'm glad it has been reversed and the matter is getting closer attention. It shouldn't have even taken an appeal to get a more skeptical view. I don't think any further remedy is necessary. Rhoark (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CWobeel and I have interacted on a quite a few articles. Usually from completely opposite political perspectives. In some cases, I have had great frustration with his edits (the feeling is likely mutual). One case I can remember is him insisting on repeatedly removing Ted Cruz's well known Cuban identification. However, on the whole cwobeel is an editor that can be reasoned with and collaborated with.

We were largely on opposite sides of most debates in the Michael Brown article, and while debates there often got heated, the interactions were largely collaborative, and Cwobeel's participation was not a disruption, and helped to bring balance to the article (if by nothing else ensuring that those he disagreed with were using proper sources and accurately representing them). He made a particularly strong contribution with his addition of the shooting scene diagram, and was open to including lengthy rework and feedback at significant cost of his own time and effort, including multiple elements that largely disagreed with his POV (and which ultimately proved to be pivotal in the DOJ/City reports).

There are a great many editors of all stripes involved in editing controversial and heated topics. These topics by their nature are often more likely to have flareups of warring or issues. They are also areas where editors are likely to try and WP:GAME the system with ANI/E3 reports to gain an upper hand, which goes a long way to explain the number of blocks. If these incidents are relatively infrequent, the short term consequences of the relevant blocks seem to be sufficient punishment and deterrent.

I have no comment on this particular edit/incident as I am not involved, and do not know enough to comment.

I weigh in against any broad BLP ban, and if some intermediary sanction is required (1RR etc) I would suggest it should be of a limited timespan (a few months at the most)Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much more I can add to what has already been stated. It appears Cwobeel is a little perplexed by the strict adherence portion of BLP policy which may explain his WP:DONTGETIT position after he was repeatedly advised of the problem. He does not appear to be either willing or able to understand BLP issues [39] [40] [41] Perhaps even more concerning is the TE evidenced here: [42] wherein he added minority opinions in such a way it created UNDUE. He also expanded the section about Emerson's organization, Investigative Project on Terrorism, in the biography knowing IPT has its own article. Callanecc finally PP the article until mid-May. [43] Atsme☯^Consult 20:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I've blocked Cwobeel for a fortnight to prevent the immediate disruption (which is the restoration of the material while it was being discussed at BLPN). Considering this is the second time in recent weeks that Cwobeel's conduct on BLPs as been in question at this board, I think we should consider much more rigorous sanctions, possibly even a long-term block. Note that this is Cwobeel's fifth block in less than a year, and BLP issues appear to be at the root of all of them. Cwobeel also has two logged warnings under NEWBLPBAN, and was banned by Sandstein in January from editing award lists. It seems that Cwobeel's compliance with BLP has been a long-term problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nomoskedasticity and MrX: et al, the block is not based on one interpretation of BLP versus another. I have no opinion on that. The issue is that once something is removed on a good-faith BLP objection it shouldn't be restored until the concerns are addressed or consensus determines them to be meritless. Edit-warring because you disagree with your opponent's interpretation of BLP is unacceptable, and doing so citing a discussion that is still open strikes me as disingenuous. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've brought this back from the archive as it was never formally closed and I think wider issues with Cwobeel's conduct on BLPs bear examination. I note that Cwobeel has been blocked five times in the just under a year—twice under NEWBLPBAN, three times for edit-warring (of which two were on BLPs). I'm concerned that Cwobeel has a tendency to revert without discussion and to dismiss good-faith BLP concerns that he personally deems to be invalid rather than waiting for consensus on noticeboards and talk pages. I've unblocked Cwobeel, as the short-term block was only ever intended to deal with the immediate issue, but I think we should seriously consider some sort of revert restriction or similar (broad topic bans are a bit of a blunt instrument, and I don't think that sort of thing is warranted here). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Timotheus Canens, JodyB, and Callanecc: You all commented on the appeal, do oyu have anything to add here? If nobody else thinks there's an issue I'll archive this rather than leave it hanging over Cwobeel's head. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with archiving. JodyB _talk 00:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think we can close and archive with no action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also OK with closing this for now. There may be an issue here, but it can be handled when/if a new incident arises. T. Canens (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2015 (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

Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned from all edits and discussion regarding User:MarkBernstein and restricted from opening and noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to MarkBernstein without the permission of an uninvolved administrator.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[44]

Two quick housekeeping notes

1. Mentions of MarkBernstein in this scenario are for background purposes only, done so under the auspices of "exceptions to limited bans", specifically "appealing the ban" (which I do here and requires discussion of the topic ban to be appealed) and, to a lesser extent, "asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban." This is not an implication of trying to enact any new disciplinary sanctions. I opted not to tag Mark in this proceeding in order to not make further implications on the matter, not to keep anyone in the dark, and any editor that thinks I made the wrong call here is free to tag him.
2. I assume this is the correct forum for this. If not, a point in the correct direction would be appreciated.

This topic ban was put in place for reasons that are not entirely clear, and certainly not supported by any available evidence. Gamaliel's only real citation comes from this diff, where he claims my assertions are "worse" than what was said, and that Bernstein does not have the opportunity to respond. This was the wrong call on a number of points.

First, Gamaliel takes issues with two quotes, both from this comment. The first quote is "It's further evidence that his contributions are a negative to the article space," which is based on Bernstein's block history, multiple topic bans in the area, and own comments, and seemed self-evident. The context is where Gamaliel's second quote comes from, ""Mark's own intentions in this clarification is to drag the drama he continually creates within the Gamergate space into the campus rape disputes," which was directly related to this clarification request, which discussed Bernstein being approached by an "activist" for a "Wikipedia initiative." Given Bernstein's history in the topic space, it seemed incredibly clear to me that this was a blatant attempt to push the boundaries of his existing topic ban (a topic ban initiated by User:Dreadstar that I had no involvement in requesting, I should add) in an area he has clearly shown disruption in.

Gamaliel, in his initial comment, believes we cannot "play nice with each other." This may be granted, although I don't see why we need to "play nice" with what I believe is clear disruption. Gamaliel's claim is that I made "much worse statements about those you are complaining about," but none of those worse statements were provided. Meanwhile, the person I am "complaining about" has, in the past months, implied that I was being "deploy[ed by 8chan"], repeatedly went after me personally with untrue claims ([45][46]), and so on. This disruption is long-standing, and my statements in support of my point of view regarding his status are based clearly in the history of the situation. Statements cannot occur in a vacuum, the history simply must be taken into account.

As an added problem, the language of the topic ban is overly broad, as Bernstein has injected himself into the conflict in the real world, being quoted multiple times on blogs and having his own words reposted in legitimate media. The spirit of the topic ban suggests that Gamaliel is simply tired of having to hear appeals toward Bernstein's behavior, the wording puts my editing in the article space in jeopardy if an administrator or tendentious editor opts to try to make hay of the situation.

The Gamergate sanctions are in place to reduce the disruption in the article space, not to keep editors from making good-faith and evidence-supported appeals for their use against disruptive editors. Perhaps if my complaints were about an editor without a block and topic ban history in the sanctioned space, there might be some merit to this to discuss. Instead, the route chosen implies that I have done something wrong, tarnishes my otherwise clean record, and does the opposite of the intention of the sanctions by keeping editors in good standing from being able to combat said disruption. The topic ban on me clearly needs to be overturned on its merits.

