Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive162

GodBlessYou2
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning GodBlessYou2

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPSCI :


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


 * 1) Jan 11 Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism (reinserting preferred content after reverting).
 * 2) Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism (reinserting preferred content after an RfC on the talkpage went badly see previous attempt on Dec 28
 * 3) Jan 9 Jan 9 Edit-warring on a usertalk page to argue about his POV-pushing.


 * 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):


 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Dec 30


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Subject of a WP:FTN thread started by the initiator of this request that contains additional discussion: Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. He was notified of this discussion: Jan 6. Please see the usertalk page of the user for more discussions as to the problematic behavior. Believe that a broad topic ban from all religion/science/pseudoscience/creationism related pages is in order.

diff
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning GodBlessYou2
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by GodBlessYou2
I will confine my response to the original charges made above according to the diffs cited.

1. Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism.


 * These edits were related to Fine-tuned Universe. It is not creationism nor classified by WP as such . (See also, categories: at bottom of article.) While critics may like to classify FTU it as creationism, I sincerely question if this article falls under the pseudoscience and fringe science editing restrictions.


 * Even if I'm wrong on that account, my only edits have been related to adding citations to two books and attempting to add these to the list of ==Further Reading==. Both books are written by astrophysicists who address the fine tuned universe issue in a manner intended to make it accessible to non-scientists with an emphasis on why this hypothesis is compatible with both science and religion.  I continue to remain confounded by one or two editor's efforts to block this content.  More so because two articles by Stephen M. Barr are elsewhere included in the article under External Links. Why the effort to block my adding a  book of his on the subject?

2. Jan 11 Edit-warring regarding creationism.


 * An RfC by Cposper sought opinions on adding one sentence and one source.  Numerous editors agreed the source should only be used in the context of other sources and with attribution.  I came to the article in response to this RfC. I drafted a section to show Csposper how to use multiple reliable sources to address the issue in a more balanced way.  The RfC did not address my draft and is not binding on it.  Check the dates.  Most all of the RfC's comments were written before my draft and my draft addresses and incorporates most of the helpful comments. It does not preclude new content that addresses the same issue in a more substantive, balanced way.

3. #Jan 9 The so called Edit-warring on a Jytdog's talk page first, does not fall under the fringe and pseudoscience arbitration rules.


 * Second, and most importantly, the edit conflict was clearly regarding difference in our understanding of policy guidelines governing the deletion of comments on user talk pages. This was addressed by Doncram in this diff .  It is further discussed in my own diff here .  Arguably, the confusion was due to Jytdog referring me to Wp:TPO in this form  rather than to WP:OWNTALK, because WP:TPO clearly indicates at the very top that comments should not be deleted.  The confusion has resulted in efforts to clarify this problem per this discussion on the policy guideline page.  In short, this wasn't edit warring.  It was a sincere effort to prevent what an editor, whom I perceived as one with a history of deleting valid content, from hiding a record of disruptive behavior on his talk page contrary to policy as I understood it, and was even stated as such in the link he provided to defend his deletion.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In summary, every edit in the article I have made has been relevant and well sourced. There wouldn't be any basis for this complaint if the editors making the complaint showed more respect for the good faith contributions of other editors. In general, it is my impression that these articles are subject to a lot of WP:OWN protectionism.  Prime example: tag team deletion and talk page equivocations over adding the book by Barrs to the FTU Further Reading list. Seriously?! –GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding my proposed new section to the article on the creation evolution controversy, you will see that I have not been editing the article but rather confining myself to the talk page to try go the editors to actually discuss the 14 sources and proposed content I have offered.  Instead, there is, what I perceive to be a refusal to recognize that there are any differences between my extensive contribution and the one proposed by Cpsoper.  I am sincerely trying to get them to focus on the content, but they are so anxious to shut me out (not very collaborative in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, in my opinion) that they are ganging up on me both there and here.  I believe the process recognizes that consensus can change, especially if an editor like myself goes to the effort to develop a well balanced section that is clearly topic relavant and based on 14 sources covering both sides of the contentious issue.  It may not be perfect, but it is something that can be built on using WP:PRESERVE methods. In my view, it is my accusers who should be reprimanded for not making more effort to work with editors to incorporate material. The only reason I came to these pages was because of Cpsoper's RfC which, on investigation, led me to believe his contributions were being rejected without any effort to help him incorporate them per PRESERVE.  My mistake was thinking the other editors here would welcome my efforts to help Cpsoper learn how to find and use a wider range of reliable sources, something AndytheGrump said would be needed in his response to the RfC,,. but now he's angry at me for implementing his advice.  Go figure.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding comments below.  I strongly object to his classification of thise edits as related to pseudoscience.  Most importantly, I object to the assumption that my notification of this policy was sufficient if the scope of pseduoscience is going to be different than that by which the articles are marked.


 * Clearly, fine-tuned universe theory is not considered pseudoscience by Wikipedia categories, the article itself, or by scientists. It is speculation about origins of the universe issue, but that itself does not render it pseudoscience.  And what is my "offense" there?  Trying to include two books by astrophysicists writing for people interested in the intersection of faith and science in the further reading list, book which delve into depth into the fine tuned universe theory.  I continue to be puzzled why I am being prosecuted for attempting to add these sources when clearly it is protectionists who feel they WP:OWN these pages who are hounding out even the most modest edits which support the idea there is no real conflict between science and religion.


 * Secondly, the confusion regarding the user talk page was due to confusing organization and statements in Policy regarding deletion of comments. It has nothing to do with the psuedoscience discretionary sanctions and should not be considered in any decision.


 * Third, the article evolution-creation controversy is about the controversy between these camps. Not about the science, or the pseudoscience, properly speaking, as those are addressed in separate articles.  It is about the charges and counter charges advocates on both sides make against each other, which may include some science and pseudoscience, but also includes charges of discrimination, which is really political and not the subject of the discretionary sanction being employed against me.  My edits on this article are an effort to bring a bit of WP:PRESERVE collaboration to the page to simply support the rather obvious fact that the stated claims and counter claims have been made  were clearly done in faith and mostly confined to the talk page.  There is no violation of policy.


 * Finally, your assertion that my edits "are about an attempt to use scientific reasoning to support creationism" is simply false. Show me a pattern of such edits.  In fact, I'm not a creationist.  I've not argued for creationism.  As per the evolution-creation controversy, I have simply dared to acknowledge that there are reliable sources, and numerous wikipedia articles, about the claims made by academics that they are discriminated for questioning the adequacy of evolution and also reliable sources identifying those who have responded to and denied these claims.


 * Any judgment against me based on the false charge that I am advocating creationism is simply unfair and demonstrates a failure to look carefully at my edits. The real issue, the real reason these complaints have been made against me, is that when I make what I feel are clearly reasonable contribtions and they are shouted down by people with WP:OWN behaviors, I dare to persist instead of being bullied away..  Please do not give the bullies an easy victory based on contributions to pages which don't even properly fit under the discretionary sanctions rule.


 * I've double checked, and even the evolution-creation controversy page is not marked as being in the category of psuedoscience or fringe science. So the notice regarding discretionary sanctions for these categories should not be applied outside those categories.  It is totally unfair to apply topic specific sanctions against editors when the articles are not identified as being within that topic...and properly so....this article is about the controversy between people in these camps, not the actual science or psuedoscientific claims.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Checking all my article contributions you will see that I only made one edit of Creationism and the diff for edit  shows I only tagged a request for a citation regarding the claim that there are three kinds of creationism.  That was immediately reverted by Dominus Vobisdu  without any explanation.  That's it.  My only other edit to a pseudoscience article was in regard to Extraterrestrial hypothesis  both of which simply attempted to clarify the wording in the lead about the lack of any published scientific evidence in favor of ET activity and the U.S. government's official denial that any such evidence exists. Both edits were again reverted by Dominus Vobisdu who appears to claim  ownership over articles in which he has some presumed expertise, as a microbiologist and teacher.


 * In total, in the WP:Category:Pseudoscience, I edited only two articles, with a total of only three attempted edits, all reverted. None of these four edits were pushing religion or confusing pseudoscience with science. I can see no possible way these edits could run me afoul of the psuedoscience discretionary sanctions.


 * Please reject this baseless charge and rebuke those who have brought it against me.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

Statement by John Carter
Tend to support some sort of ban, indefinite or otherwise. I also tend to think that the topic area could use some more attention. I don't myself see clear evidence, in just a quick review of course, of a separate Criticism of evolutionary theory page, for instance, which I think would be reasonable. Some months ago I picked up a book published by the Jehovah's Witnesses (clearly biased, and nowhere near being a reliable source in and of itself, I know, but it was one of a number of freebies I glommed onto at an academic book giveaway), and there seems to be from the apparently reliable sources it cites a reasonable basis for an article on scientific questions of evolutionary theory, either particular aspects of it or the theory in general. An article like that, or on any number of other related topics, might well be valuable and useful. When I finish my current never-ending effort of developing bibliographies of reference sources, I may well attempt generating a list of articles on this topic in encyclopedic sources, but others are free to do so before then if they so see fit. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The main article I indicated does in fact exist, under Objections to evolution, and I am grateful for that information. I still think there may be reason to develop further development of articles in the broad topic area, but that is true of most topics and there is no particular reason to think this one would be more of a priority than others. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * jps below is probably right. While there is a distinction between "science vs. religion" and "pseudoscience," the bulk of that distinction lies in areas that would probably best be called "philosophy", including perhaps "philosophy of science". The Creation-evolution debate is for the most part, except in some extremist groups, considered closed in the science vs. religion debatae, because, so far as I can tell, most religions have come to the conclusion that creation and evolution are not incompatible. Those groups still postulating "either/or" in this matter in favor of creatiionism are basically dealing with the broad field of "creation science," and so far as I can tell that is counted as part of pseudoscience. Having said that all that, if the AE admins have reservations, I could see maybe going to ARCA again and requesting clarification. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Adamfinmo
I am involved here and I will try to collect some information and post it here along with a more lengthy statement later in the day. --Adam in MO Talk 19:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I had intended on adding more here but I think that Andy pretty much has it dead on. Considering this user's behavior at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy and a refusal by them to recognize the consensous reached in the last RFC, I suspect that GBU2 will certainly be considered for a topic ban soon.--Adam in MO Talk 02:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo
I'm not great with diffs so hopefully this is sufficient. On Dec 26th another user added this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy&diff=639638938&oldid=639628146] which was quickly reverted. The talk page discussion led to an RFC. Two days into the RFC, with consensus clearly against the inclusion at that point on Dec 28th GBY2 added this section to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy&diff=639951952&oldid=639748686] the article. It was reverted as there was an ongoing RFC covering similar material. On Jan 7 the RFC was closed with consensus against adding such a section [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy&diff=641448312&oldid=641311929] On Jan 11 GBY2 readded the section (even bigger this time) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=642047635] against the consensus just a few days old which was again reverted.

