Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive164

Theobald Tiger

Theobald Tiger warned as an AE action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Theobald Tiger

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Theobald Tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide#Discretionary_sanctions_.28January_2015.29 :

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

30 January 2015 Personal attack in edit summary, mass revert without discussion
30 January 2015 Mass revert, disregarding active talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
30 January 2015 Personal attacks
30 January 2015 Mass revert of multiple edits, disregarding active talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
29 January 2015 BLP violations on article talk page
29 January 2015 personal attack
29 January 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
29 January 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
4 February 2015 personal attacks, including "You know nothing of NRMs and cults, you do not even know what primary sources really are, your objections to encyclopedic content are based upon prejudice and self-interest. Your means are wikilawyering, taking the moral high ground, lying, insinuating and denying the obvious."
4 February 2015 another accusation of COI
4 February 2015 personal attacks, accusation of "bullying"
5 February 2015 accusations of deception, COI, smearing, etc, immediately after being warned to comment on content not contributors (and with a link to WP:NPA).
8 February 2015 Bulk insert of unsourced material into a BLP, removal of sourced material
9 February 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussion, edit warring, inclusion of unsourced material in a BLP
9 February 2015 edit warring, inclusion of unsourced material in a BLP, removal of sourced content
9 February 2015 edit warring on BLP

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 23 January 2015.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 9 January 2015.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor was significantly involved with the Landmark Worldwide topic on nl-wiki. There was some kind of block put in place (block log), and I am unclear what the circumstance of that is. It appears that the nl-wiki block has been lifted. Upon arrival here, the editor displayed in-depth experience with the Landmark subject,[1] and appears to have a strong POV (evidenced in the diffs above).

@Astynax: 1) Yes, I am aware of DS. That is why I came here to ask for enforcement of DS. 2) I don't see anything at the ANI link you provided that makes any sense of what you are saying. I made a single comment in that discussion, effectively asking that editors stop fighting over POV. Obviously that did not happen. 3) Multiple reverts to the article are not justified when there is dispute and discussion underway. There was no consensus for the material and yet it was reinserted into the article multiple times. 4) I'm not sure if you are saying that I have been intransigently unilaterally reverting, blanking, hectoring, or entangling. If you are, please stop and use the appropriate mechanisms (such as an enforcement request) to report such behaviour. I obviously disagree and I welcome any and all examination of my editing. Tgeairn (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As three different editors have all responded to the mention above of blocks on nl-wiki and the linking to the relevant block log, it was and is my understanding that the proper form for filing a request here includes linking previous actions taken. As these actions were not on en, but were recent (the most recent three blocks were within the last six months, the prior blocks are much older) I listed them as an additional comment rather than as a recent or current sanction. I also requested and received a review of the form of my filing from a clerk, who said it was correct form. If including the log from .nl was incorrect, I request that a clerk strike my relevant comment(s) or alert me. Tgeairn (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat surprised that the unfounded accusations and occasional outright attacks continue. It seems unlikely that I need to address all of the uninvolved parties accusations, but I will attempt to do so.

Theobald Tiger's statement simply demonstrates their behaviour and contains little that is factual.

1. Despite repeated accusations, at no time has the matter been taken to COIN, and Arbcom did not include such a finding in any proposal after reviewing the presented evidence.

The nomination of Margit Warburg for deletion is one of dozens of similar articles nominated over that past months, the majority of which have been determined to be non-notable and closed as deletes. I was not even aware that Astynax had created the article until TW showed who the notification was sent to.

I have explained my deletions and removals extensively at the Arbcom case, and the committee had no findings regarding any of the evidence presented there. That it is still being cast as somehow negative is an issue, but it is not my issue.

None of what TT wrote in his item #1 addresses that he reverted my edit to List of new religious movement and cult researchers with the edit summary of "Tgeairn is simply not knowledgeable enough to blank this kind of information - moreover it is a form of POV pushing." The revert was uncalled for (and exactly what Arbcom has asked us to stop doing on these articles), but the edit summary contains at least two attacks and is unaddressed by TT's statement.

2. I reverted the re-addition of a very large (over 50% of the readable copy of the article) block of text. The copy in question was BOLDly added by Astynax, then it was removed. TT reverted the removal rather than discuss (again, one of the things Arbcom specifically warned not to do), and by that time there were multiple discussions open on the talk page and at RSN. TT's edit summary is not relevant, as there was no consensus for adding the material in the first place.