@Ched: the problem is that no behavior issues have been presented. Without any behavior issues to point to, there's nothing to show improvement on and nothing to address. There is no current guidance in place and no problems demonstrated, thus the immediate appeal. If you have specifics in mind, presenting those would be very helpful toward coming to a conclusion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched:: Sure, it's "better" in that it's not a topic ban, but it still implies behavioral issues that have not been detailed, and assumes that I need to be restricted in that area without evidence. The issue is not the type of ban, but that the ban exists without cause at all. To clarify, an IBAN would at least eliminate the possibility of edits at an article being used against me simply because Bernstein is quoted in the media, but it doesn't address the broader issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: can you please detail the "five months" of "disparaging comments?" Preferably with diffs so we can move forward on this? You're correct that we have repeatedly, in the proper forums and the proper formats, requested administrative interventions due to his behavior. In a sense, any dispute resolution will be "disparaging," however, so this just seems to be a complaint about our valid concerns about how this particular situation has continued to be handled. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: my apologies for inadvertently misquoting you. What I'm trying to do is end the disruption, plain and simple. If we want to get down to brass tacks, if he were topic banned as I believe he should be, there would be no reason for me to continue to endorse enforcement requests (you'll note that I have never initiated one with him) because it would be done and over with. WP:BANEX allows him to defend himself, so it's not as if he can't address them, and there is no evidence you're providing that is showing that I'm trying to goad him or talking about him in areas that he cannot respond. In fact, I don't think I've raised anything that he's said or done specifically about me at all, nor am I sure he's actually addressed me in a problematic way since you lifted his block a month ago. The evidence just doesn't stack up in terms of what you believe I've done, which is why I'm not incredibly happy with being hit with the shrapnel as a result. Co-signing on an assertion that someone is continuing to be disruptive in exactly the way you have expressed that you want it to occur after they've assured the block-lifting admin they wouldn't be should not be a sanctionable offense. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: I find it frustrating that, after I've been gone for two days, no actual evidence has been presented here to justify this continued action while, at the same time, appearing to want to ignore the issues of topic bans being ignored with impunity occurs on the same page. To go directly to your criticism, if I had noticed that User:YellowSandals was topic banned, I likely would have brought some attention to it, but, believe it or not, I'm really not up on a lot of the topic bans outside of the ones levied and, in a handful of specific cases, not levied by Arbcom. I would appreciate some sort of evidence-based explanation on why this should continue to be upheld at this point. When I get topic banned without any warning while other actual disruptive people get their (to use some of your words) third, fourth, umpteenth chances, it starts to give the impression of something else at play here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: under what metric are you measuring "equal responsibility?" On one side, you have someone who has never been blocked, sanctioned, or topic banned in any area of the project. On the other, you have someone who has been topic banned and blocked numerous times for repeated disruption which included personal attacks against myself. Why am I responsible for the behavior of anyone else in this instance? "In the interests of the encyclopedia," we have options to deal with disruption. Topic banning people who are not disruptive are not it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: it's about the necessity of such a restriction. Speaking solely for myself, no obvious justification has been given, after nearly 2 weeks of asking for said justification. I see claims of "equal responsibility" from User:HJ Mitchell without evidence, I see multiple claims from User:Gamaliel of "worse things" and of "disparaging comments" without evidence, and at some point one expects some sort of evidence to come out about it. That I can be away for days at a time, and still have no answers is frustratingly irritating, especially as I watch things devolve in the requests below (indicating both that it doesn't appear I'm actually the problem, and that my repeated appeals for action were not unjustified). Maybe those in favor of continuing these needless, open-ended restrictions on me can actually provide some evidence for their need. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: you say that enough evidence has been presented, so where is it? The key point of this appeal is that no supporting evidence has been presented, and User:Ched, along with Gamaliel and HJ Mitchell, have opted not to come back and substantiate the claims they've made. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What benefit is it to the encyclopedia if these users are allowed to continue to make negative and potentially disparaging statements about Mark Bernstein?

If Mark Bernstein violates rules or sanctions, then they can report that to an administrator. This does not prevent them from seeking redress or reporting a violation, it merely prevents them from complaining about this particular user on the encyclopedia, as they have been doing for at least five months.

There are many editors and administrators on Wikipedia. They could simply leave this matter to one of them. This is something we regularly advise people to do on Wikipedia. Take the example of NorthBySouthBaranof elsewhere on this page. He is correct that something is wrong at the Lena Dunham article, but he should leave the matter for someone else to handle because his past behavior has proven disruptive in certain areas, just as the past interactions of these editors with Mark Bernstein have increased tensions and disrupted the atmosphere of collaborative editing. Gamaliel (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched: That is correct, the ban does not prevent interactions between DHeyward and Orlando. I believe I clarified that in the messages on their respective talk pages and the sanctions log, but if either are ambiguous I will correct them. I chose a topic ban over an interaction ban because I did not want to inhibit article discussion, just personal remarks. I have no particular objection to changing it if others think it necessary. Gamaliel (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thargor Orlando: You have quoted me in a manner that changes the meaning of what I said. I did not say that the two of you have been insulting Mark Bernstein for five months. You have, however, been enthusiastic users of noticeboards and admin talk pages in an effort to get him sanctioned, and in the process said many things about him that were negative. Some of them were true, others were opinions that are valid, but may be interpreted negatively. During most of this, Mark Bernstein has been under a topic ban or other restriction which has prevented him from replying in kind, and any comment of his that is remotely like some of the things you have said about him gets another round of noticeboard reports about him, along with another opportunity for you to recapitulate your negative opinions about him. Rightly or wrongly, he perceives this as a series of attacks upon him, and has now resorted to filing retaliatory noticeboard complaints against the two of you. And then we do it all over again. This is the cycle that this sanction is attempting to stop. Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: So prohibiting you from participating in endless noticeboard complaints "prolongs the drama" by forcing you to file a noticeboard complaint? Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am maligned by the same topic ban by Gamaliel with not a single diff which I consider casting aspersions. Further, my contribution to this was that I brought MarkBernsteins comments to two uninvolved administrators. I did not characterize which statements were problematic but both admins sanctioned MarkBernstein for them including one topic ban. This is the remedy Gamaliel has proposed as the solution but when it led to the TBan of an editor he is sympathetic to, he seems to want to take it out on editors not involved in that. As can be seen, Gamaliel's remedy led to MarkBernstein filing an ARCA reuest, an ANI request, and two AE requests. Neither I nor Orlando have filed. In addition, another editor has filed an AE request against MarkBernstein. In response, MarkBernstein repeated the statements that led to his sanction. Gamaliel seems to be confused as to who is filing requests for enforcement. There is simply no basis for his sanction. In addition MarkBernstein was prohibited from filing AE requests per WP:BANEX. Gamaliel, being the first commenter and admin should have closed the AE request rather than stoking its flames. --DHeyward (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ched Echoing Orlando. Gamaliel has implies it's a three way IBAN issue when really it's a single topic-banned editor (who is again at AE). Gamaliel put a lot of things in quotes without saying who and where they were said. In short, I did everything Gamaliel requested. There are no noticeboard complaints started by me over these issues. I took my concerns about a comment to two independent admins and both acted on it. Those administrative actions drove one editor to open multiple forum requests including ANI, ARCA, and two AE requests. In addition, another editor has brought an AE request against him and you can read his reply [47]. None of this has anything to do with Orlando and me. I had already done everything Gamaliel thinks I should have done and if I didn't, he hasn't provided any diffs. I have no problem with an an on-your-honor agreement but logging it as if I have an interaction issue with anyone misconstrues everything that has occurred here. Certainly there is no conflict between Orlando and I which is implied in the sanction. It has no basis. If Gamaliel's intention was to avoid drama and conflict, he should withdraw his sanction that is not based in either process or fact and let it close. EdJohnston nailed the deficiencies in the request. MarkBernstein is already topic banned so creating a sanction that both Orlando and I will appeal is only dragging out the problem needlessly. --DHeyward (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel I did that. How do you think MarkBernstein received a topic ban? It was by notifying two uninvolved admins. I've only responded to his AE charges that he brought to noticeboards. There are no noticeboard filings by me over this and there are no quotes you cited that he can't or didn't respond to. It seems rather an odd statement to say that my replies to MarkBernstein's noticeboard filings about me somehow have put him at a disadvantage. Where are imagining this happening? I've asked for diff's yet none are forthcoming. You made statements and put quotes around them but without attribution. EdJohnston is correct in his assessment. You should have ended the drama by closing his two WP:BANEX violating AE requests instead of feeding them. It is your sanction, without merit, that is dragging this out. Like I said, I have no intention of bringing MarkBernstein to boards and didn't so your solution is really in search of a problem. --DHeyward (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel diffs or please stop casting aspersions. Posting notices on uninvolved admins pages that have invoked sanctions on MB is NOT any kind of abuse of process. Participating in discussions where we have been the targets of his comments about editors is NOT any kind of abuse of process. I am sorry that you are upset about MBs topic ban and believe it is one-sided but you need to take it up with Dreadstar, not punish his victims. Please explain what behavior you think would be stopped by this sanction? We will still ask admins to intervene if MarkBernstein is abusive. Uninvolved admins will still sanction him. Your insistence only prolongs the drama. If you read the comments of the other admins for both cases MarkBernstein filed, you seem the only one thinking sanctions are needed. Even in Orlando's, that was summarily closed because MarkBernstein is TBanned from even making AE complaints, you still called for sanctions when others correctly saw a process error as well as nothing to warrant a sanction. Please don't make this a full on drama appeal over a sanction that does nothing but tarnish reputations and extend drama. --DHeyward (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel Diffs or stop casting aspersions. A groundless sanction that wouldn't have stopped a single thing you claim to be worried out will be appealed. You have made an accusation of wrongdoing and keep mentioning board participation. I only ask for diffs which you don't supply because they don't tell the story you've been selling.. We wouldn't be here or at any boards because of me and I request you remove the sanction. Close it with no sanctions and there is no more drama. It ended with Mark's TBan. The sanction is unnecessary and I take offense at being painted with your broad brush without so much as a diff showing how your remedy would have played out differently or what egregious error in civility I made. --DHeyward (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here [48] is the first request filed by MB. Note Gamaliel was the first admin to comment on how one-sided MB's TBan is and how his TBan should be dropped (or everyone is TBanned). Luckily cooler heads dismissed it. Moments later, MB files another AE based on comments I made in his first AE. The cooler heads did not join until later and advocated that Gamaliel at least provide a diff and also pointed out the complaint was a BANEX violation by MB. No such luck on the diff. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ_Mitchell, Ched The issue is this accusation of wrongdoing. In a few weeks, what exactly do you think would happen? "It won't happen again?" Exactly what will I not do to avoid this? I've been civil to MarkBernstein. There is no evidence of wrongdoing. There is no "Well both sides...." If there is, find a diff and post it. There is nothing. The fact is Gamaliel lifted his topic ban and he returned to edits that attacked other editors and I've patiently brought them to uninvolved admins. Harry, how many times have you warned MB? How many times did Dreadstar warn him? Show a diff where I should be sanctioned for doing something wrong, or even incivil. Nobody wants the toxic GamerGate atmosphere but it was re-inflicted on us when MB us unbanned and unblocked. It is now much better. Clear the sanction log because this is really just one editor violating every condition of his early release as well as the GG general sanctions. --DHeyward (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a simple request like a diff so hard to comply with? Show me a diff where this sanction would have changed anything or show me a diff of wrongdoing? --DHeyward (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ_Mitchell the only thing not normal is the kid glove treatment afforded MarkBernstein. There is no animosity between parties but there is a lot of animosity between MB and anyone that disagrees with him. He's made accusations of collusion offsite, constantly refers to other editors after multiple warnings, etc, etc. This is why he is now also topic banned. I wish I had as many warnings as MarkBernstein and we could close this as I think I am due about 5 more talk page warnings before a sanction is even contemplated (and the next one would be a "stern warning"). MB endorsed this sanction and mentioned he provided admins with information and that the admins have agreed to his conditions. None of that has been disclosed or offered to anyone else. Please disclose it so we can see how "not normal" this whole ordeal has been. I see the this sanction is working based on the lack of AE requests regarding MB. The only unchanging factor is his champion.

--DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein brought two frivolous motions, that he didn't have standing to file, on the basis of two editors making factual statements about MB's ban history. I really don't see how anyone could derive "equal responsibility" from that. I get that admins are sick of the whole thing and want to make it go away, but just sanctioning any names that show up at enforcement will only encourage more people with an axe to grind to try their luck at enforcement roulette. Rhoark (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PeterTheFourth is not uninvolved. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Rhoark (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward requested (begged for) diffs where this remedy would have 'changed anything', so I've helpfully compiled a small list.[55][56], this entire request, [57][58][59][60], somewhat thinly veiled, [61] PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only this one [62] would have been prevented by the sanction. Everything else was to uninvolved admins which is allowed. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: I was of the impression that 'uninvolved' referred to editors who are not mentioned in the remedy. I'd be grateful to the editor who clarified and moved my statement if necessary. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Applying sanctions to two veteran editors without producing any evidence of wrongdoing on their part not only offends traditional notions of fair play and procedural and substantive justice, it also fails to demonstrate that (1) there is a problem with these editors' behavior and (2) that the imposed sanctions will do anything to cure this problem. Particularly where, as here, the imposing admin has toed the line of involvement in the topic area and has a non-negligible history of sympathetic involvement with the editor who requested action against these two editors, I do not think this was a proper exercise of admin authority. Besides, I count no fewer than four warnings issued to MarkBernstein about not commenting on other editors by four different admins before he was placed under any sanction this time around, despite having been unblocked under the explicit condition that he was to avoid personally-directed comments. Why should DHeyward and Thargor Orlando not be extended the same courtesy? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been too much focus on restrictions on "opening and noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to MarkBernstein" and not "all edits and discussion regarding User:MarkBernstein". As much as Bernstein seems to at times push the envelope, it is even more irritating to me to see the endless complaining about Bernstein on article talk pages, noticeboards and user talk pages which is completely out of proportion to his editing behavior. And considering that Bernstein has a blog where subjects like Wikipedia and GamerGate are discussed, I believe that even if for some reason Bernstein received an indefinite block from editing, these complaints about him would continue. I realize that topic bans should be honored but equally, if not more, important is to "comment on contributions, not contributors" and that is all that this editing restriction is meant to enforce.

I also don't see that refraining from commenting upon one other editor or not seeking sanctions against him is an onerous burden to bare when the primary activity here is building an encyclopedia. Likewise, it doesn't appear to me to be stigmatizing and if Thargor Orlando, Mark Bernstein or DHeyward believe it to be and they just can't continue editing Wikipedia without discussing each other, they can appeal this editing restriction in six months. However, I don't see that such comments and actions are essential or constructive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• My suggestion is that everyone put down the shovels, stop digging, accept the current restrictions, and edit productively in areas where you're not restricted. Furthering this situation is more likely to lead to extended blocks than it is to any sort of "ok, go do what you want" result. It is typical that DR solutions begin with less harsh restrictions; but, if that fails then more drastic restrictions will be put in place to ensure a less disruptive atmosphere on the project. If after a period of time (months, not hours) there's evidence that proper behavior can be adhered to, perhaps discuss it with an admin. active in that particular area. In other words: I suggest you take your ball and go play in another yard - before we take the ball away all together. — Ched :  ?  19:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

question Would it help if the wording were changed from "WP:TBAN" to "WP:IBAN"? — Ched :  ?  20:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note I don't believe that Gamaliel's solution is intended to mean that DHeyward and Orlando must not interact with each other, but rather "both" must avoid MB. I've seen no indication that there are any issues with DHeyward and Orlando interactions. — Ched :  ?  20:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

further notes FWIW, we are into the weekend now. With that in mind, I'm not going to rush to judgement here. Several points:

• I am not inclined to unilaterally vacate the findings of another admin. (logged here)
• There seem to be a variety of views in the above thread (here}, and an even wider view in the statements above that.
• It always amazes me when people get anywhere near topics that have resulted in things like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate after such a difficult situation has been dealt with, although it shouldn't be surprising when terms like "collateral damage" and "shrapnel" are found in the aftermath.
• I don't think that under normal operating procedures that either Thargor Orlando or DHeyward would be facing anything beyond a "suggestion", and understand the "WTH did I do" attitude. Still, given the atmosphere surrounding "all things considered" mantra - I do agree it is best if both editors were separated from all things related to MarkBernstein.

With all that said, I'll think on things over the weekend, and hopefully find helpful input from other uninvolved folks here when I get back. — Ched :  ?  14:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ched's comment pretty much hits the nail on the head. Under normal conditions, we wouldn't be thinking about sanctions like this, but nothing about gamergate has been normal thus far. Considering everything that's happened and the obvious bad blood between the parties—for which both sides bear equal responsibility—I think forcing them to keep their distance is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, even if it's not strictly "fair" or "just". I recommend DH/TO and MB abide by the restriction even if they think it's unfair, and perhaps edit something else for a while, and if it becomes clear in a few weeks that things have settled down, we can look again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Ched as well. There was enough evidence presented which indicated that there was a problem, and while ever that evidence still stands (was wrong in first place test) and there haven't been mitigating circumstances since (not needed now test) I don't think we should change the sanction they placed. As HJ said, there is obviously bad blood between the parties, this sanction will (hopefully) force you all to get back to editing and ignore each other. Therefore I'd decline the appeal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:13, 19 March 2015 (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

Ashtul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

1. 14:36, 7 March 2015 reverting to earlier version.
2. 14:38, 7 March 2015 added additional source with video interview with Drucker.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 11:17, 20 January 2015 - block for 1RR on Carmel (Israeli settlement).
2. 00:47, 28 January 2015 Topic request after an AE case I filled over Nishidani's POVPUSHING which admin saw as retaliation.
3. 19:42, 1 February 2015 - block over also adding info at Shavei Tzion, my grandparents town, about an IDF memorial and a grave of Acre Prison break fighters and on the relevant article (Nothing current or arguable but geographical locations).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

HJ Mitchell, have expressed concern about my ability to keep on editing in the I/P conflict area and thus topic banned me. This came as a result of a message I wrote on his talk page about a revert by Nomoskedasticity who without participating in a talk page conversation reverted my edit.

HJ Mitchell have suggested I will focus on proving I am capable of editing in this area so that is what I will do.

Quick background of the current content dispute - Raviv drucker, a reporter have wrote a tweet that lead to articles such as this this this and many more, which accused him of causing multihomicede and war-crime. About a week later, he published this article and a video interview.

• Haaretz article starts with the words "I apologize, Naftali, sorry, I was wrong" and ends with "There is no doubt - in 1996 you were there that night, in an important [place for] Israeli society. But Lieutenant Bennett, where the hell were you all night since you Israeli politics?"
• Nana article states "Drucker highlights that he has no complaints about Bennett as an officer, but only as to the function as a politician. "He was real brave Magellan officer, without cynicism," he says, "but very brave politician, although successful, and that's what is most disappointing. Every node which could tell us the truth, to speak out against things were risking their skin, is Always fear. ""
• The video interview says (my rough translation) "this was a tweet I didn't think about enough where I quote a veteran idf officer who spoke of Bennetts behavior that night. I didn't do a investigation or wrote an article" … "Bennett was probably a brave officer, for real, no cynicism, but he is not a brave politician, successful but not brave which is disappointing" and ends with a Question "would you have tweeted it again?" Answer "No. Or I would have tweeted it with other tweets which would explain what is my opinion and what is the information. I think it is irrelevant to leading position and even if Bennetts was stressed at that time and even if it caused a chain of mistakes it doesn't put on him a moral dent, it was a biographic. In that sense, for that tweet to stand by itself isn't right and not wise".