Here we have GBY2 edit warring on a user talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=prev&oldid=641636442], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=prev&oldid=641642344], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=prev&oldid=641642486], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=prev&oldid=641642709], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=prev&oldid=641681782], until finally stopping after being threatened with a block [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GodBlessYou2&diff=prev&oldid=641684035]. This can be chalked up to not understanding talkpage rules but it displays the tendentious attitude in almost all of GBY2's editing.

On Jan 6 in Fine-Tuned Universe GBY2 added two books to further reading [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fine-tuned_Universe&diff=641254967&oldid=640949401], this was reverted. They then tried to add one of the books as a ref [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fine-tuned_Universe&diff=641262355&oldid=641262175], this too is reverted. They add a book back to further reading claiming vandalism [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fine-tuned_Universe&diff=641322746&oldid=641271500] this is again reverted, this time by a different user who goes on to add it correctly in the right place. On Jan 11th GBY2 once again tries to add the further reading [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fine-tuned_Universe&diff=642057202&oldid=642050090] and yet a different user reverts them. They try to add it yet again [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fine-tuned_Universe&diff=642096062&oldid=642060239] and are once more reverted. All the while consensus was also against the inclusion of these books/sources on the talk page yet GBY2 forged ahead regardless.

All of GodBlessYou2's contributions are in the realm of religion, mostly creationism and its offshoots. This mainly started at [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maxim_Makukov] where they displayed they didn't understand what constituted an independent reliable source in regards to scientific or fringe claims. Capeo (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Intelligent design is pseudoscience and the section GBY2 tried to insert both during and after the RFC depended mainly on the "documentary" Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and reviews of it, as a source.Capeo (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So now not only has GBY2 tried once more to insert the same exact section that has no consensus, as Andy points out below, but they also added this gem [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary&diff=prev&oldid=642324581] to an essay, essentially claiming we're all lazy for not finding their inclusion worthwhile. Capeo (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And now GBY2 has started another RFC on the same wording already dismissed by consensus [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=642665036], worded such that however you answer you'd be agreeing for some level of inclusion and based on a very strange interpretation of WP:Preserve. Capeo (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump
A further example of GodBlessYou2's refusal to accept consensus at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy - combined with a blatant misrepresentation of demonstrable facts:. GodBlessYou2 writes that "...the only appeal is to a stale RfC. The RfC was about one reference and one proposed sentence." The RfC closed less than a week ago. It mentioned no reference, and made no specific proposal regarding text. This gross misrepresentation, combined with a refusal to accept consensus, suggests to me that at minimum a topic ban is required. Though frankly, given that this refusal to accept consensus seems to be an ongoing issue with this contributor (see this discussion on another topic entirely, where GodBlessYou2's reponse to a clearly-developing consensus was to make the same proposal again, slightly reworded, and insist that it be discussed again) I have to wonder whether we would be better off without such contributions at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * With regard to 'pseudoscience-relatedness', it is worth noting the specific context of GodBlessYou2's confrontational behaviour at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy - his insistance that the article contain material on the claim (not even generally supported by Creationists), that Creationist scientists have been systematically discriminated against by the scientific establishment. While Creationism itself certainly isn't of itself scientific, or pseudoscientific, the claims made by some Creationists regarding mainstream science (particularly but not exclusively evolution) are certainly seen as pseudoscientific by many (including, it should be noted, the U.S. courts in their rejection of 'Intelligent Design' as legitimate science), and an assertion that such Creationist 'science' is being suppressed would seem to me to fall within the remit of the sanctions. It is, after all, common for proponents of fringe viewpoints to claim a conspiracy to silence them. Using Wikipedia to promote such fringe claims amounts to promoting Creationist 'science' - and doing so in a manner that does so not on its scientific merits, but on the basis of a fringe conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory that amounts to an attack on the legitimacy of science itself. If this doesn't fall within the remit of ArbCom sanctions in relation to pseudoscience, it would seem to me to certainly be covered by more general policies regarding appropriate weight, legitimate sourcing and the rest in the article concerned - and accordingly, if GodBlessYou2 isn't to be sanctioned for his tendentious behaviour at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy here, the matter will need to be resolved elsewhere. And for the record, I would like to suggest that the 'fine-tuned universe' article may also be within the scope of sanctions relating to pseudoscience - and certainly seems to be subject to some systematic POV-pushing to exclude commentary from the scientific mainstream. I'll not offer further evidence on this for now, however, since I've not really studied the subject matter in the depth necessary to entirely disentangle the legitimate debate from what appears on the surface at least to be special pleading based on preconceptions based around religious belief - certainly an article supposedly about a scientific debate seems to use the word 'God' rather a lot. The problem again isn't that religion has something to say about the universe - of course it does, and of course it should - but that particular views developed from a religious viewpoint are being promoted as science in an undue manner. Maybe these views aren't pseudoscience - if only because the scientific mainstream has little settled opinion to contrast them against - but the promotion of specific scientific hypotheses because they accord with a particular religious perspective is certainly undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And so it continues. GodBlessYou2 has just posted the same arguments yet again, based on exactly the same falsifications previously used to try to Wikilawyer around a clear and conclusive RfC result. At this stage, I'm beginning to wonder whether this should be taken to ANI, with the intention of discussing an indefinite block on WP:COMPETENCE grounds. This isn't just a failure to drop the stick, it is a failure to actually even respond to adverse commentary at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And on it goes - with GodBlessYou2 now stating a bogus 'RfC' (clearly lacking even a façade of neutrality) over content already rejected on multiple occasions. I have began to suspect that this tendentiousness is actually intended to bring about sanctions on GodBlessYou2, who will no doubt then consider his claims of a 'conspiracy' proven. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to GodBlessYou2's assertion above that " It is totally unfair to apply topic specific sanctions against editors when the articles are not identified as being within that topic", I would point out that the word 'pseudoscience' appears four times in the body of the creation-evolution controversy article, and that the talk page contains a header indicating that discretionary sanctions applied to the page. And perhaps more to the point, I find it impossible to believe that GodBlessYou2 is unaware that the objection from the scientific mainstream to Creationist/'Intelligent Design' arguments against evolution in the debate covered in the article is that in as much as they amount to anything approximating scientific discourse, they are pseudoscience: something that "is not scientific" although "its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific". Accordingly, I have to suggest that GodBlessYou2 is engaging in yet more of the tendentious Wikilawyering that brought about this case in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by jps
I echo what AndyTheGrump says about pseudoscience-relatedness, and argue strongly that the edits under discussion here are 100% pseudoscience-related contrary to the attempted demarcation offered by Sandstein below. To give a kind of seminar tutorial in this subject, the National Center for Science Education (I would argue the foremost authority on identifying pseudoscience in the context of the creation-evolution controversy) identifies the precise aspect of the fine-tuning argument which is pseudoscientific here:. This is exactly the same aspect that GodBlessYou2 is pushing. Claiming that the conflict thesis of religion versus science is somehow a separate issue from science versus pseudoscience actually skids dangerously towards adopting the position of intelligent design pseudoscientists make in their Teach the Controversy &mdash; another argument that is itself rank pseudoscience promotion. In other words, it is clever propaganda meant to legitimize positions that are pseudoscientific &mdash; intending to make them look like a conflict of worldviews rather than pseudoscience. Remember, the discretionary sanctions are on topics that are "broadly construed" precisely because this kind of gaming is so common in contentious areas (of the "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" level of intellectual argumentation). jps (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sławomir Biały
Sandstein's argument seems to be that the edits in question do not fall within the mandate of the PSCI decision, because they concern the culture war rather than science. If that were truly the case, then Sandstein's argument would be quite convincing. However, it does not seem to me that the edits in question do concern the culture wars per se. Rather, they concern the Creationist claim (as advanced by one particular piece of unreliable propaganda) of exclusion the scientific process because, they allege, their "scientific" work is censored by the establishment. This is not a statement about religious belief versus science, but specifically that the Creationist agenda of "questioning evolutionary theory" (in the style of Teach the controversy) are legitimately scientific. For example, from, "This consensus is so embedded in academia that some critics believe it has created a chilling effect on scientists who might raise questions regarding the adequacy of evolutionary theory." Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen
I recommend a topic ban from creationism-related pages for civil POV-pushing beyond the bounds of reason. Godblessyou2 has now got a third RfC, within a few weeks, going, on essentially the same issue on the talkpage of Creation–evolution controversy, ignoring that there has all along been solid consensus against what he wants to do. (Before somebody points out that he didn't start the first RfC, I'll mention it myself.) I gave him a pseudoscience discretionary sanctions alert a while back, and I have already warned him several times against uselessly wasting editors' time. The first diff, from 31 December 2014, contains my reply to his (incredulous) question whether discretionary sanctions can be imposed for arguing for inclusion of material on the talk page: "yes, discretionary sanctions can be imposed for arguing on the talkpage, if it's taken far enough and uselessly exhausts too much of our most precious resource (=the time and energy of out volunteers). It's been done". To me, the amount of beating a dead horse and the level of civil POV-pushing GBY2 has demonstrated on that talkpage over several weeks is well ripe for a topic ban from creationism-related pages. I would already have instituted such a ban myself, except that when I went check out the article talkpage yesterday, to take stock, I realized I may be considered too involved (even though I've never edited the article), since I "voted" in the first RfC. But a topic ban is what I think should be done. This is the kind of thing that burns out good-faith competent editors.

Godblessyou2's whole argument is about whether or not creationist scientists are discriminated against by academe, as regards getting their papers published, getting hired to pursue their research in an academic setting, etc. Yes, creationism may be taken as simply religious, but this is all about creationism as science — GBY2 is pushing it as science. In that context, it is certainly pseudoscience. I don't think the OP has the emphasis right — e. g., never mind the mistake about restoring posts to user talkpages — but I do believe sanctions under the pseudoscience DS purely for the way GBY2 has acted on Talk:Creation–evolution controversy would be wholly appropriate. We need to give some protection to the protectors of articles. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Dominus Vobisdu
Since this case was started, User:GodBlessYou2 has continued to pursue his "proposal" by launching another RfC on the article talk page, which has been characterized by numerous responders as serious flawed and tendentious. See [].

He also appears to be canvassing: [].