Regarding consensus for this material, the entire block of text was added as an apparent end-run around a RfM that closed as no consensus and then editors began merging Erhard and WE&A material here anyway.

3. TT may not think so, but I view telling me that I have not read a source (that I quote extensively and provide links to in that thread and elsewhere) and that I "have not the faintest idea of what primary source actually means" to be a personal attack.
4. In this case, TT reverted hours of work where I made single edits clearly describing the reasoning for each edit. TT reverted my work saying "no consensus", when in fact the talk pages clearly demonstrate that there is no consensus for having the material there to begin with.
5. BLP applies, even on talk pages. Making unsourced statements is an issue, and I raised it. By itself, it's probably not a sanctionable offense. As a part of a pattern of behaviour, it is relevant.
6. Again, "It is crystal clear that Tgeairn has not read the Lockwood article" is an attack at this point.
7. TT's own edit summary is clear that editors at the talk page do not support the inclusion of the material TT is reverting into the article.
8. TT's own edit summary is clear that there is a dispute over this material on the talk page, and TT is reverting it into the article anyway.

Legacypac's statement is misleading in two out of three points.

1. The edit history of the article clearly shows actual edit summaries and incremental improvement of the article and its sourcing. Each edit was researched and performed deliberately.
2. Legacypac filed that SPI, and at this point it has not been reviewed. Legacypac's own statement indicates that they filed the SPI due to their opinion of conduct on the LW article, which is a rather odd reason to file an SPI unless the intent is to chill participation.
3. Further review of the discussion linked by Astynax and the discussion linked from there indicate that TT's block at nl-wiki is unrelated to the Landmark article there. That discussion did not address the multiple blocks for personal attacks at nl-wiki. As explained above, I linked the nl-wiki block log because I thought (and still do) that the filing required notice of previous actions.

Cathar66's statement is difficult to address, and will likely be the foundation of a follow-up enforcement request on this board. It contains a number of attacks, unfounded assertions, and strays away from either my or TT's behaviour fairly extensively. I expect that reviewing admins will see that there's a string of misinformation there. Seriously, I'm somehow "caught" because I used the expand citations tool weeks after an IP added an incomplete citation?

The failed outing attempt certainly doesn't help Cathar's credibility either.

Thank you to the admins and arbs for your attention. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from archive --Tgeairn (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Preventing archive. Tgeairn (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: When making your final determination, you may want to take into account Theobald Tiger's recent block revert of disputed material about Werner Erhard into the Landmark Worldwide article, less than 48 hours after taking a seven day self-imposed break from the Erhard BIO article to avoid a 3RR block.[2] No edit summary given, and "It is increasingly clear that you are mistaken" left on talk page. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

31 January 2015

Discussion concerning Theobald Tiger

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 Theobald Tiger

I will comment briefly on the difflinks provided by Tgeairn:

Ad 1. Tgeairn is, in my view, a contributor with a clear COI who tries to keep Landmark Worldwide free from encyclopedic content by all possible means. Tgeairn is sometimes reasonable, mostly frankly unreasonable, often intimidating, always taking the moral high ground. Tgeairn has also violated WP:Point by nominating Margit Warburg for deletion, an article started by Astynax with whom he happens to have an argument on Talk:Landmark Worldwide, and by deleting whatever he/she comes across that has something to do with the sociology of (alternative pseudo-)religious movements (like Landmark). Therefore I reverted his blanking with an edit summary that seems to me appropriate.
Ad 2. The discussion on the talk page did by no means support the blanking of the new history paragraph. Therefore I reverted Tgeairn's blanking, with an edit summary that seems to me appropriate.
Ad 3. This is no personal attack at all. My conclusions might have been unpleasant to Tgeairn, but they seem to me well-founded and even inescapable.
Ad 4. See Ad 2.
Ad 5. This allegation of a violation of WP:BLP seems to me not only far-fetched but wrong. Tgeairn had objected to some article text on the topic of Werner Erhard's lack of education. I replied by saying that such information is to be expected in cases like this, because (as I said) "Erhard is in large part an autodidact and a dreamer". This remark does, as far as I can see, no harm to Erhard's reputation. Moreover, it is well-founded (autodidact, Erhard is frequently called a 'visionary', having had a decisive 'vision' on the Golden Gate Bridge), and it was a remark on the talk page, not in the article.
Ad 6. I recommend to read the complete Reliable Sources Request. This request, done by Tgeairn, is plainly absurd. I have answered it to my abilities.
Ad 7. Revert of unmotivated blanking with an edit summary that seems to me appropriate.
Ad 8. See Ad 7.