Other editors have claimed it is ostensible apology, irony, antiphrasis (Nishidani) or sarcasm (HJ Mitchell). They are confusing his current criticism over Bennett's behavior as a minister (in the midst of a heated election season) and accusing him of partiably being reposible for the death of over 100 people "radio call for support was "hysterical" and contributed to the outcome that ensued" as stated by the article. Maybe 'recanted' isn't the best word but doesn't WP:BLP require extra care? How many times a person (Drucker) need to say he made a mistake before his word is taken for it?

Among other conducts I have done lately to prevent WP:WARs, I have initiated an RfD (which concluded with consensus in a few days and effected tens of articles) and an RfC in which, so far, my opinion was supported by 3 editors (and 1 sock), describing the edit I contested as "rampant POV-pushing", "tangential POV laden picture does not belong in this article" and "does not belong in an encyclopedia".

An AE case was filed against me over a revert which was NOT contested and was edited back by mistake. Then, when admins weren't convinced (the case was open for over a week) it was turned over charging me with POVPUSHING over text that is supported by the source with the word 'coexist' not appearing in the original but rather 'a bridge between peoples' or 'this is a chance for Israelis and Palestinians to work together, to talk to one another, to trust one another'. If editors don't agree with one word, why remove the whole statemene? TWICE!^[1][2] (Same editors from Carmel article).

So to sum this up, I am engaging in conversation and actively trying to resolve things. I believe my edits are within the borders of NPOV as I try to use NPOV language. If I have failed before, it happens. It is defiantly not a system or even intentional. In the case of Bennett, it should be mention Drucker recanted/apologized/reexplained this original tweet. I believe HJ Mitchell have made an honest mistake with my topic ban and ask for it to be lifted.

(sorry for going beyond 500 words. There are many quotation included to save you some time).

@T. Canens: HJ's topic ban was solely based on the Drucker dispute after he decided to sit out the case which I personally asked him to advise on. Would you please respond directly to that? Is Drucker in his voice saying he was wrong about the original accusations not REQUIRED to be mentioned in such WP:BLP info? Ashtul (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2015 (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.

MLK and Malik, you didn't read the links at the top which refers specifically to HJ Mitchell reasoning of the topic ban and where he suggest I may appeal it. About the AE case itself, HJ Mitchell wrote "I'm going to sit this one out" and then moved to close the case based on what I described above. Everything is in the links. Thanks for allowing me to highlight this point. Ashtul (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell topic ban in essence is over a content dispute where "the sarcasm in the apology that thread refers to is blindingly obvious" so "that I can quite comfortably comment on it as an admin". As I wrote and demonstrated here in length, HJ Mitchell is wrong. It happens.

If holding ground in case of being right, on topic that is clearly WP:BLP makes one unsuitable to edit on Wikipedia then by all means block me all together. Drucker in his voice on the video apologizes but somehow people fail to believe him. The fact he moves right away to attack Bennett's current politics doesn't mean he still think his actions had contributed the the death of 100 people. Ashtul (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the history correctly, this was not a ban placed by HJ Mitchell as the action of an individual admin, it was placed by him as the result of an AE discussion among multiple admins. The ban had a provision for reconsideration after 6 months -- so why is this even being considered now, mere days after the ban was placed? It's clearly not timely. BMK (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Beyond My Ken. This appeal should be declined on procedural grounds. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not technically involved (as I didn't impose the sanction) I'm going to take the careful route and comment here rather than in the result section. While discretionary sanctions are imposed by an individual not by consensus (which is why I could technically comment as uninvolved) I see no reason to overturn the sanction except to say that my reading of the discussion was for a TBAN which expires after six months not an indefinite one, but the sanction is up to the enforcing admin. I would decline the appeal and recommend that they consider appealing again after six months of active editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is primarily based on the procedure. The banning administrator initially opted to sit this one out but saw drama on his talk page and pulled the trigger. I understand that Ashtul has not done great at showing an ounce of humility but the problem with his editing is almost all based on drama filled interactions with one other editor. Nish has had his fair share of issues in the past. Ashtul's topic bans were of much longer lengths than previously dealt out in the topic area. Unless there is a case for sockpuppetry (someone else mentioned it previously), the length was primarily out of admins being sick of the drama. I understand that but I also appreciate that Ashtul has brought up decent points before getting railroaded.

I also don't think Nish needs a reprimand or anything, but it would have been cool if he would have stepped back and taen a deep breath before disregarding Ashtul's points.

Just to be open, I'm actively considering opening up a case for community intervention against another editor who has skirted the policies and guidelines for years now. Although a 6 month topic ban would make me feel a little happy inside I know the project would be better if more novel and level-headed solutions were considered. This whole topic area is broken and it is primarily because a handful of editors who have been around for awhile know how to successfully push their POV, buck the system, and screw with people.Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating Beyond My Ken's comments. Decline this speedily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the admins who participated in the original admin discussion that led to the topic ban of Ashtul, the one closed on March 7 by User:HJ Mitchell. That discussion led to a result which was essentially a consensus of the participating admins. There might be a reason for immediate appeal of a sanction which was imposed by only a single admin, but I don't see the logic here when there was a group decision. Also, since no time has run since the original complaint, there is no additional record of contributions that could conceivably motivate lifting the ban. I recommend that the reviewing admins decline this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I take a slightly different view from User:Callanecc here. User:HJ Mitchell can clarify for us, but it seems HJ offered User:Ashtul notice that he could appeal his actions imposing the topic ban or he could accept the topic ban and ask for it to be modified after six months. Otherwise, it seems to me, the topic ban stays in place indefinitely. So the request here seems to be an appeal against the imposition of the ban itself. Commenting narrowly on Ashtul and not on any other editor, I would keep the topic ban in place and reject the appeal. Come back after six months and we will revisit it. JodyB _talk 12:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedurally, I have no problem with this appeal. After six months of productive editing in another topic area, I would be happy to re-evaluate the topic ban, but that's not an appeal per se, and if Ashtul wants to contest the topic ban or the grounds for it, then appealing here is appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given User:HJ Mitchell's comments I see no problem with this appeal. However this discussion followed by this discussion make it clear that the topic ban is appropriate. I would suggest the appellant speak with HJ Mitchell after the 6 month period. I'm happy for HJ Mitchell to continue to monitor this and approve or decline the topic ban at his discretion. JodyB _talk 11:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This appeal is malformed - it uses the request template, not the appeal template - but at this point there's not much point in changing it.

  I agree that the six-month time limit before reconsideration doesn't affect our ability to hear an appeal on whether the topic ban should have been imposed in the first place, but I think the topic ban was validly imposed, and I would decline the appeal. T. Canens (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unarchived. T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2015 (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

Strongjam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Galestar (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 Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#GamerGate

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

1. 22:52, 17 March 2015 First revert

#23:09, 17 March 2015 Second revert

1. 23:49, 17 March 2015 Third Second revert

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)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13 March 2015

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was reminded of 1RR here by Bosstopher, and acknowledged them here

@Galestar: My mistake, I've updated the diffs accordingly. Also, note that there is a duplicate request on the edit warring board. Not sure how to proceed. — Strongjam (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

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.

2nd quoted reversion was where I self-reverted the 1st revert but added a disputed marker. (correcting my revert after I was warned about it)

3rd quoted reversion was in an unrelated section, as a response to an unsourced new edit.

This request is simply an attempt to silence dissent and achieve so-called-consensus through chilling effects.

See also disruptive edits on Feminism ([63], [64]) and Antifeminism ([65], [66]). This in addition to blanking all warnings on their talk page and issuing warnings to others. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User is currently at 3 reverts on antifeminism, not engaging in WP:BRD, and seems to enjoy templating me (despite WP:DTTR). User reawakens after 1 year of no edits to edit solely on GG, feminism, and antifeminism. I tried to stress the issue of zombie accounts on the GG arb case, but it fell on deaf ears. This is why I tried to stress it.

@NE Ent: I'd agree if there was good faith to assume. But there is none at this moment. Use is being disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galestar please read WP:3RR more carefully before jumping into such a contentious topic area. RR violations dont have to be reverting the same thing, reverting multiple different things on the same article still counts as edit warring. Have withdrawn my report on the edit warring noticeboard due to it apparently being the wrong place for these kinds of reports. Bosstopher (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit includes a revert as well as an addition. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a higher level of protection for a while? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warn and close. I see on the history of User talk:Galestar lots of templates but no indication anyone approached them like, you know a person. Now they know that "page," not "particular" content is the unit of revert restrictions. NE Ent 01:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• User:Galestar is blocked 48 hours for 1RR violation on Gamergate controversy, per the diffs given above. There is an editnotice on the page which announces the 1RR. It is also stated in the above report that Galestar received a personalized 1RR warning before his last revert. I wonder if it could have crossed Galestar's mind that edit warring on the opening paragraph of Gamergate controversy might draw unfavorable attention. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2015 (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

Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bumblebritches57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamergate#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 16:16, 19 March 2015 Defamatory.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

NA

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

16:08, 13 March 2015‎

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Probably WP:O by now. Defamatory.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[67]

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.