This editor is deeply unsatisfied with the rigor of our sourcing policies. He has tried to loosen the notability guidelines for fringe films: []

And has proposed that sources should be considered reliable if they appear in Google News searches: []

He refuses to accept the fact that our policies forbid the additions that he wishes to make to this and other articles, and has a serious case of WP:IDHT. He also has a penchant for accusing fellow editors of working against him, and resorts to appeals to WP essays, which he himself tried to alter, to back up his behavior, blithely ignoring our core policies and overwhelming consensus by many editors in the process.

He (not so indirectly) accused his fellow editors of being "lazy" his edits to one of the essays, in that they should try to "preserve" something of his additions, even though they violate our core policies: []

This is indeed a pseudoscience related case, as the material he is trying to insert pertains to how pseudoscientists feel "persecuted" or "suppressed". He bases this all on in-universe fringe sources which he persists on insisting are reliable despite being told by many fellow editors that the contrary is the case.

WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR apply here, and I see little hope that this editor will ever be able to edit productively, particularly on controversial topics. He has squandered lavish amounts of his fellow editors' time, and will undoubtedly continue ad infinitum. I see no other viable option than an indefinite block under discretionary sanctions. Trying to reason with him has gotten me, and many other editors, precisely nowhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning GodBlessYou2
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

Three diffs of three different edits aren't evidence of edit-warring. We'd need dated diffs of each and every edit making up the edit war for that. This report may be quickly shelved if the evidence is not supplemented accordingly.  Sandstein  18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, there's some evidence now of confrontative, tendentious editing. But can somebody explain how this is in scope of the sanctions? After all, evolution and the "fine-tuned universe" are not fringe science, and as far as I know the objections to evolution are essentially religious, not scientific (or even pseudoscientific) in nature and motivation. So where's the pseudoscience-relatedness in all of this?  Sandstein   06:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, I understand that there are forms of creationism that are portrayed as scientific, such as creation science, and these are probably pseudoscience and subject to sanctions. But the edits at issue here are not related to such "religion in the form of science" topics, but rather they appear to be related to the "religion versus science" debate that is at the core of the cultural controversies related to evolution, and that is not a topic covered by discretionary sanctions. So, unless other admins see something I don't, I'm of the view that this conduct is not within the scope of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein   09:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with AndyTheGrump and jps, and contra Sandstein, I view these edits as falling into the area of pseudoscience (excluding the talk page edit warring ones, which appear to be based on a misunderstanding of policy and for which DS seem like the wrong tool). The edits, from what I can see, are about an attempt to use scientific reasoning to support creationism, thus making it fall under the topic of pseudoscience. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You may well be right - distinguishing the cultural and religious issues from the scientific ones is tricky here, I think, and I'd prefer to be cautious - but if you think that this is within the scope of the sanctions, I leave it to you to determine which action, if any, is appropriate.  Sandstein   17:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To Sandstein and to others here: Bit busy now. Will try my dangdest to come back to this soon, but real-life deadlines are approaching. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Having read this situation in more detail, I'm seeing a strong I didn't hear that problem here. I'm afraid that seems sufficient for a topic ban. As this is a first ban, I'll probably issue it for a finite duration. Will leave this open a bit to see if there is any more input. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ashtul
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user :


 * Sanction being appealed : "To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating ARBPIA as documented in the related AE request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week."


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : diff

First statement
Sandstein, my reverts on Carmel were a misunderstanding of the fact it was subject to WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction as well. It wasn't even part of the first appeal b/c it happened after. I am not that stupid to do a violation again after being reported.

While I understand that 1RR rule should be enforce, I don't see anywhere how long it should be. For an honest mistake, I think 7 days is too severe. Thanks, Ashtul (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)}}

Second Statement
I just stumbled upon this so I thought I will give a 2nd appeal a chance.

Seems like Zero who claimed here ''@Sandstein:: The general 1RR restriction for Palestine-Israel articles was imposed by the Arbitration Committee, not by a single administrator. Zerotalk 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)'' hold a different standard for Nishidani, (who was blocked in the past several times) a different standard here. ''The fact of this case is that N is a good editor who broke 1RR. He should get a short block like anyone should expect when they break 1RR. The rest is hot air.'' A block doesn't appear on Nishidani's block log so I guess the 1RR blocking rule didn't apply to him.

In addition, as Callanecc noted on my appeal, Cathar66 wasn't blocked.

Last, my revert is 200% justified which wasn't taken into account either. On Carmel, Har Hebron article, Hammerman's quote isn't about Carmel at all but rather about Umm al-Kheir. Nicholas Kristof's quote is partially about Carmel but then move to Umm al-Kheir thus WP:IRRELEVANT or at least WP:INAPPROPRIATE. The quotes are WP:BIASED and not even connected to the article itself. Just standing there to say Israel/settlers are horrible. Now, to make things worse, a picture of Umm al-Kheir is present (added by one of Nishidani advocates) since -"In the background: Carmel."

Regards, Ashtul (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PhilKnight
I've copied the unblock request to this board. Anyway, I think the edits in question were under WP:ARBPIA, so a block could be applied. A 7-day block for a first block is fairly long, but within admin discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I consider his second statement to demonstrate a battle ground mentality, so in this context, I think a 7-day block is entirely reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I've commented in the related enforcement request section below that I think that the topic-wide 1R restriction isn't well thought through as written, but it does seem to have been adopted by ArbCom, so it is to be enforced.

It does not appear to be contested here that the edits at issue violated the 1R restriction. Considering that the wording of the restriction reads "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense", it appears to be the intent of the author(s) that no particular consideration should be given to the possibility of a violation resulting from a mistake or misunderstanding. This may be because the intent of the reverter does not affect the disruptive effect of edit wars, which the sanction appears to be intended to suppress. In any case, a mistake or misunderstanding appears improbable here: the edits at issue occurred while a request for arbitration enforcement was pending against the same editor for the same reason, which would have given them ample opportunity to familiarize themselves with the sanction.

As to the block duration, I believe that given the persistently contentious nature of the topic area, a duration of seven days is appropriately long to encourage Ashtul and perhaps others to be significantly more cautious in their editing in the future. In any case, blocks should generally last as long as they are needed to prevent problematic conduct, and I'm still not confident that Ashtul really understands the scope of the restriction and what sort of (particularly restrained) conduct is expected from editors in this topic area, based on their prior statements. The appeal should therefore be declined.  Sandstein  22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved Nomoskedasticity
While the AE discussion was taking place, Ashtul reverted again -- not another 1RR violation, but an amazing action for someone who was at that time being discussed for an obvious earlier 1RR violation on the same article (and the history gives the other previous reverts, if anyone is wondering whether the most recent one is actually similar). This comment accuses me (falsely) of being involved in BDS and shows a more general tendency to cast other editors as enemies -- something this topic area really doesn't need. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * what?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved Cptnono
You increased your length of blocks for first time offenses, Sandstein. I'm also concerned that the editor was just about to "get it" and a 24-48hr would have sufficed. In regards blocking without warning, my understanding from reading the case was that it was intended to stop socks/meats/infrequent editors, not editors who are continuously editing in good faith. Why else would such a harsh restriction be implemented. It seems like an oversight to enforce a standard when it was meant for something else.

That being said, there have been questions of socks in the area and there is a new editor poking around. I guess just take this as constructive criticism, Sandstein.
 * Then you deserve more criticism than Sandstien, Zero. Are discretionary sanctions meant to both protect and better the project or are they supposed to be punitive? Of course Wikipedia is losing editors when 1 week seems like nothing.Cptnono (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You bring an article in the topic area to GA and then we can talk about what the project "needs", Nomoskedasticity. I didn't do it with Nish, Ashtul, and certainly not you.Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "what"? "something this topic area really doesn't need." Maybe the topic area doesn't need you. Maybe it doesn't need me. It is not up to you decide. You would be surprised that new editors might start off kind of shitty then go on to do good things. It doesn't happen by treating them like scum. So how about you take a break from the topic area while Ashtul is taking a site wide break because I don't think the project or the highly volatile topic area needs you.Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved Zero000
Since Ashtul has done hardly anything except edit-war, I think a 7-day block is light. Zerotalk 06:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ashtul

 * If the sanction is solely for 1RR (and the edits/behavior were otherwise reasonable) then 1 week for the first offense seems excessive. I would suggest reduction to 24/48h (which will probably end up being time served by the time this appeal resolves). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not too familiar (that is, not at all familiar) with AE, but I tend to agree with Gaijin42. Cheers, --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 00:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Ashtul

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


 * Decline appeal. The block was valid so there is no reason to grant an appeal based on that. Given that they've previously edited articles which are under 1RR, including at least one with the edit notice, I don't accept that they were not aware that 1RR was in force as a reason to lessen the block duration as as the duration in this case fits within normal administrator discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noting for those reviewing that I've added the standard 1RR editnotice template to Israeli-occupied territories (previous version from Nov 2010) and Carmel, Har Hebron. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that wasn't blocked for violating 1RR on the same article if we wish to take that into account. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "My revert was 200% justified" completely misses the point. I am also minded to decline the appeal. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett (2)
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Eric Corbett

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 22:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision :

Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.


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


 * 1) January 27 Here Eric Corbett calls another editor "filth", he edited the comment moments later to read "they are filth", which violates the sanction prohibiting him from "insulting and/or belittling other editors".


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) January 25 Eric Corbett was recently blocked for violating his related topic ban. He made the insult soon after his block had expired.


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


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Well, moments later EC clarified by changing "it is" to "they are". Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't canvassing, I didn't know what to do so I brought it there because that admin has dealt with the previous violation. On what grounds do you assert that I "lost" an argument with EC before reporting this? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant, but if you think I am wrong in that thread I would to hear why. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * FTR, I first brought this to 's page, and I brought it here only after he advised me to. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I admit that this was a mistake, but an admin advised me to bring this here instead of their talk page, where I originally broached the topic, and I assumed that such an obviously bad idea would have been discouraged. I'm not trying to throw Sandstein under the bus, but as a user not familiar with these processes I looked to them for guidance. Perhaps my thinking was overly simplistic, but saying that an editor is "filth" is an insult in my book. How was I to understand that the ArbCom restrictions are not to be strictly enforced? I would also assume that an editor who had only moments early gotten off a block for related violations might be scrutinized more closely when breaking the sanctions for a second time in three days. I see now that I was wrong, and that sympathy for EC outweighs the abuse he heaps on others. If it didn't, he would already be banned as 99.99% of any other editors who acted like he does would be.