A topic ban for Tgeairn seems to me indicated. My blocklog on nl.wiki has absolutely nothing to do with Landmark as two admins on nl.wiki (Josq & CaAl) and a Dutch speaking admin on en.wiki (Drmies) have attested. I wish the Arbitration Committee wisdom and understanding when investigating the case and passing judgment on our actions. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS Tgeairn pulls an angelic face confronted with criticism of having mentioned my blocklog on nl.wiki, but the way he/she did it - "There was some kind of block put in place (block log), and I am unclear what the circumstance of that is" - is outright insinuating, offensive and malicious. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for a conflict of interest on the part of Tgeairn is overwhelming, both onwiki and offwiki. Asked if there is a COI, Tgeairn's has persistently answered in an evasive manner. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The treatments I have received since I have done some contributions to the Landmark related articles is really unbelievable. As the uncivilised idiot I happen to be, I prefer to be banned indefinitely from this miserable project. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Astynax

Tgeairn was also explicitly made aware of discretionary sanctions[3] and hopefully admins will take his own activity into account. Tgeairn is almost certainly aware (as he commented here, where it was a notable part of the discussion) that the calumny recently raised at ARCA[4] regarding Theobald Tiger's participation on nl.wikipedia has no more merit or relevance here than it did a week ago. Nor were Theobald Tiger's reverts unjustified, as they merely restored massive and incremental blanking reverts of referenced material. Tgeairn himself participated in the blanking of this material. Arbcom invited new eyes to the article, yet those who have arrived (Manul, Cathar66, Legacypac, IronGargoyle, in addition to Theobald Tiger) have been subjected to the same intransigent reversion/blanking and talk page hectoring (including unilateral reversion, citing an invalid rationale, of a Move survey by a non-involved editor[5][6]) behavior by Landmark advocates which I attempted to describe in the original arbcom case. This is also not the first attempt to entangle fresh eyes who have come to the article in WP:DR processes, which is itself very off-putting. • Astynax ^talk 19:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dave Apter's assertions: As was pointed out on the article's talk, there were no BLP violations (material accurately reflected the references, it was noted in the text that tax fraud charges were eventually dropped, and the text intimated nothing illegal regarding the "Hunger Project" fiasco). Even were one to suspect such BLP violations, that would have not in any case justified the summary blanking by MLKLewis of an entire section of fully-cited material or the similar incremental blanking by Tgeairn. Nor is complaining about the length of a History section by Dave Apter as WP:UNDUE a valid reason for blanking, most especially in an article where other sections have yet to be fleshed out. Admins will also note that Dave Apter has a self-declared CoI with regard to this topic, even though he disputes and has been warned about this by admins and others repeatedly. The accusation of tag-teaming is ridiculous; as far as I know, there has been absolutely no coordination among editors Dave Apter has accused of tag-teaming. • Astynax ^talk 19:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legacypac

1. BOOMARANG this - the edit history on Landmark Worldwide shows the tactics clearly of systematically deleting material. 2. The Editor who filed this unfounded complaint is the subject of an active Sockpuppet investigation [7] over conduct on this article. Let's see where that goes before taking this too seriously. 3. It was well established that th nl-wiki block was nothing to do with this issue. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What DaveApter calls disingenuous and Tgeairn calls a bad faith attack while disparaging my edit history is actually a legitimate use of SPI to find out which editor is hiding behind an IP to edit war on the article. I filed the SPI before this Request for Enforcement was filed and I signed the SPI so I'm hardly hiding my actions. User:Tgeairn is even asking for sanctions against me for filing the SPI while not even denying he used an IP to edit war. Sanctions are needed here, but against Tgeairn. Legacypac (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DaveApter

It seems disingenuous for Legacypac to point out that Tgeairn is the subject of "an active sockpuppet investigation" without making it clear that he himself was the editor who requested that investigation. I can't help wondering what prompted it, as the reasons seem no more than conjecture. Rather than attempting to introduce distractions to this Enforcement Request by making counter-accusations, perhaps a specific request, with evidence, should be made here if Legacypac thinks this is called for.