Looks like it's been oversighted already. Thank you to whomever did that for the rapid suppression. I didn't even have time to send an email. — Strongjam (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I was actually in the process of typing up a notification for Bumblebritches57, topic-banning him for a year, when Hipocrite posted this request. AE bureaucracy isn't my strong point, so hopefully someone will know for sure, but I imagine this request can either be archived now or converted into an auto-appeal. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2015 (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

Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 :

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

User:HistoryofIran for a long time has been displaying an aggressive belligerent approach to editing Wikipedia articles dealing with the history of Iran and the Caucasus which has also prompted him on several occasions to edit-war, as well as resort to incivility in relation to other users.

Despite being placed on 1RR and civility supervision back in October 2013, this user continues to edit in the exact same manner that has earned him this restriction.

1RR restriction violated at Paykar Khan Igirmi Durt: [68], [69] (he claimed reverting vandalism, but later admitted on the talkpage that it was not vandalism), Atropatene: [70], [71].

Typical examples of violating WP:CIVILITY include him defining good-faith edits that he disagrees with as 'vandalism' and the contributors as 'vandals' who are out to 'annoy hard-working contributors such as [himself]': [72], [73], [74], addressing users in a disrespectfully informal manner ('dude') [75], getting extremely personal instead of addressing issues raised due to his edit-warring [76], and making other kinds of patronising, condescending and offensive remarks in edit summaries: [77], [78], [79], [80]. Interestingly, even the information supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Iranica is not only removed, but referred to as 'vandalism' [81], accompanied with an inappropriate comment in the edit summary.

After being warned for incivility once [82], he persisted in making sarcastic references to the user's 'poor feelings' in every message he addressed to them for the duration of the discussion (even if the incilivity issue was not further addressed), to the point of turning it into the focal point of the entire discussion: [83], [84].

I would like admins to pay attention to the aggressive confrontational language that the user permits himself in a discussion: [85], [86], [87]. One can see that the other user did a very good job remaining civil until the end, hence HistoryofIran's reaction along the lines of phrases such as 'facepalm', 'your broken English' and 'understood?' was completely unprovoked.

In violation of WP:OWN, he refers to articles as 'his own' and uses his experience editing Wikipedia as an argument in favour of his version: [88].

I also suggest that admins take note of the manner in which this user refers to fellow contributors and to his own role in bringing about Wikipedia at the very top of his talk page: [89]. While I appreciate the efforts of those who genuinely try to contribute to improving the content of articles on Wikipedia, I do not believe that they should be blinded by glory at the site of many barnstars that other users award them and use their active participation in the project as an excuse to bring others down.

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

The user was previously placed on 1RR restriction, supervised editing and civility supervision [90] and is aware of that [91].

Keeping in mind that this user has been blocked eight times in the past two years (including three times in the past year after being placed on the aforementioned restrictions, most recently a few weeks ago) for a period between 24 and 72 hours, mainly for edit-warring, and vows to continue to 'revert a lot of stuff' [92] in the future, I suggest an indefinite ban, as I consider this user's attitude unacceptable and unconstructive in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, especially if he fails at the very first thing which makes a discussion productive: simple polite communication.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would like to ask admins to formally close the report. Parishan (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[93]

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 find it funny, you researched so much about me, yet you didn't research the results of what i said in articles such as the Malik-Shah page. That is called lying and which shows that you're really trying hard to have me blocked for no reason - me, a user who has contributed so much to this site (374 articles created, 35 templates created, 168 categories created, 35 portals created and manyyyyyyyy articles expanded. Not trying to use this as an excuse, but just letting you guys know), just because of.. well who knows? personal revenge/hatred? I don't know, I just find this kind of random that you're suddenly reporting me and not even doing it the right way. Anyway, about the whole Malik-Shah issue (and constantly accusing me of being heavily rude when it comes to discussing), here is what it resulted to: [94] [95]. With that "problem" hopefully fixed, let's move to the next one. "One can see that the other user did a very good job remaining civil until the end, hence HistoryofIran's reaction along the lines of phrases such as 'facepalm', 'your broken English' and 'understood?' was completely unprovoked." Seriously? if a admin is reading this, please take a look on the links and a look on the Malik-Shah article, because what I am reading is not true and I'm sure you will understand. He is making me look like the villain, which he is doing this whole report, which I will get to.

By the way, If you are going to report about such things, then show all of it instead of half of it.

About the Paykar Khan Igirmi Durt article: I find it funny, he mentioned that I claimed vandalism (which I apologized for - because I am (well, I was) constantly reverting vandalism I wrongly accused him of being one, which was completely stupid by me) yet he accused me of "bad-faith editing" and still haven't apologized for it. Isn't that double standards? Anyway, I don't get why he mentioned that, since that issue ended when he showed me sources which proved that he was right (which he didn't first time but just randomly slammed some information on it, or else I would never have reverted it in the first place). Furthermore, how is "dude" a negative word? It is a normal word used every day? (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dude) I find it funny that he is trying to make a deal out every word I use. It seems like "dude" is bad a word, but accusing one of "bad-faith editing" and abusing old issues without showing what really happened is normal. Furthermore, while we were discussing in the talk page of the article, I kept telling you to stop turning this into, well, a "personal discussion" (if that makes sense), yet you continued, which I don't know why, what have I done? I apologized (while you didn't) and agreed with what you said when you finally showed me sources in the end (which you should have done in the start).

"Interestingly, even the information supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Iranica is not only removed, but referred to as 'vandalism' [96], accompanied with an inappropriate comment in the edit summary." Great, once again you're not showing everything. Yes, the source states that the Safavids were Azeris, but does not mention their ancestors were Azeris, which the user wrote on the article (which means that he was falsifying information), which was the reason I reverted it. As I said, you're not using this kind of information right and are trying to use it against my favor by doing so. I don't get what you're trying to gain: you're trying to block a user who is barely active (and may be quitting because he is busy) and has done so much on this site by falsifying (not really falsifying (or maybe it is?), but I can't really think of a better word that fits better, I should go to bed) information about him?

"Keeping in mind that this user has been blocked eight times in the past two years (including three times in the past year after being placed on the aforementioned restrictions, most recently a few weeks ago) for a period between 24 and 72 hours, mainly for edit-warring, and vows to continue to 'revert a lot of stuff' [97] in the future, I suggest an indefinite ban, as I consider this user's attitude unacceptable and unconstructive in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, especially if he fails at the very first thing which makes a discussion productive: simple polite communication."

Yes, and you have been blocked 4 times? so what? so you should get blocked for not telling everything about the stuff which you brought up? "Simple polite communication"?, as I said before, you were the one who wanted to create a big and unnecessary issue in the Paykar Khan article, while I kept telling that we should focus on the subject, which you kept getting away from. "After being warned for incivility once [123], he persisted in making sarcastic references to the user's 'poor feelings' in every message he addressed to them for the duration of the discussion (even if the incivility issue was not further addressed), to the point of turning it into the focal point of the entire discussion: [124], [125]." Not really, as I said, I was trying to the discuss with you about the subject, yet you kept targeting words such as "dude" and kept trying to change the subject by trying to turn it into a hostile discussion, which I kept telling you that you shouldn't do and that you should focus on the subject instead. You aren't using this information neutrally, but using it all against my favor by changing what happened to make me look like the villain. About the "poor feelings" thing, as I said, you kept targeting my words and acting oversensitive yet you yourself accused me of something too, but unlike me you didn't apologize.

This is what annoys me the most: "and vows to continue to 'revert a lot of stuff"'. I didn't really say that - you're missing the details once again and are trying to change information to use it against my favor. What I said was "When I get back I will probably have to revert a lot of stuff since these annoying vandals appear on the articles i have created/expanded literally every day." What problem is there with that? It's not like i will go, in your own words, on a "bad faith editing" campaign, but remove edits such as this one removed by a well known user [98]. There are actually many respected users who agrees with me in these cases, take a look here for example [99]. Many people know that I help/expand (well, actually "helped" since I am not really active anymore) many Wikipedia articles, and not one who does "bad faith editing". Anyway, even if it said that i wanted to go on a "bad faith editing" campaign (which I would never do, of course), that wouldn't mean anything either since words means nothing compared to real action.