As far as the meatpuppet/sockpuppet accusations, I call bullshit and lying. Folks here are too quick to accuse others of impropriety when they ought to be making a strong argument against the actual topic at hand. I see this as a lazy way to discredit anyone who rocks the boat, and I think Wikipedia has lost many editors to this tactic. These accusations are personal attacks. Sitush is lying, because I don't edit any message boards, nor do I know anything about the "mailing list". If I was in a secret cabal I'd have my goons review articles I've written, not help me "trick EC into making an attack", and the idea that EC needs goading to make attacks is spurious at best; he has a long history of unprovoked attacks on unsuspecting editors. Nevertheless, I won't be confronting him ever again, which is what I assume is the response of the vast majority of editors who do. They get ganged up on and realize that the anarchy of this place is aggressive and hostile, and each insult is open to debate. I've never filed here before, and I won't ever file here again, but there was no need whatsoever to personally disparage me for making an honest mistake. An obvious insult is obvious, but I had no way of understanding that the ArbCom sanctions are subject to Wikilawering; I thought it was much more absolute, but that was my mistake, and it won't happen again. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

, you claim to have evidence, which might be moot "due to naming issues", so I call that a lie, because there can be no evidence of something I didn't do, and to imply that you have evidence you can't use because it might "out" me is a bold-face lie. This is a bullshit effort to discredit me as a person, that is obvious. You could have easily said that this report should have been closed without action without personally attacking me, but that wouldn't serve the long-term goal of silencing my dissent. You're so close to EC your comments should be disregarded anyway for lack of objectivity. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

, is it at all possible that EC was reported twice in three days because he violated his sanctions twice in three days? And is it really necessary to have a behind-the-scenes conspiracy to goad him? Per Occam's Razor, that's a complicated and unlikely scenario, but if you accuse everyone who stands up to him of conspiracy, people will eventually stop standing up to him, which is suspiciously the exact result you apparently want. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

, why would I report Cassianto here? He is not under any ArbCom restrictions against insulting editors, at least none that I am aware of. And FTR, EC explicitly edited his comment to clarify that he meant to say, "they are indeed filth", so regardless of what this report finds that is an insult and a personal atack, which he is supposedly prohibited from making. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by DeCausa
It's a pity that WP:BOOMERANG doesn't seem to apply to this Board as a block for Rationalobserver for this request, which is at the same time frivolous and vexatious, would be richly deserved. EC was merely "seconding" a widely held view. He followed an admin who had agreed with the view. It wasn't a breach of the spirit of the DS; moreover it wasn't a breach of the letter either: "it was 'filth'" (i.e. using the word it) can only be in reference to the edit not the editor. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO
Eric does not appear to be calling any editor filth...only that he is agreeing that a comment is filth. What is this kindergarten? This needs to be shut down...I would say this complaint is harassment.--MONGO 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This looks like some kind of vendetta. Eric just came off a block...you cannot expect him to be in a cheery mood after all. This was not in article space nor was it disruptive to article improvements. Great latitudes should be permitted on talkpages...and there is always room on usertalks to vent ones frustrations.--MONGO 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by No such user
And how do we sanction editors who inject themselves into disputes that don't concern them in the least, for the apparent reason to only stir trouble and increase the drama? At some point, one of these needs to be sanctioned for a future reference. And this really seems like a fine occasion to exercise a WP:BOOMERANG. Latest actions by Rationalobserver present a WP:CIVILPOV at its lowest. No such user (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cas Liber
My understanding is that gangbanger is as much an American term as it is for other English speakers, which is why I can't accept this comment in good faith. At all. In fact it has a such a startling similarity to this comment by another user (where a user pleads ignorance to a very common idiom), which makes me think there is meatpuppetting or possibly sockpuppeting going on. I think we are all being played. Alot of editors are being goaded and baited I feel.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , can you honestly believe that anyone with any familiarity with English could have interpreted these words ("fucking" literally rather than idiomatically, and "gangbanger") as such? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ..aaaand gangbanger would be one who engages in gangbanging? Hmmm? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent
I'm proud to be an American where least I know I'm free: Gangbang would generally refer to group sex, not necessarily non-consensual. Gangbanger would refer to a member of a gang, not necessarily having to do with rape and/or intercourse. NE Ent 23:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
It seems possible that there is a concerted campaign going on here. Given the present environment, it would be unwise for me to link to evidence that might support that but it does exist on WMF-hosted mailing lists. If any reviewing admin can't see the obvious, they are welcome to email me for an off-wiki diff that is particularly disconcerting because it involves another admin, although whether it involves the complainant is moot due to naming issues. Regardless, this complaint has no merit and is effectively yet another example of the piling-on that has been occurring. Sandstein made a poor decision with the last block, so please don't make things worse and please try harder to see the elephant in the room. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

rather than outright accuse me of being a liar, why not read what I actually said above? ''Possible ... although whether it involves the complainant is moot. Regardless, ...''' - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

 * Cas, related to the G term above, I always hear it used in the street/criminal gangs sense and never related to the sexual activity.
 * It's subtle but "gangbang" is the multi-partner sex and "gangbanger" is the criminal gang and they're not ever connected in use.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Two kinds of pork

 * I'm going to 2nd Cas Liber and Situshs' opinion there is some sort of puppetry involved, most likely off-en-wiki MEAT collaboration. Dollars to doughnuts banned editor Neotarf is involved.  This frivolous (and weak) filing is just the sort of thing she would do.  I doubt Carolmooredc is involved.  Whatever else anyone can say about her, she's not a coward and will have someone do her dirty work for her.  There is no evidence that Lightbreather is involved in this, though she has come after Eric logged out of her account to avoid scrutiny before.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 04:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw
This is patently ridiculous. Seems to me we have a concerted effort to run EC off WP altogether and that sort of baiting needs to stop. Now. Montanabw (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Giano
For Heaven's Sake! We all know perfectly well what a 'Gangbang(er)' is, just as we all know perfectly well what a vexatious stalker is. And as for the "fucking victim" - I recently, following storm damage, referred to my house as 'my fucking house' - does anyone seriously believe that I'm now running a brothel? Has the Arbcom really nothing better to do with its time than waste it discussing this? Giano   (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
Is there anything at all here that relates in any way, shape or form to improving an encyclopedia, or is it just a bunch of grumpy editors wanting to gain their pound of flesh over an editor they don't like? Well, in the real world we have people we don't like too, but we can't simply wish them away with a ban hammer. This should be tossed out and the filing parties warned not to do it again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EChastain
Even if Rationalobserver was not directly influenced by comments made on WMF-hosted mailing lists, I've seen comments there specifically naming Eric Corbett. One links to EC's comments on WER that resulted in his last block, so it's is not "lying" to suggest the possibility of coordinated attacks. The two requests here in as many days regarding him and utilising the same ds sanction may be coincidental. [edited] EChastain (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hafspajen

 * Yes, it is as said. Can't notice much good faith here. Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay
People, would a trip to WP:ARCA? help things out? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Knowledgekid87
Rational made a mistake here and she acknowledged it. I think this should just be closed and we all move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
No good faith here whatsoever. With all respect there's far more important things on the 'pedia than this pointless report, Close it down and move on. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Lightbreather
The series of events, condensed:
 * 14:10, 26 January 2015 Cassianto said on Sandstein's talk page: [LB] is behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget that it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose.
 * 15:02, 26 January 2015 OrangesRyellow replied: LB is a woman. To suggest that she is behaving as if she has been raped is a grotesque PA. You are the one who is baiting.
 * 19:46, 26 January 2015 Cassianto said of OrangesRyellow at ANI: While we're on the subject of incivility, how about throwing this into the mix? This piece of filth needs to be locked up.
 * 23:45, 26 January 2015 Viriditas advised Cassianto, on Cassianto's talk page: FWIW, the rape analogy was a misinterpretation, and I've pointed it out on the talk page of the user who made it. Please come back when you feel calm and relaxed.
 * 04:50, 27 January 2015 Cassianto told Viriditas: go fuck yourself
 * 18:45, 27 January 2015 NE Ent advised Cassianto: [Please] don't call others filth no matter how aggravated you are.
 * 18:47, 27 January 2015 Cassianto replied: They are filth if they liken me to someone who wishes rape upon a female editor.
 * 18:55, 27 January 2015 Eric Corbett agreed: Seconded, they [OrangesRyellow] are indeed "filth".
 * 19:01, 27 January 2015 Rationalobserver reported Eric Corbett's comments (3 - 2 of which (about Lightbreather and Sandstein) preceded the "filth" comment) to Sandstein:
 * 19:37, 27 January 2015 Rationalobserver asked Cassianto, on Cassianto's talk page: Why not just accept that they misinterpreted your comments and consequently misrepresented you (I'm not saying they did that, but it appears to be your perception, which is valid.)
 * 22:06, 27 January 2015 After other editors started arguing with Rationalobserver on Sandstein's talk page, he asked them to move along.
 * 22:11, 27 January 2015 Sandstein advised Rationalobserver: If you think that this is actionable, WP:AE is the venue in which to make any request.
 * 22:39, 27 January 2015 Rationalobserver opened this enforcement request (only mentions "filth" comment):

Cassianto got angry that Eric was blocked and said some pretty nasty things. OrangesRyellow misinterpreted, Cassianto got angrier and called OrangesRyellow "filth." At least two editors ask Cassianto to calm down. Cassianto re-asserted his angry insult; Eric seconded it. Rationalobserver, having already seen two insults by Eric since his block was enacted, reported them plus the "filth" comment to the blocking admin, Sandstein. She also asked Cassianto, on his talk page, to accept that OrangesRyellow had screwed up. Sandstein shut down the argument on his page about Eric's possible violation of his sanctions; Sandstein advised Rationalobserver to take it to AE if she thought it was actionable.