I should have hoped that the conclusion of the recent Arbcom Case with no findings or sanctions passed against Tgeairn would have put an end to the continued accusations being levelled against him, but if anything the intensity of the attacks has increased. DaveApter (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further responses to comments by Cathar66

The comments from Cathar66 below seem to be the latest attempt to draw attention away from the substantive points of this request by casting aspersions on the messenger.

Cathar66's principal contribution to the Landmark article has been to re-introduce the majority of a highly contentious mass edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=645233779&oldid=645085794

This sequence started with the replacement of the 'History' section of the article with an overblown bulk edit by Astynax on 29th January which was about as big as the whole of the rest of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644672518&oldid=644672217

This was (quite rightly IMHO) reverted by MLKLewis on the grounds that it violated BLP by accusing a living person of tax fraud and of embezzling charitable funds, without adequate evidence. There are also other grounds for objecting to the material – including the fact that it is undue weight, and that it is largely irrelevant to the subject of the article, dealing mostly with events long before the corporation was formed.
Without engaging with discussions on the talk page, a tag-team edit war was undertaken to keep this material in:
Theobald Tiger on 30th Jan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644768203&oldid=644741559
and again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644824862&oldid=644819594
Astynax later on 30th Jan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644878221&oldid=644877732
IronGargoyle on 30th Jan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644880836&oldid=644880331
Legacypac on 30th Jan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Worldwide&diff=644884569&oldid=644882151
and culminating with the partial re-insertion by Cathar66 above.

I have also followed the links alleging 'forum shopping' and cannot find anything contentious, nor any “less than truthful comments” by Tgeairn, or even any mention of Cathar66.

The combined effect of all these attacks is beginning to look like a classic instance of a WP:POV railroad intended to undermine the credibility of Tgeairn rather than to address the merits of his arguments. DaveApter (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Astyanx

Once again the unjustified accusation that I have a COI on this topic is dragged out as a red herring to distract from the issues. Let's stick to considering the evidence that has been presented here. For anyone who cares, I specifically requested that the Arbitrators give a ruling on my alleged Conflict of Interest (as did John Carter, rather more persistently and aggressively), and their comment was “I did not include Apter in proposed sanctions because I didn't think the evidence presented warranted it.” [8] This should be the end of the matter unless anyone can present some compelling evidence.
My reference to 'tag-team' was not intended to imply active collusion (about which I could not possibly know), but merely the fact of six block-reversions of the same contentious material in a single day by a group of like-minded editors operating in turn, without significantly engaging in talk page discussions.
This page is not the place for discussions of the merits or otherwise of Astynax's material; the issue here is editor behaviour. DaveApter (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

As someone who has never edit the article, and frankly has little interest in the topic, a look at this filing and the article talk page shows dubious behavior all around. (Note that some of the diffs entered by the plaintiff are very borderline, including the so-called "personal attacks.") I conclude that the only way we're going to get a neutral, well-written article is if new editors come in. For that to happen will require admins to ~~knock a few heads together~~ put the current warriors on a very short leash enforced by liberal use of blocks and/or topic bans. Without this few neutral, outside editors will want to dance into the minefield. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cathar66

I visited the Landmark article for the first time on 18 January 2015. Having read the article I edited out 2 pieces within which were not reliable sourced. Tgeairn wrote a note on my talk page wondering why I thought that the Irish Daily Mail and Mayfair (magazine) are not RS.( an unusual question from an editor I now know to have made over 40k edits) I replied that a tabloid newspaper and a soft porn mag are definitely not RS. I understand Theobald Tiger's frustration as this editor purports elsewhere to be an expert on RS. This actually made me interested in Landmark and I the read the talk page reread the article and did a sourced (NYT} 3 word edit which caused a furore on the talk page - I let the other editors get on with it while I familiarised myself more with the subject. I am not afraid of editing but the hostility on the talk page was unreal. How are new editors supposed to get involved with the talk page behaviour of Tgeairn. The wrong editor is before this ANI People in glass houses should not throw stones.