"and making other kinds of patronising, condescending and offensive remarks in edit summaries: [100], [101], [102],". Once again, you're not posting all of it. The first in the first link is a person who usually copies information from various places and then copies it to a article, making much of the information having broken English. The second one was just one of the 100th random users who put unsourced information, which is constantly reverted by me and other users, which annoyed me, but I guess saying "omg" (oh my god) when a article is constantly the target of vandalism is wrong, just like using the word "dude" was in your opinion somehow wrong. About the third one: He is the same person mentioned in the first link, where I said that he usually copies information from various places and then copies it to a article, making much of the information having broken English. Which is against the rules, which means I didn't do anything wrong.--HistoryofIran (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[@The Blade of the Northern Lights:] I'm sorry but I really think you're missing something then, in case you didn't see it, I have answered everything he has written about and pretty much proved him wrong. "Who's of much use to the encyclopedia regardless of topic."? I have done so much for this site (which I posted above) yet I am not to any use? Can a admin properly investigate this please? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

moved here from wrong section by Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[@User:Rhoark:] I don't really have the energy/will to discuss about this anymore, I have written what I could, a topic ban is fine (although not the cleverest idea either when I have done so much in that kind of topic), I am not going to be editing for some months/years anyway because I have kind of lost interest in this site, but I enjoyed my time here and if I will ever return, it would be in a long time (where I would expand Football articles instead). To an admin reading (or who have read) all the information which have been written here: Although I am most likely not going to return, at least topic ban me then, but not infinitive ban, it would be sad leaving Wikipedia like that. Right now, it seems like Parishan managed to fool everyone and I feel like no one have properly investigated what I have written, but oh well. If you did what I asked, that would be great (or you could also don't do anything, but it seems like my words mean nothing compared to Parishan who is immaturely abusing information against my favor, which makes absolutely no since, oh well. Consider this the last message from me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My gestalt impression of HistoryOfIran is someone unable to deal with content disputes in a constructive manner. Two elements of their statement however have merit. Firstly, the word "dude" is innocuous. Secondly, @Ahendra: is indeed introducing large amounts of grammatical gobbledygook to article space. An administrator should probably evaluate whether there is a competence problem. It's possible HistoryOfIran could learn better dispute resolution in an area they are less passionate about, so I endorse a topic ban. Rhoark (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any reason not to indef HistoryofIran and be done with it. I'd be all right with an indefinite topic ban from the AA topic area on top of that, but it seems like this isn't an editor who's of much use to the encyclopedia regardless of topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for bring this back from the archive. I'll impose a TBAN from the AA topic in around 12 hours if there aren't other comments to to contrary. I'd suggest trying to take steps to avoid indef blocking them as they are helpful. Having said that I have no major objection to an indef block but I'd probably impose the TBAN in addition if someone else feels the indef block is necessary. Having said that I think a TBAN and a warning that if they keep going they'll be blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems reasonable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:30, 19 March 2015 (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) – 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Due to your continued comments about other editors [103], I'm imposing upon you a 90-day ban on all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. [104]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[[105]]

On Friday, March 6, Think Progress published an article by Lauren C. Williams describing how The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims.

For months, [Talk:Gamergate_controversy] has offered a boxed section of articles in the media that discuss the Gamergate page. As this was a long investigative report on that very page, I proposed adding the new article that list. As I anticipated, GamerGate supporters teamed up to revert the change. Discussion followed on the talk page, as discussions do.

Two days later, I was topic-banned by @Dreadstar: under the standard AE sanctions. [106]

The pertinent passage appears to be the following:

“It is fascinating that the particular group of editors who recently were so eager to cite Gamergate wikis, weblogs, and Breitbart are reluctant to inform newcomers to this article of this important new essay. Why would that be? There is no question that Lauren Williams’ study is the best examination of the Wikipedia scandal to appear to date. It is also very widely read. The Twitter stream for "Gamergate Wikipedia" is filled with references, it’s got 1700 Facebook shares, it’s generated secondary coverage in Slate [11].”

I had been asked not to criticize other editors on talk pages, but here I do not criticize or mention any editor: I allude to a pattern of collusive editing. Collusive editing is the subject of the article under discussion; it is natural and necesssary to discuss it in this context. The italicized question might be taken to allude to the insistent, relentless, perfervid POV pushing practiced by a coterie of editors on this page, abetted by a constantly-refreshed stream of socks and zombies working with expert admin assistance and supervision, in blatant and unchecked violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FLAT. Discussion of the application of policy to article and front-matter changes is not uncommon on talk pages.

Moreover, my assertion above is inarguably true, it is reliably sourced, and it reflects the overwhelming consensus of opinion of outside observers of Wikipedia’s Gamergate article: [107].

I responded to the topic ban with wry astonishment, and with a query regarding its intended extent.

Shortly afterward, Dreadstar responded by email:

[redacted]

I do not recall that I made any reply. A few minutes later, he wrote again:

[redacted]

A few minutes later:

[redacted]

The topic ban is neither expedient nor appropriate; it is the reverse. It does not improve the encyclopedia; it makes it worse. It does not advance the project; it invites additional derision and ridicule at a moment when -- let’s face it -- Wikipedia needs all the friends it can find, and among whom I might perhaps, once again, number myself. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I submit this very reluctantly, with scant hope of a sympathetic reception or a fair hearing, after others urged me to do so. It’s doubtless in the wrong form or the wrong template; I can’t for the life of me figure that out; feel free to apply necessary mops to make it right. I may monitor the discussion that follows but do not promise to do so; if you wish any information or comment from me, please feel free to contact me at my office or by email. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the first of the troupe arrives. Does Starke Hathway comment on what I wrote? They do not. Do they comment on content? Nope. Instead, they disparage me personally, impugn my motives, and claim that I speculate about the motives of other editors when, in point of fact, I did not: I speculated that motives might exist. How much of this garbage do the admins intend to tolerate? (My guess: as much as can be mustered from every slop pail they can find, but we’ll see.) MarkBernstein (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue here that should invalidate the TBAN. When an editor has been warned at least four times not to make comments about other editors on article talk pages, that editor shouldn't anticipate good things coming from the decision to post a comment speculating about the motives of a "particular group of editors" on an article talk page. Frankly anyone other than MarkBernstein would have been TBANNed and blocked (likely indefinitely) long before reaching this point, if admin action in this topic area is any indication.

For what it's worth, MarkBernstein, I'm sorry Dreadstar called you a motherfucker. He shouldn't have done that, and I hope he apologized (did he?) -Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: @HJ Mitchell: I don't believe that anyone has argued that removing MarkBernstein will fix all problems in the topic area. What people are concerned about is the fact that MarkBernstein is making the problems in the topic area worse by inflaming drama both on- and off-wiki, and seems to be given unlimited latitude to do so despite a raft of mealy-mouthed "warnings" while other editors are being sanctioned without the presentation of as much as a single diff of wrongdoing. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein seems to have gained some understanding of why his statements tend to stir controversy. I think Gamaliel's suggestion of a ban on MB linking to his blog is the best tool in the admin toolbox for this case, and should replace MB's topic ban. It's not so much the act of linking that's the problem, rather it's the conviction that someone needs to be held responsible for something that distracts from accurate identification of whom and for what. That's the story behind every excess in the name of Gamergate or against it. Seems to be going on at ARfC as well. There's no tool in the toolbox for that particular problem, though. Rhoark (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipocrite: I've made an effort to read as many policies, guidelines, and essays as possible as research for a planned series of essays on content dispute resolution. The first, on reliable sourcing, isn't done yet, but it's close[108]. Constructive comments from anyone are appreciated. Rhoark Rhoark (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TenOfAllTrades: @Thryduulf: It's absolutely correct that I had some experience with Wikipedia before registering an account - experience that I gained as an IP editor. I have never edited under any other account. If the matter requires further discussion, I'd prefer it be centralized here or another dedicated space. Rhoark (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TenOfAllTrades: You miss the mark, in that I did not register to engage in a contentious area, but in all the contentious areas. I watch noticeboards and try to redirect conversations from conduct and irrelevant content policy to relevant content policy. So far that's included Gamergate, other gender-related disputes, Ukraine, Palestine, Tibet, biblical scholarship, and (head-scratchingly) the governance structure of the University of Texas in the 19th century. The experience has motivated my current essay project, to address frequent fallacies. Rhoark (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see that incredulity about my overwhelming competence as an editor is now even being discussed off-site. Rhoark (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban was an over-reaction to something that if it was a violation of any rule, was clearly an ultra minor one. What purpose is it supposed to serve beyond intimidating someone with views unpopular amongst those pushing the ban (and the two subsequent follow-on attempts to sanction him)? What editor read a reference to a self defining group, in the context of a discussion about the principles behind accepting or rejecting sources, and said "Why, that fellow is obviously attacking me! I shall immediately post an angry unwikipedian response even if this means the once polite, friendly, and constructive discussions of Gamergate here are forever tainted!"

It's absurd. It's even more absurd this has gone on for a week and nobody with power has fixed it. --Squiggleslash (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an interesting argument, that a ban with little or no justification behind it shouldn't be lifted because the victim is not abiding by the ban because, uh, they responded to a comment on their own talk page about Gamergate and briefly alluded to it in their response. (I think that's the objection, right? It was kinda vague in what way supposedly the ban was being ignored.)

I'm even more interested by the idea that everyone's who's currently running around trying to get Bernstein blocked is suddenly going to behave themselves and become a model of decorum if only, only, Berstein abides by that topic ban that Arbcom assures is is completely comprehensible, has obvious and terribly small boundaries (too small indeed!), and not open to misunderstandings or different interpretations at all. That Bernstein won't find himself accidentally in a gray or misunderstood area again, and that those hounding him will, absent his availability as a target, not focus their sights on someone else.