The evidence shows that 1) Cassianto was out of control and doing the baiting. 2) OrangesRyellow took the bait, but it was agreed that he misunderstood what Cassianto had said. 3) Rationalobserver also took the bait. Her only sin was not ignoring Cassianto's continued rampage against Lightbreather, OrangesRyellow, and Sandstein. She tried first to get help from Sandstein, and then she tried to reason with Cassianto. Coming to AE was not her first choice, but others want this to boomerang on her because she came here anyway. Looking at the evidence, yes, Eric did violate sanctions against him, and probably Cassianto ought to have some action taken against him, too, IMO. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Eric Corbett
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * User gets into argument with multiple people including EC at another user's talk page, which does not go well for them. Having lost that argument, they then decide to report EC here for a comment he made four hours earlier which, whilst not the best, was merely agreeing with something said by another editor.  Not content with that, they then decide to canvass the admin who blocked EC a few days ago for a different issue.  Is that a good summary of events?  I for one am unimpressed on a number of counts.  AE is not for petty retribution against someone you've just lost an argument with. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply to OP: Because I am able to read. I've also just read Talk:Enid_Blyton, which is equally unedifying. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Second reply to OP: I don't think it's in any way irrelevant. As Dr.Blofeld points out, you comment whilst EC is blocked, and when he does disengage from you - probably because he is worried about breaching his terms - you claim he's only doing it because he's wrong.  Meanwhile, on Cassianto's talkpage, numerous editors tell you why you're wrong about a number of things, and then - brilliantly - you say about a different editor "but what good would come from giving a stale block now?".  And then you go and report EC here.  As I say, I am deeply unimpressed with this, and it looks like others are too.  Anyway, I will see what other uninvolved admins think. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I am strongly in agreement with what Black Kite has written, above. I further consider that the implications of this are that the original reporter of this "violation" be themselves placed under some restriction (if possible) and any suspected meatpuppetry be quickly investigated. If it is proven, the severest sanctions should be placed on those who, at first sight, seem to be possibly gaming the system to try to run Eric Corbett off wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk)  09:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"They are filth if they liken me to someone who wishes rape upon a female editor. What would you call them, misunderstood? CassiantoTalk 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC) I have to agree with Cass on that. It's worse then trying to play the race card with no basis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Seconded, they are indeed "filth". Eric Corbett 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Thirded. It's hard to imagine a filthier lie. Writegeist (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)"
 * This is, IMO, a petty filing. The context from User:Cassianto's page:

Note the if in Cassianto's original statement, which is implied, if not stated outright, in the agreements that follow. Rationalobserver didn't report Cassianto or the other two who agreed - just Eric. I don't see anything worth sanctioning over. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly people, be less opaque with your statements. There are lots of statements that I read one way (say, critical of EC) which, based on the response it receives or the person it's aimed at, I can only assume is actually the opposite of how I read it. (For what it's worth, I don't see this as in any way worth the 2700 words that have been dedicated to it. Close this an move on.) Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Could someone fix this so that when you click on Eric Corbett (2) in the "Contents" you come to this discussion? Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done - sorry, my error. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

67.163.88.57
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning 67.163.88.57

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 06:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control


 * Diffs of edits relevant to request:
 * 03:35, 29 January 2015 restoring inappropriate section at Talk:Gun show loophole
 * 04:04, 29 January 2015 same
 * 04:07, 29 January 2015 added uw-disruptive2 to my talk

I have named the IP as a formality but this is a request for "other administrative measures...with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions". There is no reason to sanction the named IP.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint:

I do not recall editing or commenting in this area, but I recently noticed a related WP:AE case and commented there (see WP:AE archive).

A few hours ago I responded to a request for editor assistance (diff). The issue concerned a section at Talk:Gun show loophole which can be seen at this permalink.

The issues of desirable talk page usage and whether WP:TPO allows removal of comments are contentious, but particularly given that the topic is under discretionary sanctions, my judgment was that the talk-page section violates WP:TPG which tells us that "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." Accordingly, I removed the section (00:40, 29 January 2015), and removed it a second time after the revert by the IP above.

I ask for an administrator to remove the section from the talk page and follow up if it is restored. It would obviously be fine for someone to write a new section with a paraphrase from the original in order to record any desired on-topic content (although I don't see an actionable proposal for improving the article in the commentary). However, it is not acceptable in this contentious area for a section to address a particular editor whether or not the editor's name appears in the title. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of users mentioned here or in the talk page section:
 * 67.163.88.57 ∙ permalink
 * 63.152.117.19 ∙ diff
 * 172.56.9.123 ∙ permalink
 * Arthur Rubin ∙ diff
 * Darknipples ∙ diff
 * Lightbreather ∙ diff
 * Mike Searson ∙ diff
 * Mudwater ∙ diff

Discussion concerning 67.163.88.57
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Darknipples

 * Comment: As the editor that is directly impacted as a result of this incident, I wish to state that IP 67.163.88.57 did not bother to respond until their "section", from months ago, was removed. This "section" seem to be in conflict with WP:FORUM policies, and IP editor has not made any attempt to resolve the issue, until now (that their comment was removed). See -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGun_show_loophole&diff=644652445&oldid=644652185 -- This section and it's content (being on the talk page I use regularly these days to help improve it's article) makes it more difficult for me to feel like I am a welcomed part of the Wikipedia community. I feel it is intended to make me look foolish, even though I have tried to act in good faith with respect for all its other editors. I have made many inquiries, at the Teahouse and elsewhere, to avoid WP:ARBCOM, but I am still somewhat inexperienced and need guidance. I am grateful for 's actions in this matter. Darknipples (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with that, just keep in mind, I am still a novice. Thank you. Darknipples (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning 67.163.88.57
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * I've hatted the section, given that there was discussion from a number of users I'd rather not remove it outright, but I agree that it's not helpful. I've also blocked the IP for a month as it's an open proxy. I'll leave open for now for discussion in case someone thinks it should be removed completely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved your comment into it's own section as threaded discussion isn't permitted on this page. Is what I've done enough? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I'be quite happy to move it into the archive manually. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll close this in a minute. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For the future, you can just use the name of the article rather than a specific user/IP if the issue is broader (specifically if you want a restriction (like a general 1RR) placed on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Previous comment moved to my personal TP. Darknipples (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by DarknessSavior
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Zeus Kabob (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

= Site ban logged at []
 * Sanction being appealed : Indefinite block


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by DarknessSavior
DarknessSavior was making edits to Kamen Rider improve the translation, then got banned by Guerillero with the stated reason "Looking over your edit history, you appeared after 2 years to edit a gamergate ANI thread and then you proceeded to mess with Ruylong. Ya, no." This seems a clear violation of WP:OWN, with Guerillero enforcing Ryulong's ownership of the Kamen Rider page.

Statement by Guerillero
Neither courcelles nor my blocks were done using discretionary sanctions. Any admin can reverse me if they want to; I do suggest that the cowboy admins watching this think before reversing and maybe even consider starting a discussion on AN. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor Protonk)
No. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by DarknessSavior

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

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

Request concerning Loganmac

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 00:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate


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


 * 1) 13:18, 28 January 2015 Loganmac, on the eve of the decision being posted banning Ryulong goes to a little-trafficked page that had previously been the subject of harassing edit warring by anonymous individuals to revert with the linked demeaning, aggressive edit summary.

Mentioned in final decision - Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):

User was blocked for 24 hours for this behavior as a standard administrative action. This is not enough (it is, however, the most that could be done as a standard administrative action). User should be unilaterally and indefinitely prohibited from interacting with anyone mentioned in the Gamergate Case, if not just shown the door.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

AE was given authority over this action which took place just before the closing of the case per.

Arbiters specifically permitted AE action per my above link. Hipocrite (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1 day is not sufficient because spitting in someones face as they are hopefully trying to exit gracefully really makes the whole departure process harder for everyone. Loganmac won. He got Ryulong kicked off Wikipedia for at least a year (and we all know those 1 year bans always last longer). Nothing is worse than a winner who kicks an opponent when they are down - nothing. Those of us trying to get Ryulong to walk away gracefully are tremendously harmed by the gamergate sleepers and partisans showing up on Japanese toy articles. Nip this in the bud. Hipocrite (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



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

Statement by DHeyward
This seems moot considering the remedy imposed on Ryulong and the block imposed on Loganmac. The block prevented interaction until the case was settled and the site ban on Ryulong prevents interaction for at least a year. Disruption through interaction appears impossible at this point. If I'm not mistaken, the letter of the rules would allow a revert of Ryulong to Loganmacs version though I wouldn't recommend it. --DHeyward (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

An ex-post-facto reading of enforcement would also allow ex-post-facto reading of the site ban. Banned users are subject to being reverted with regard to any other provision. Let's just drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. The Arbcom case is finished. Interaction between the two editors has been solved presently. Loganmac is also unable to comment here. --DHeyward (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@TRPoD, blocking people on the basis of an essay is weak sauce and the edit wasn't under GamerGate sanctions. --DHeyward (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Per Gamaliel, this seems to be a request to increase a block under the auspices of GG. It's clear that Loganmac was baiting Ryulong, but it was outside GamerGate. The reality today is that increasing the block will do nothing to further limit the baiting. Ryulong is banned. Extending Loganmac's block does nothing productive. He can no longer bother a banned editor. Maybe ban him from Ryulong's talk page but there is no reason to believe an extension of a block is anything but punitive. --DHeyward (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ries42
Two notes.

First, how can LoganMac know about discretionary sanctions that hadn't officially taken effect yet, as by your evidence they were informed of them 1/29/15 @ 00:38, when he made that edit @ 1/28/15 @ 13:18. Seems you're jumping the gun.

Second, Hipocrite has a history of being uncivil and battleground mentality in this subject area. He makes mountains out of mole hills. In this case, moving toward getting another editor punished twice (as it appears he was already blocked for this occurrence), despite not procedurally being the best place to take this. That place already ruled. At best this is forum shopping. Bounce this. WP:BOOMERRANG it. Ries42 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You're reading a lot into the arbitrator's comment. Yes, he said to take it to AE and it'll be looked at, but that doesn't mean your intended remedy is appropriate or that action by AE is appropriate. This particular issue has already been acted on. Ries42 (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * IPUser: The situations are very different because of the relative WP experience between Mr Auerbach and the filer here. Ries42 (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom
If Loganmac did not know their edits were deliberately provocative and disruptive, then they obviously lack the WP:COMPETENCE to work in the collaborative environment. Either way the 24 hour block is inappropriately short. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Gamergate community sanctions were fully in effect and the user had been notified of the same. The committee has officially converted the GG community sanctions and so only Wikilawyering would say that is any basis for not acting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * People are blocked for lack of competence all the time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While it does fall out of the technical scope of the sanctions, this would be a clear case of WP:IAR for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Purposeful WP:DICKish disruption in expanding the area of conflict should be addressed. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Arbcoms own rationale for the vague broad inclusion of "gender" in the topic ban description was cited by them as specifically intentional to prevent the spread of disruption (their crystal balls were just ineffective in determining where the disruption would be spreading). --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay
I'm not certain that any Enforcement action can be taken, when remedy wasn't in effect at the time of the reported situation's occurance. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment by GoldenRing
Let's be clear, this was not clever editing by LoganMac. It's hard to think of a clearer example of tendentious editing. However, I don't see what AE can do about it; the scope of the sanction this request is made under is "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. It's hard to see how an obscure Japanese cartoon series falls under GamerGate, gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with either of them.  Do the sanctions extend to every article ever edited by any editor who's ever been involved with GamerGate now?