You know guys, I'm still not clear as to what you're trying to do here. Is Arbcom's job to try to solve disputes, and ensure the Wikipedia's standards are upheld, or do you really, honestly, think, as you appear to based upon your actions so far, that the job of Arbcom is to punish anyone in a dispute, whether they're the actual cause of it or not, and to promote drama so that Arbcom is given every possible opportunity to do it? --Squiggleslash (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because nobody was mentioned by name doesn't mean it's not criticism of other editors. And the collusion accusations, insinuated or explicitly made, are certainly no sign of good faith. Wording the accusations the way they were on the GG talk page violates at the very least the spirit of the "no criticism" restriction. The insinuations made above in this very appeal regarding admins tolerating filings against Mark Bernstein from every slop pail they can find just leaves even more of a bad taste in the mouth.

I'm sorry, but honestly this behaviour really needs to come to a stop. All we get now is needless drama over admin actions, not even content, whenever Mark Bernstein is mentioned. If he truly wants to continue considering himself a friend and valued editor of Wikipedia, he needs to learn to contribute without the snark, attitude, and insinuations that keep leading him here. I'd suggest the tban stand, and that Mark Bernstein ask himself if he really wants to keep being dramatically WP:POINTy or if we wants to be a positive contributor. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 5:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

@Rhoark: Hear hear. However, I don't agree with reducing the scope of the GG topic bans, because it's fairly obvious that both sides of the battle are rife with troublemakers just itching to make points or become glorious martyrs for their cause. Relaxing the ban of the scope will more likely allow the flames to be fanned further, rather than reducing the heat of the whole situation. coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ForbiddenRocky and PeterTheFourth: Perhaps it was a little too personal of a reaction to not question Dreadstar enacting the ban, but that doesn't change the fact that Mark Bernstein's conduct both before and after has been highly questionable and warranting of admin action. I think it's fairly likely that his ongoing posts of aspersions, accusations, and antagonistic insinuations would have gotten him or any other editor an indefinite block on grounds of incivility, were it not for the sanctions available through the GamerGate case, and all the attention paid to the actors and drama involved. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein in this very appeal: The italicized question might be taken to allude to the insistent, relentless, perfervid POV pushing practiced by a coterie of editors on this page, abetted by a constantly-refreshed stream of socks and zombies working with expert admin assistance and supervision,^{[citation needed]} in blatant and unchecked violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FLAT.

Coldacid above: And the collusion accusations, insinuated or explicitly made, are certainly no sign of good faith [...] If he truly wants to continue considering himself a friend and valued editor of Wikipedia, he needs to learn to contribute without the snark, attitude, and insinuations that keep leading him here. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What ForbiddenRocky and PeterTheFourth fail to mention is that the 'rape' comment, and subsequent reaction, came after the topic ban, not before, after Dreadstar read a response of MarkBernstein to the topic ban. The topic ban should not be overturned just because Dreadstar over-reacted later; as for the cause of Dreadstar's over-reaction, I am of the opinion, and NE Ent seems to agree from his statement further up the page, that Dreadstar reacted is because of a provocative message from MarkBernstein. Dreadstar was definitely within his latitude to sanction MarkBernstein before the 'rape' comment was ever made, because the sanction had nothing to do with "rape", and everything to do with MarkBernstein refusing to stop commenting or posting insinuations regarding other editors. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Rhoark, an obvious sockpuppet being used in administrative spaces unblocked? Rhoark created his account in late 2014. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoark, you are required to use your primary account to edit project space. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I read User:Dreadstar's comment on my talk page, User:MarkBernstein comes to Dreadstar's attention because people bring Mark to Dreadstar's attention.

1. There is the implication that tattling is how to punish people you don't agree with. I can think of more than a few 1RR violations on GGC that were settled without admin involvement; but this raises the question why some violations wind up in AE and others do not. There are several edits that perhaps are sanctionable that have been ignore by many, some ignoring because it suits an agenda, or some ignoring the problematic edits (except to fix them) in an effort to limit the drama. Should every editor report every other editor for every minor problem? From what I can see some of editors would not survive the same intense scrutiny being applied to Mark. And some of editors conveniently ignore the provoking or bad behavior of editors they side with. Mark is being hounded.

1. Also, I do question the equanimity of Dreadstar when he sanctioned Mark. Dreadstar brought his strange "rape" accusation thing to my talk page. He brought that point up in response to my asking about sanctioning Mark, the implication being that it was relevant to Dreadstar WRT sanctioning Mark for talking about other editors. If his reading of Mark contributed to his decision to sanction Mark, then that sanction should be reversed. I note Dreadstar has withdrawn the accusation he made WRT what Mark was saying.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation for the topic ban comes from a very questionable place, given how emotionally Dreadstar has reacted in regards MarkBernstein and Dreadstar's statements during and after. It's preeminently clear that Dreadstar's response was not reasonable- he's acknowledged culpability and apologised for what's been said, but done nothing to fix the actions he's taken. If nothing else, uninvolved admins should look at the topic ban, the diffs that supposedly support it, and either instate it themselves in their position as uninvolved admins or repeal it wholesale as the farce it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and MarkBernstein seem to go hand and hand when it comes to this topic space. The goal of the ArbCom case was to reduce disruption, not make it worse. Judging by history, letting this editor back in will only increase the disruption. Therefore, I recommend declining this appeal and putting a 12 month limit on how often this editor can make such appeals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have removed all references to the Reichstag, including my own. The appropriateness of this reference is not the subject of this request and it should not be used as an excuse to flog your opponents in a pre-existing dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @MarkBernstein: I have formatted your appeal correctly (with a couple minor changes since it's been here for a bit). Please provide a diff of the notification you left Dreadstar. In the future (if applicable) please ensure you follow the formatting guidelines for this page. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that no other uninvolved admins have yet commented on this matter. Some fresh involvement and solutions are definitely needed here.

So I've finally read the original discussion which prompted the topic ban. There is little discussion of it here. Parties appear to have assumed that it was or was not a violation based on whatever side of the battle they are on, or if they have come to their opinion independently, they do not justify those opinions with substantial direct references to the discussion.

I fail to see how this is a such a relatively innocuous discussion has prompted such violent reactions amongst the involved parties. There is a bit of snark and some off-topic discussion about new editors and throwaway accounts, and I would discourage both of those from him. But there he also raises relevant and significant points and his comment contains more substance than most of the others in that discussion. He has posted relevant information from the website in question. Much has been made on this page of his posting links to his own blog, but I see no promotional or disruptive use of that link here. He has linked to a list of press stories on his website, directly relevant to the discussion at hand, namely which press stories to include on the talk page.

I would not say he has conducted himself perfectly in this discussion, but I would also say that about other parties, and that is not a required standard on Wikipedia, otherwise most of us would be unable to edit here. But I don't see anything here to justify either the lengthy topic ban or the extreme reactions of involved parties in this matter.

What I do see is a systemic problem with battleground mentalities amongst most involved parties. Those, both involved and uninvolved, who insist that the problems will go away with the departure of Mark Bernstein are fooling themselves. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree partly with your last sentence—removing Dr Bernstein will not solve the problems in the topic area. Nonetheless, the heat to light ratio was improving, and I think Dr Bernstein has had a significant role in its deterioration (as have his detractors, who seem to be both noisy and numerous). I probably wouldn't have imposed the topic ban, or if I had I might have construed it more narrowly, but it was within the bounds of reason and I'm certainly not inclined to lift a topic ban that isn't being abided by. Dr Bernstein has been asked on numerous occasions to direct his comments towards article content and not editors (including groups of editors), has given the requisite platitude on each occasion, and gone on to completely disregard all the advice, the suggestions, the warnings, the topic bans, and the blocks he's been given. Had this all occurred a few months ago, Dr Bernstein likely would have been site-banned or at least severely sanctioned in the arbitration case, and certainly editors have been on the receiving end of discretionary sanctions for less egregious and less persistent misconduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're discussing his past behavior in toto, sure, maybe you can make a case for that. But I think many are overreacting to current behavior based on his past behavior. Not only is that is proving incredibly disruptive, it also provides a disincentive for people to actually improve their behavior. Without an avenue to become a productive contributor, we might as well site ban on the first offense. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not normally as unsympathetic as I am here, but I thought we were moving towards a point where the standards of conduct had been established and people were generally abiding by them or had been removed. Then all hell broke lose with Dr Bernstein at the centre of it and—even being extremely charitable—at least partly because of his own conduct. I might be sympathetic to loosening the scope of the topic ban, but I'd like to see Dr Bernstein actually abide by it for a few weeks to show us that he can edit without attacking anyone with whom he has the misfortune to disagree. I'd also like to see the angry mob disperse and get on with something useful, which hopefully it will once Dr Bernstein shifts his focus away from the topic that have got him onto trouble thus far. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are mostly in agreement. Hell did indeed break loose. The sticking point for me is whether Mark Bernstein is blame for it breaking loose, or reaction to him is to blame. In this particular case, I see little in that discussion to justify that reaction. Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• re: "I am disappointed that no other uninvolved admins have yet commented on this matter. "

1. I think this appeal should be declined. I also think that MB should be prohibited from any further appeals on this sanction. In fact, given the clear violation of WP:EMAILABUSE, I would not be opposed to further sanctions.
2. I think both DHeyward and TO should be allowed to appeal their current IBAN restrictions after 60 days of the original posting, provided that there are no further problems originating from them.