All in all, a very unattractive piece of grave-dancing, but outside the scope of the quoted sanction. GoldenRing (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by coldacid
Are we saying that pages for which Ryulong acted as owner for are considered covered as per "all broadly construed"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to hinge on 1.1(c) encompassing not just articles on persons involved in GG or gender-related controversies, but also editors involved in those articles, and from there the articles that they camp as well. I'm not sure if that's a valid interpretation. That said, Loganmac really made a bone-headed move with that edit, and perhaps if there was an I-ban put in place between him and Ryulong via GS/GG it could be something actionable here, especially given how baiting that was. That alone is probably cause for further warning him, even if Ryulong is gone. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 03:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe so. He also stated, though, that it's not an AE or community sanctions block. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 03:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG is a bit far considering that one of the arbs even said that Hipocrite should bring this here. The AE request isn't actionable, but it's not worthy of boomeranging either. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 12:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 
Agreed. If we construe the scope of the topic ban in that way, then Arbcom would be forced to endorse the finding of WP:OWN regarding a page/topic that didn't come up in the proceedings until the later stages of bickering over the PD, and certainly had no real evidence presented concerning it. I also rather doubt that there's precedent for this kind of tying-together of topics - certainly not without a finding (which I would have to oppose on principle) that Ryulong is himself a notable figure in the Gamergate controversy.

While the Arb's statement is certainly no guarantee that the case is actionable, it seems to me to be unreasonable to WP:BOOMERANG an action that was explicitly proposed by Arbcom. Reminds me of the nonsense was subjected to, being redirected various places to voice his complaint only to be accused of forum-shopping.

76.69.75.41 (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint
It's just one (or two immediate) edits and Loganmac has already been punished. Think no further action is needed without further provocation from Loganmac upon return. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  05:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Isn't this the same edit User:HJ Mitchell already blocked Loganmac for? To clarify, please let's focus on the issue of why this may or may not be sufficient and not re-litigate Gamergate.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a difficult case in that it seems to be a continuation of a dispute that originated with the Gamergate issue, but doesn't actually fall within the scope of the case. Behaviour like this during the case is likely to have resulted in a site ban. On the other hand, this earned a quick block from HJ Mitchell, and if Loganmac were to return to the same sort of editing post-block, they're likely to be re-blocked. That said, Loganmac isn't the only editor who went from editing Gamergate articles to editing articles that Ryulong had been the primary contributor to. Again, grave-dancing and expanding the conflict to other articles are both looked upon poorly, arbcomm sanctions or not. Guettarda (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As I've said elsewhere, if this is a sign of things to come from Loganmac, he won't last much longer. If it was a one-off lapse of judgement, I think the 24-hour block is sufficient. I don't object to another admin imposing further sanctions if they think it's likely to help in preventing disruption, but the snow is is so fresh on he ground that "wait and see" might be the best approach. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As an entirely personal view: I believe Arbcom sanctions should only apply from the moment the case is closed, unless the Committee specifically authorises retrospective or interim action. This conduct precedes the case close. So what we have is a common or garden disruptive editing with a routine admin action in imposing a 24-hour block. The block seems a bit short, but that's at the discretion of the blocking admin, as it always is. Should the same edit be repeated now, it would need to also be viewed with the subsequent Arbcom findings in mind. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Protonk
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : 24 hour block and 3 month topic ban pursuant to GG sanctions, logged here


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Protonk
Please bear with me through a somewhat indirect appeal, as the justification for my block is so Kafkaesque I cannot diagram the single sentence which provoked it to defend my actions without inviting further sanction. I was blocked under the GG discretionary sanctions for this edit (admins can review the diff). The justification was (near as I can tell) "advocat[ing] ignoring policy" and "repeat[ing] an egregious BLP violation" (diff) while doing so.

The statement that I made is unambiguously true, sourced to multiple reliable sources in the gamergate article, and central to the dispute at hand. Further, the only way to read defamation or denigration from that sentence is to rip words out from the incredibly limited context I provided. I'm not even making the half-assed claim that you have to read that sentence in light of my entire oeuvre or even a whole paragraph in order to gain context--you just have to read the entire sentence. Like I said above, I can't diagram said sentence here, so forgive me an analogy.

We have on Wikipedia an entire article devoted to a scurrilous accusation, one which is obviously provably false. An accusation which not only violates BLP it caused the BLP policy to come into being. In it we state "The article falsely stated that Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy." We recognize that the embedded statement "...Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations..." is a BLP violation. It's a false, unsourced claim about a living person. The encompassing sentence is not a BLP violation because it is a true, sourced claim. It cannot be one regardless of the awfulness of the original claim. There is no transitive property of BLP.

Further, the same basic idea is already present in our current article: "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." Snipping out the meandering clauses we get "...Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post...[alleging]...Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." I'm really struggling here to see the substantive difference between that and what I wrote. If the distinction was that I didn't cite my source, a 3 month topic ban seems a bit harsh.

As for the charge of advocating ignoring policy: fuck that. The interpretation of BLP which I decried in that edit is perverse and nonsensical (see this redaction for a good example, paying close attention to what was and wasn't retracted). If our policy is arbitrary enough that an admin (admittedly one who is pretty intemperate and not very smart) can get topic banned for three months over a single edit for content that is already in a wikipedia article then I have absolutely no regrets in advocating we ignore it. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam
Way out of my depth here I know, but I do want to highlight that HJ Mitchell has been very active in patrolling the page I personally do appreciate it. I think the block here was over-zealous, but no matter what the outcome I hope HJ Mitchell continues to help out in the topic area, and that more admins would join him in doing so. — Strongjam (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken
Which is the operative appeal, this one, or the one at AN? BMK (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * shrug*, but there clearly shouldn't be two. Delete the one there or here. Your choice. AN is listed as an alternate to AE for appeals. Whatevs. jps (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Protonk

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

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

Request concerning Inthefastlane

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles


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


 * 1) 21:19, 29 January 2015‎ Editor reverts another editor to make a controversial claim
 * 2) 23:26, 29 January 2015‎ Reverts another editor to make the same claim
 * 3) 04:49, 30 January 2015‎ Repeats the same edit
 * 4) 19:48, 30 January 2015‎ Further reversion, making the same claim in different words


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 11:47, 29 November 2014 Blocked for 3RR (in another article)


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


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.10:02, 29 July 2014

I am one of the editors who has reverted this editor on the article covered by restrictions. The editor has followed me to another article in which they have previously shown no interest, in a completely different topic area, and has started to edit-war to keep a poor edit by a spamming IP.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Inthefastlane
''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.''

Result concerning Inthefastlane
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * Inthefastlane was notified of the discretionary sanctions last July and has previously been blocked for edit-warring in the same topic area, so is clearly aware of the standards of conduct. This is a pretty clear breach of the 1RR and possibly even a breach of the standard 3RR and is certainly the sort aggressive reverting that the restriction is intended to deal with, so I've blocked Inthefastlane for 72 hours. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Rhoark

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 00:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate :


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


 * 1) 23:02, 30 January 2015 Ignores talk-page consensus, or at least lack of consensus, that calling the essay nothing more than "essay," was in violation of policy. See more comments for evidence of talk page opinions.
 * 2) 23:02, 30 January 2015 Ignores talk-page consensus, or at least lack of consensus, that engaging in novel research to cast doubt on Newsweek's conclusion was in violation of policy. Again, see more comments for evidence of talk page opinions


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * General Sanction notification was upgraded for 1 year to DS notification per Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate part iii.

Rhoark is a single puropose account focused on GamerGate, with a minor amount of near-vandalistic, but certainly pointy editing regarding feminist topics, along with some very minor general edits.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The first of the two major edits described above remove all descriptors from the Ejoni blog post. This is discussed on the talk page at Talk:Gamergate_controversy. Beyond not evidencing any consensus to remove the topic, Rhoark's edit isn't an appropriate bold edit, as it makes no attempt to compromise with those that disagree with him, nor does it offer to revert on request. It is a pure "this is what I want, I ignored the talk page."

The second of the two major edits includes the following language - "The number of game developers and journalists worldwide is significantly larger than seven." This statement is a textbook violation of SYNTH - it is a true statement included only to cast doubt on other statements by implication (As a parallel, imagine if every time we referenced an opinion poll, we said "This poll was conducted by asking 2,800 US Citizens. There are over 300 million people living in America). The count of game developers and journalists is nowhere in the story. Edits similar to this were substantially discussed at Talk:Gamergate_controversy, where there was near unanimous agreement that digging into the piece to discredit the piece was a violation. The edit did so anyway.

I ask that this user be indefinitely topic banned from all topics related to Gamergate and Sexuality, broadly defined. Hipocrite (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing other recent edits by this user, I am struck also by this misrepresentation of sources (explained here).


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Rhoark
''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.''

General statements

 * First of all, I am a relatively new but not a single purpose account. The largest volume of edits I have made have been to Talk:Gamergate; however, this is for this simple reason that any progress in that article requires orders of magnitude more effort and discussion than in another article. Representative edits I have made outside the Gamergate area include:      This is not an exhaustive list of edits I have made with this account outside the area of Gamergate, broadly construed, nor am I able to provide evidence of my constructive editing as an IP user.


 * The accuser has misrepresented the character of my editing in the broader area of feminism. My edits to Microaggression theory were preceded by several editors attempting to introduce the concept of microaggression against males into the article, all of which were rightly rejected on the basis of verifiability or NPOV. My first attempts, linked by my accuser, were also inadequate. What he or she neglected to link was the well sourced and understated claims I provided, effectively ending a long-standing dispute on the page that began well before my registration, nor my present constructive participation in the talk page.


 * My editing within the Gamergate area has been with meticulous attention to Wikipedia policies and project-wide consensus about how to apply those policies. Some might say I have taken this tendency to a fault . However, my tendency to carefully examine policies rather than rely on a surface reading has been appreciated by others . Being able to call to mind the right policy to deal with a dilemma is very helpful when dealing with editors who are prone to "ipse dixit", such as my accuser.

=====Regarding the first contested diff=====
 * Now, for the edits that are central to the accusation. First is the matter of the Newsweek article. As it stands, the way it is cited is totally unacceptable. It is a textbook example of what WP:Cherrypicking warns against. There is essential qualifying information in the article, that when left out of Wikipedia serves to mislead the reader. It does not matter that the source did not consider the information to contradict its thesis - reliability is not infallibility. WP:Cherrypicking is an essay that rests on the foundation of WP:EP which sets out a very primal principle that it is better to have no information than misleading information. It is not original research to include the qualifying information, as it is sourced directly from Newsweek. No synthesizing statement was made, such as directly saying that the qualifying information made Newsweek incorrect. The edit I made enjoys the support of easily a dozen provisions of WP:NOTOR and WP:SYNTHNOT.