And in preemptive form regarding the "but it's not fair, we didn't do anything" comments. Life isn't fair; (and I apologize if I appear to be cold and a grumpy curmudgeon in this matter, but ...) If you continue to walk through a yard with a "Beware of the Dog" sign, then few folks are willing to listen to complaints about being bitten. And the "signs" on GG have been posted quite clearly. (now, can I leave please?) — Ched :  ?  20:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Especially in light of MarkBernstein's behavior in the recent AE threads, I'm not convinced that lifting the topic ban would be beneficial, and therefore would decline the appeal. T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• We've got the section above to consider further sanctions, MB has already been blocked for a month. And we can't really decline to hear appeals as they can appeal to AE (with different admins), to AN or to ArbCom. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:56, 23 March 2015 (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

PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

DHeyward (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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#GamerGate :

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

DHeyward has violated the 1RR discretionary sanction placed on Gamergate controversy, and has been uncompliant in a request for self-revert. He has argued content in defense of his violation of the 1RR restriction instead, and after being shown unequivocally that his reversions were in violation of policy has not self-reverted.

1. 06:04 20th March, 2015 Reversion of my edit- I changed it to be accurate to the source we were using.
2. 07:11 20th March, 2015 Reverting my reversion- inserting blog post as source for claims.
3. 08:21 20th March, 2015 Informed of 1RR restrictions, asked to self-revert. Chooses to respond by mainly arguing the virtue of his edits.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18th January Previously blocked for misconduct in Gamergate topic area.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 13th March by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

These reversions are themself small enough that I chose to simply inform DHeyward of the 1RR restrictions in place. However, given his unwillingness to self-revert or acknowledge any sort of misdoing in his violation of the 1RR restrictions, in addition to the fact that he's chosen to focus on arguing the content of the article rather than his actions, I have brought it to arbitration enforcement.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[109]

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.

This wasn't even 1RR. Both of his diff evidence is between edits I made. He apparently made an edit. I changed it, but didn't revert it. He then did an out right reversion of my edit with a comment about sourcing so I made yet a different edit and added a source with his wording. If he did think my first edit was a revert of his bold edit, he chose to revert instead of following WP:BRD. The edit of his that he lists as my first revert was only hours old. I disagree that it was a revert but then tried to appease him and have whatever content he thought was important. I commented about it on the article talk page as well.

@PTF, I know what a reversion is and my edit wasn't close to the version before your edit, whence no revert. Whence why I asked for diffs. You didn't provide them. I'm done answering frivolous and vexatious complaints to obvious alternate account.

HJ_Mitchell More importantly PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) began his Wikipedia career on 01-Dec-2014 with a number of edits to only ArbCom space. His contributions are almost exclusively related to GamerGate. I request that he cease editing AE/ANI/ARCA and any other administrative areas unless he discloses or uses his main account. It's obvious he is not a new user from his first edits. --DHeyward (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but feel PeterTheFourth's filing is a bit disingenuous - in terms of how the diffs of DHeyward are portrayed, as well as not considering (or even mentioning) the latest edits by DHeyward which appear to have solved this issue already.

• PeterTheFourth writes of the second diff: Reverting my reversion- inserting blog post as source for claims. Here is the supposed "blog post". The article is from Forbes (WP:RS), not blogspot or tumblr or whatever. It seems most like an opinion piece by a columnist to me, instead of a blog post by anonymous. It seems similar to http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs -> contentious as a WP:RS but this is by no means a clear-cut situation either way.

• EDIT: To clarify I meant this is more like WP:NEWSBLOG than WP:BLOGS. 02:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• PeterTheFourth writes of the third diff: Informed of 1RR restrictions, asked to self-revert. Chooses to respond by mainly arguing the virtue of his edits. If you read the diff, you'll see that the first thing DHeyward says is What revert? Diff please of 2nd revert (I don't think I've made 1 revert, let alone a second)? I added source. rewrote section to include name, etc. DHeyward is not acting in defiance, he doesn't even realize he supposedly broke 1RR, and is asking for evidence (diffs).
• Additionally, this is the current version of the article as of my post, which was last edited by DHeyward. Note that it is not much different from PeterTheFourth's last edit. Definitely equal in spirit to me. DHeyward seems to have already cleaned up his own mess before this enforcement request was filed, perhaps in a roundabout way. The enforcement request was filed at (:54) while DHeyward's last edit was at (:32). starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @PeterTheFourth: attributes this filing due to slow typing. That's rubbish to me. After DHeyward's self-reverts were done by (:32), PeterTheFourth posted twice [110] (:34) and [111] (:46) on DHeyward's talk page, before filing this at [112] (:54). starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @PeterTheFourth: - I wasn't expecting a response, but neither am I bothered by you making one. I was just notifying you of my edit, since it was mainly addressing your behavior, and not DHeyward's. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with what Starship.paint said. On reviewing the changes from [113] by PeterTheFourth to [114] by DHeyward, what I see is the latter addressing the former's complaints regarding the edits on the GG page (see their discussion, which happened on DHeyward's talk instead of the article talk which would probably have been a more appropriate place).

An argument could be made for 1RR violation, but to me it seems that DHeyward's edits were made with good intentions, and that he adjusted them in deference to Peter's complaints. And yet we're still here. If DHeyward did fall foul of the 1RR rule for the article, maybe give him 24-28 hours tban as a warning, but in any case I'd argue that Peter's hounding and lawyering deserve at least a strong trouting. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 13:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: All this when DHeyward "self-reverted" an entire 22 minutes before you filed your enforcement request. But oh, such minor things really shouldn't be the cause of such consternation. Excuse me while I find myself unable to assume good faith, but this seems like nothing more than a calculated drag through the mud. You, sir, should be ashamed of yourself for bringing in this nonsense. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits towards compromise are not reversions, especially when accompanied by discussion. Rhoark (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward has now self-reverted these edits, so it's not a problem unless it becomes a pattern. I regret that it took me such a great deal of effort to get him to self-revert for such a trivial mistake, and that he only did so once I'd informed him my only avenue was Arbitration Enforcement (and was, I learn, in the process of submitting this request.) Such minor things really shouldn't be the cause of such consternation, and I believe DHeyward's heavy focus on the content of his edits rather than his violation of 1RR was indicative of a less than optimal mentality. Oh well! PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coldacid: Curse my slow typing! PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: This is the problem which requires me to file an AE request- you seem to not understand what is considered a reversion, and it's proven very difficult to help you in understanding what they are. I will again advise that WP:REVERT is an invaluable resource. "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion."- when you change what I've written to more closely reflect the previous version, it is a reversion. For example, changing 'One YouTube commentator had a DMCA takedown request filed against a video' to 'One YouTube video was removed after a DMCA takedown request was filed' was more in line with what the previous (incorrectly sourced) version was, as that version stated 'One YouTube commentator had a video [...] removed following a DMCA takedown request'. That means you were reverting my initial edit. Is this understandable? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: I have provided diffs, and I've even gone to the effort of wholesale quoting the sentences in question. I don't understand why you continue to assert that you've made no reversions. When in doubt: deny deny deny? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: (I assume by being pinged, I am being asked for a response. Do let me know if that's not the case.) I had multiple tabs open- one of which was DHeyward's talk page. I don't advocate doing all of your editing within the confines single tab, nor can I imagine how that would even be tolerable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Assuming there is a 1RR violation, I'm not inclined to take any action here, or at least nothing more stringent than a reminder to DHeyward to be careful. The 1RR is in place to prevent content disputes getting out of hand (and seems to be doing a reasonable, albeit imperfect, job of that at the minute) so I'm not inclined to enforce it robotically and DH seems to have been unaware that he had breached the 1RR. Obviously if this becomes a pattern I'd be less inclined to assume good faith, but for now I'm not convinced that there are any problems with DH's editing that can't be solved with informal advice. Statements showing a pattern of uncollaborative or disruptive editing, or of gaming the system, by DH would be welcome if such a pattern exists; beyond that, it would be appreciated if third parties could comment only if they can shed light on something thus far left in darkness—we don't need the whole gamergate party bus turning up here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm happy to leave it as a reminder as well, especially given that was the intention of the admin who placed the 1RR (HJ). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:05, 23 March 2015 (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

Galestar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate :

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

1. 01:00, March 24, 2015‎ Reverted another editor's work
2. 18:12, March 24, 2015‎ Reverted another editor's work on same article

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 17:01, March 24, 2015‎ .

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Obvious violation of 1RR.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Editor was informed here.

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.

Oh brother.

My bad, obviously. I didn't think about it being 24 hours. Totally phased it.

Punish me as you see fit.--Jorm (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Since the editor self-reverted, I see no need to take this any further. In the future, please consider asking editors to self-revert instead of bringing this matter here. Gamaliel (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Jorm self-reverted upon realising his mistake. This can be closed now. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]