 * There has been opposition to my suggestions on the talk page. Objections that no change was necessary or that the change was OR were met with specific policies to the contrary, and those policies were ignored by people who raised the same objections again. I outlined how WP:Cherrypicking and Inaccuracy suggested dealing with the qualifying information and invited people to suggest or endorse ways to handle the incorporation. No one participated. I was not alone in my views, but unfortunately Thargor was drawn away . Gamergate is a battleground article that is a thorn in the project's side, and it is full of people who will simply never compromise under any circumstance, ever. It is not possible to win everyone over. It's not necessary to - consensus is not unanimity or a vote.


 * Consensus was not disregarded, because every objection that was raised helped inform the wording I eventually used. WP:EP made it clear that leaving the status quo was simply not an option. I acted, and do not consider it to be in error.

Regarding the second and miscellaneous diffs

 * The second edit that forms the basis of this accusation concerns the matter of whether or not to describe a particular piece of prose as "rambling". I think a link to the thread would be more informative than a series of diffs. A plurality of editors, including (again) Thargor Orlando, AnsFenrisulfr, Shii, Kaciemonster, and an IP editor concurred that describing the prose in this way was unwarranted. Some others agreed that a change from the status quo was warranted, including my accuser.


 * However, consensus is not a numerical matter, but must look to arguments. The arguments deployed in favor of "rambling" or the status quo more generally were:
 * To ensure the reader was aware of reliable sources' low opinion of the matter. This is addressed by saying the allegations it made were false.
 * To ensure the reader knows it was bad. This is NPOV, and I disregarded it.
 * To characterize the type, seriousness, length, etc. of the prose. In the interest of satisfying these concerns, I settled on the phrase "online essay".
 * It sounds better to have an adjective than not. I used "online".
 * There was a substantial previous discussion about adjectives that settled on "rambling" as not as bad of an NPOV violation as alternatives. Consensus can change, and none of those alternatives were endorsed this time around, so the point is moot.
 * Various opinions to the effect that reliable sources said it, so we have to also. This is not at all in the spirit of WP:RS, and I disregarded it.


 * Rather than ignoring consensus, I crafted a sentence that accounted for all the valid concerns that had been raised. Several hours passed without activity on the thread, and I concluded the most productive step would be to follow BRD conventions.


 * Finally, there is the exchange where my accuser attempts to paint a picture that I am attempting deception, while leaving out the context that it was a misunderstanding.


 * Were the edits I wrote the best of all possible edits? Certainly not, nothing ever is - but they improved the article. An imperfect edit does not preclude further improvement. They did not ignore consensus, rather they incorporated the most salient feedback. This was not an attempt to do an end run around opposition. I expected pushback, and would have valued a invigoration of new arguments that could result. I did not expect an attempt at enforcement. This was not disruptive. There was not a barrage of edits or an edit war, but single edits preceded by hours of discussion. I think it should be abundantly clear this accusation is inappropriate, and that I am here for the purpose of building a better encyclopedia. Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts. Rhoark (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Addendum
I feel it prudent to also mention that I am a feminist. Additionally, if I have in any way incorrectly followed procedure in making these statements, I apologize in advance. It is not an area on which I am knowledgeable. Rhoark (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to comments by user AtomsOrSystems
My editing is goal-oriented and policy-driven. I know that can seem brusque, and I will increase efforts to consider the feelings of other editors. The edit you link that is an unadorned list of policy pages is the most pertinent response I can think of to what was Hypocrite's flat refusal of further good-faith discussion. Such is most of the opposition I face. Since I have been occupied with this enforcement issue, I was not aware of any request to revert. It's moot anyway. Someone else has already reverted the change on the basis of WP:OR. No one has yet identified any way in which what I have done is OR. I expect they never will. They cannot. Everything I said was sourced from Newsweek, and juxtaposition is not OR. People sticking fingers in their ears may be a consensus, but it is not one that ought to be observed. Making a better encyclopedia is what matters most. Thanks for bringing your perspective. Rhoark (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to comments by 192.249.47.186
I sincerely apologize for any distress my edit has caused you. Let us keep in perspective that we are discussing only two edits, of a few sentences each, that are not BLP, did in fact incorporate the trends of consensus, and were performed in the spirit of BRD. Several users have suggested the use of a noticeboard; however, each board has specific expectations on the scope and framing of a request. I did not have a question to pose that seemed to fit, and indeed thought a healthy BRD cycle might expose the right question and framing. What we have had is a very acrimonious and unhealthy response, and assuming I am able, I think a new RfC is needed to address very systemic problems. Finally, regarding feminism, I thought it was an important point to raise given that aspersions have been cast regarding my editing of articles related to feminism. I would hope that it does not become a significant factor in any administrator's decision, but if it does I do not mind detailing the ways in which I consider myself a feminist. Rhoark (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Going dark
I will be unavailable for the purposes of WP for approximately 24 hours beginning from this post, so please don't misinterpret any failure to respond in that period. For the week following I expect to only be active as necessitated by this enforcement matter. (The sustained activity of the past few days is something I cannot ordinarily balance against other responsibilities, another contributor to what may have been undue haste in finalizing due edits.) It has been brought to my attention that my comments may exceed length limits. If so, I ask for forbearance. It doesn't seem possible to respond to the allegations against me with any more brevity. Rhoark (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably final statement
Per Kaciemonster's suggestion, pinging the users I named above.

Having had a day to reflect away from any keyboards, I concur that the pace and volume of my activity at Talk:Gamergate_controversy was problematic. I still hold that the consensus against the Newsweek edit was a consensus against following policy. I still hold that the edit regarding "rambling" was a good-faith application of BRD in a case where consensus was more towards action than inaction. However, in the matter of the Newsweek article the pace of discussion made it difficult for others to participate. It's not a pattern I'm capable of or interested in sustaining. My intention as of this moment is to do the following: Since administrative action is meant to be preventative rather than punitive, none should be required. I am open to trouting. Rhoark (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Make a brief concluding remark at the talk page
 * Not look at the Gamergate article or talk page for the following week
 * Begin an RfC and refrain from further edits in the (narrow) Gamergate area while it is active
 * Thereafter not edit the Gamergate article more than twice in a week, or make more than two passes through the talk page in a day.

I have made my concluding statement on the talk page. starship.paint has made a new proposal, and I'll stand back and see where it goes. Self-imposed GG blackout begins now. Rhoark (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor AtomsOrSystems
As Roark "quoted" me in a diff, I feel it's appropriate for me to comment here.

Beyond "meticulous attention," Rhoark seems to have a tendency to weaponize Wikipedia polica and essays on the talk page, I think shown most clearly here, as well as the diffs linked by both Hipocrite and Retartist above, and possibly others. While it's possible he is making a good-faith effort to hew closely to all established policies and guidelines (and essays), he certainly has a tendency to use them as part of editing combatively on the talk page.

Regarding the two edits, I think the diffs of the edits and discussion on the talk page speak for themselves. In my opinion, they were at the very least non-constructive and done in a combative manner, with no attempts (and overt refusal) to wait for or be guided by consensus. As stated above, the edits seem to go some way beyond "bold," make no offer to revert on request, and indeed, he neglected when a request that he revert was made. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * After some thought, I think it's pertinent for me to add that, in my opinion and based on my admittedly limited interaction with the editor, I am persuaded that they have the encyclopedia's best interest in mind; they simply seem to be going about it in what I consider the wrong way. I think they, and the project, might benefit most by them taking a temporary step back, from the topic area or the encyclopedia in general. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 192.249.47.186
I second Atoms' description, and would like to add that i have several times recommended that rhoark petition the or noticeboard for verification if he feels my arguments are incorrectly applying the or policy. I am appalled that rhoark decided it was appropriate to ignore talk page consensus or any other avenues for mediation before pushing through his desired version of the page.
 * Also, I don't (or rather, am very afraid I do) see rhoark's goal in stating that he is a feminist as part of his statement. Identity should not be part of this discussion, I think.66.87.77.218 (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to Ries42
Ries, we're here to talk about Rhoark's behavior, not anyone else's. I think your post would be better served as a separate request for enforcement against Hipocrite.192.249.47.186 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ries42
I am uninvolved in this particular incident, but not uninvolved in the subject area, or with the filer, Hypocrite. I would like any acting admin to note that Hypocrite has acted in ways that have caused more disruption in the area than his accuser.

Above, on this very page, Hypocrite attempted to institute punitive additional punishment for an editor who was already punished by a 24 hour block. He attempted to make an absurd case against myself where he blew up a minor disagreement and eventually "demanded" I be topic banned. Please feel free to review that case.

I would also point any reviewing admin to the evidence provided in this block appeal against Hypocite for his WP:OWNing of articles previously OWNED by a now banned user. He states that his defense is that he was not solicited "offsite" and he has independent reason for his edits, despite previously never being active in those areas.In fact, he offered on site to a now banned user to keep an eye on articles for him. Although he clearly says the right words so that he skirts the letter of WP:BAN, he is clearly offering to a banned user to act as his proxy. The fact that the above issues mentioned in the above evidence appeal was in one of the specific articles that said banned user asked Hipocrite to keep an eye on...

Hipocrite seems to be a decent editor. He has become too involved in this area though, and is being more disruptive than those he constantly accuses otherwise.

I personally have taken a step back from the page because I felt that I personally was starting to be affected by the atmosphere there. Not the least of which was because of Hipocrite. I have not posted there in several days. I suggest Hipocrite needs to take a break himself. Either voluntarily, or maybe less then voluntarily so. Ries42 (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint
I think two months will be long enough for Rhoark to disengage and reflect on GamerGate, and to edit other subjects as well. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  06:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kaciemonster
From the "Regarding the second and miscellaneous diffs" section: " A plurality of editors, including (again) Thargor Orlando, AnsFenrisulfr, Shii, Kaciemonster, and an IP editor concurred that describing the prose in this way was unwarranted"

I'd just like to mention that this was a misinterpretation of my comment. I think they took me saying "Honestly though, I don't see the big deal with just removing the quote entirely and leaving it as is. We already describe the allegations made by Gjoni and the harassment Quinn faced as a result, I don't think any reader will look at that and not understand that the blog post was an attack on Quinn and her integrity." as agreement, when I meant it to relate to the sentence I wrote directly before it, where I said we should remove the quote and write our own sentence about it, "I think replacing the quote with a sentence describing it is the best option. There are enough sources that describe it in similar ways that I think we can get a good descriptive sentence without relying on a single source's description." I was suggesting we remove the quote from that sentence and leave it as-is, and add on a sentence describing the blog post.

Rhoark, please ping me next time you're going to use me in a discussion, especially if it's about certain points of view that I endorse or don't endorse. Kaciemonster (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth
I post here because Rhoark has continued to advocate for his proposed changes to the page. His edit here seems to be highly problematic, and continuing an issue where he uses policy as a weapon and disregards consensus. His closing words are especially unpromising in regard his continued editing- he writes "Rather than fighting change, editors' attention would be better spent discussing the best wording for the change."

That is, it seems he is not going to stop until he is stopped or he gets what he wants. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Rhoark
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * The two diffs on the Gamergate controversy article and talk page do indicate a failure to follow community norms (ie, waiting for and following a consensus) and the pointy and disruptive edits to Microaggression theory do indicate a problem (however those occurred before the general sanctions notification so the long term consensus/precedent is that we consider it inadmissible). The edits regarding Gamergate indicate that this is a single purpose account and is editing disruptively so I'd advocate a 3 month topic ban from 'Gamergate controversy, broadly construed' and a final warning that any further disruptive edits will result in a broader, longer TBAN or a block. I'm also considering a page ban from Gamergate controversy instead of the topic ban only as I'm not totally convinced that their edits to the talk page have been disruptive in and of themselves, but it's not waiting for and having a supporting consensus which is the problem. Having said that I'm open to changing my mind based on further comments, including Rhoark's statement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that they seem to understand part of what the problem is I'm going to go with a page ban from Gamergate controversy and its talk page for 3 months in the hope that the time away and on other articles will prevent further issues and give them time to develop the necessary skills needed for such as controversial topic. whilst I appreciate your proposals I don't believe that they are enough to prevent further issues, though after the sanctions I'm applying expire I suggest you voluntarily (and unofficially) follow them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * While the edits to the talk page are problematic, I think the sheer volume of posts on the talk page are problematic in and of themselves. The "Cherrypicking" section goes on and on, despite the fact that it's obvious consensus (are they arguing for the addition of editorial comments on the source?) isn't going to be reached. And Rhoark seems unwilling to let it go. On a page like that, such a high volume of posting does seem to be part of the problem (since it drowns out other voices and prolongs arguments). A long topic ban seems appropriate - if, as Rhoark says, they are not an SPA, then an enforced vacation from the GG area will give them time to contribute to other areas (which have got to be more fun to edit). Guettarda (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The war of attrition approach is disruptive, as is the failure to wait for (or disregarding of) consensus especially on such a contentious subject, and the addition of original research and editorialising suggests that Rhoark's attitude is one of "my way or the highway". It is perfectly legitimate to discuss the reliance on a particular source, the context in which information from it is used, and whether the information is presented with sufficient qualification, but to continue asking until you get the answer you want, and then to make the edit anyway, is not the way Wikipedians should be doing business. Similarly, as with the adjectives around the essay, it is legitimate to discuss the way the essay is framed in the article, but the talk page seems fairly clear that its notability is not that an ex-boyfriend wrote an essay, but rather the length and nature of the essay. Narrower sanctions, such as a ban from the main article and its talk page or on making multiple edits to the same thread, might work but I don't oppose the proposed topic ban. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ubikwit
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – -- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Per this Arbitration case, this discussion and your previous warning, I am invoking discretionary sanctions and topic banning you from editing any articles (and their associated talk pages) relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, with immediate effect. Note that any violation of this ban may result in an immediate block from any administrator with no further warning given, as this notice has already explained the sanctions you are subject to and served as sufficient notice. This ban has no expiry, although this ban may be revisited by the community at a later date.
 * Sanction being appealed :


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

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


 * I think that the comments added by below are illustrative of editing in a contentious area.
 * First, it should be pointed out that the editor is a new account with a fairly high degree of familiarity with WP policy.
 * Second, casts aspersions on the Talk page and here, where he refers to anti-semitism, apparently linking that to his accusation that I "restored a citation of an attack site". A search of RS/N appears to reveal that the site is not an attack site, but a reliable source falling under news organizations, as I've commented on the relevant Talk page thread of the Kagan article.  has attempted to dismiss RS documenting connections to the Project for the New American Century and the The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), reference to which has been completely removed from the article, despite numerous RS readily accessible, online, such as this. In fact, this series of edits sees a plurality of passages that appear to be adequately sourced being removed.
 * I spoke about being trolled, and the conduct of User Is a would seem to typify aspects of that type of behavior. It is not pleasant, but I have learned to respond in a more cool, calm, and collected manner.-- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 01:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The plot thickens, it turns out that there was a subplot to the subterfuge at the Kagan Talk page regarding the editor with the tricky Wikiname  "is a", with this source being purported "attack site", which is on a website hosted by Institute for Policy Studies, to which he was indirectly referring to using the acronym "IPS" (there is no actual mention of that organization or its acronym in the multiple passages he deleted), while also deleting the text sourced to an article from the news organization "IPS" (the only direct reference to "IPS" on the page). The so-called "attack site" piece is a profile that would probably be categorized as a tertiary source, with 24 citations, including many to pieces in the NYT and WP. I don't have time to read the piece itself but would assume it has a liberal POV. I've inquired whether the editor might have a COI regarding the Kagan and Nuland articles. -- <font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 03:34, 05:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this trolling? Harassment? It's certainly not engaging in the discussion at hand in that thread, rather, trying to prevent the discussion from progressing in a manner such as to evaluate the sourcing questions at issue. The editor also linked to their post here in that post on BLP/N.
 * Note that the edit summary is to the IP rant in which that diff occurs, which has been hatted as trolling.-- <font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the recommended course of action to stop this type of continual disruption/harassment LaRouche thread aimed at me. has gone from making oblique accusations of anti-semitism to making a not so subtle representation attempting to link me with LaRouche.-- <font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 18:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to request that the appeal be decided in my favor and closed, with or without a limitation on the scope of articles.
 * The behavior that I consider to be trolling by is on the verge of becoming a conduct dispute, and I believe that the delaying of a decision of the appeal has emboldened him.-- <font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit 連絡<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑 14:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Statement by is not a
Since 8 months ago, 's edits on Robert Kagan seem to violate WP:BLP and other guidelines:
 * Ubikwit reinserted a meandering discussion of (Jewish philosopher) Leo Strauss, despite 's warnings about WP:BLP (, again despite,  despite ) although finally he did respect the BLP-based consensus  I am happy to report.
 * Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan  despite 's warnings   and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling .  Related edits on the talk page of Kagan follow:
 * On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" and linking to this anti-semitic website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek . A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by , who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."
 * Today Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site, calling Kagan a rightwing militarist.

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

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

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

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

Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban (and linked to an anti-semitic site), among other policies. is a 21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Blaming a cabal of American Jews for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the words mean anything.  is a 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC) : has similarly complained about the problem of this Ubikwit's citing weak sources on neoconservatism that allege that "a conspiracy of Jews took control of U.S. foreign policy so that its sole focus became the security and welfare of Israel", which is precisely why Ubikwit's campaign to label living persons as neoconservatives violates his topic ban (as well as numerous policies). is a 20:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Blaming a cabal of American Jews for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the words mean anything.  is a 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC) : has similarly complained about the problem of this Ubikwit's citing weak sources on neoconservatism that allege that "a conspiracy of Jews took control of U.S. foreign policy so that its sole focus became the security and welfare of Israel", which is precisely why Ubikwit's campaign to label living persons as neoconservatives violates his topic ban (as well as numerous policies). is a 20:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Ubikwit

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

Note for the sake of completeness: The topic ban (and interaction ban) were imposed 3 January 2013 in this edit by Deskana. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No blocks within 2014 is promising. Would you say that you got into any editorial disputes since your last block? If so, could you please link to and describe them? Thanks, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The required notification of the sanctioning admin is still lacking.  Sandstein   22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I figured it out. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to hear from the sanctioning admin, but this looks reasonably promising. The sanction was imposed a long time ago, Ubikwit recognises the error of their ways and states that they've changed their approach, they've been active in other topic areas, and they haven't been sanctioned recently. Certainly on the surface this ticks all the boxes that we look at when deciding appeals, but I haven't yet done a deeper review of their recent contributions. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about having a relatively narrow range of articles to edit in the ARBPIA topic area for a few months, after which we could re-evaluate with a view to lifting the topic ban if you don't get in to trouble during that time? I'm keen to give some leeway because I don't like the idea that topic bans are forever, especially if the sanctioned editor abides by the ban and edits productively elsewhere, but I have to agree with Deskana that your opening statement doesn't fill me with hope. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the other user with whom Ubikwit was clashing has stopped editing I'd be inclined to hear this appeal further. It is disappointing (as Deskana) points out that their statement focuses on blaming other people rather than taking responsibility however I can see past that. It like HJ's idea, something like giving us some articles they wish to edit and after a few months coming back here to decide whether to lift it outright or not. Given edit warring was a concern another possibility would be to replace the TBAN with 1RR and see how that goes. I'm not convinced which of these options I prefer at the moment, going to consider it for a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel-Palestine articles are under a blanket 1RR, so an editor-specific 1RR would be redundant. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I got the I and the P round the wrong way.
 * Having thought about this some more I'm moving towards thinking that we should just lift the TBAN completely (especially given it's been 2 years with no major issues) but make it clear that there will likely be a fairly low bar to placing it again if need be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Despite continuing to edit in contentious areas, Ubikwit seems to have avoided trouble over the last year, and appears to have gotten better at staying cool in heated debates. Since I don't see any barrier to re-imposing it should things to awry, I'm in favour of lifting the topic ban. Guettarda (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd still be happier if Ubikwit started off with a few articles or a relatively narrow subtopic so that we could evaluate how they get on there for a few weeks and then lift the ban completely if there were no issues, but in a choice between absolute acceptance or absolute rejection of the appeal, I'm more incline towards acceptance. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not too difficult to TBAN them very quickly again if any undesired behaviour occurs, and if we do allow a small subtopic it's completely likely that it won't be enough to see whether the type of behaviour which will characterise their edits to the broader topic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't believe those edits violated the ban. The ban was from the Arab-Israeli conflict, and precedent at this board is that that doesn't include edits about either Israel or Palestine/Arabia unless explicitly stated, only the conflict between them. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)