I have looked at the difs cited in the complaint. I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris that the behaviour is borderline in some of the edits but justified by Theobald Tiger in others.

I would also like to comment about forum shopping by Tgeairn who has commented less than truthfully directly and indirectly on me at AN, JzG and also at Drmies and hope that my replies on the first and last of those pages are educational for him .Cathar66 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dave Apter's assertions

Your selected difs are mischievous. The first dif you used was totally justified because of Tgeairn removal of content which was reliably sourced. Tgeairn then reverted it without sufficient reason [9] Theobald Tiger correctly reverted this with an explicit explanation.The next interjection was by a now banned IP who blanked the section noting (Remove slanderous accusations). Instead of reverting this as any reasonable editor would do he edited other sections removing a sourced reference [10]then removed another source with a misleading edit summary [11] and others until ashyntax reverted to the last stable version before the ip reversion which the banned ip 173.161.39.97 then reverted using a bs reason (Removing these attacks. Stop placing untrue stories here.) IronGargoyle correctly reverted this vandalism. The banned ip reverted again for another bs reason and Legacypac correctly reverted this. I read the section that was being edit warred and tried to put it in more NPOV language. Tgeairn ridiculed this on the talk page obviously not understanding my intent despite the edit summaries stating starting abbreviated text - more neutrally worded. The IP as a sock puppet or one of a banned editor I don't know. I do know that another ip 23.25.38.121 [12]may be a sock puppet for Tgeairn as the language used in an anally retentive style is similar to Tgeairn. This ,and other edits by this IP, I will raise this at sock puppet investigations (as soon as I figure out how). (The Irish Mail on Sunday article is only referenced online in Wiki sourced sites and Landmark related PR sites. The Irish daily Mail is not available online as it is a regional version of the UK Daily Mail. (more info) It was originally added to the page by the same US based Comcast IP at 12 July 2012 [13] so this IP is connected to Landmark internal sources. At 23:04, 21 August 2012 Citation bot fixed the citation on this reference with the reference Misc citation tidying. | Tgeairn when this section and others was deleted DaveApter restored it on 10 September 2012 [14] when this was then deleted Tgeairn restored it.

Finally I'm rusty and not particularly familiar with BOOMERANG and believe a topic ban for this and all NRM articles is appropriate for Tgeairn. Like the Spanish Inquisition in Monty Python I have yet one more comment (maybe two) to add Dave Apter your COI is obvious and the “I did not include Apter in proposed sanctions because I didn't think the evidence presented warranted it.” reflects on the quality of the evidence presented and not on your COI behavior. I will review the evidence and eventually present sufficient cause for an enforcement. It's ~~Friday~~ oops Tuesday night / Wednesday morning and I've enjoyed my hot whiskeys but not enjoyed having to do this. Goodnight Cathar66 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Tgeairn, for the content that was removed, but as you appear to be the expert on reliable sources why would you fix an unlinked citation from a newspaper that has a tiny circulation in Ireland and is not available online and only available online through Landmark PR? I find that odd.Cathar66 (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Theobald Tiger

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

I haven't had a chance to have a look through the evidence here yet, just commenting to prevent archiving for now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, having looked at the evidence submitted against Theobald Tiger I believe that there is evidence on wrong doing, specifically incivility and personal attacks (1st sentence, [15], [16], "It is crystal clear...", [17]), edit warring to make a point ([18]), and edit warring generally [19], [20], [21], [22]). I'm considering whether to go with a final warning or a three month topic ban, though I have to say that this edit is pushing me towards a TBAN. If editors believe that there is enough evidence to sustain an AE request regarding Tgeairn could you please submit a separate request, given the size of this request and the amount which has been submitted it's difficult to determine whether action needs to be taken. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me like they seriously need to watch their tone in discussions, but there's no evidence of disruption in the mainspace. A topic ban seems a bit an over-reaction to say this is the first enforcement request that has been brought against them. A final warning would suffice in my opinion, and if the disruption continues there can be no arguing that they were unaware of the standards of conduct and a topic ban would be perfectly reasonable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine with me, I'll close it in 24 hours or so if there are no other concerns raised. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steeletrap

No action taken; no compelling case for disruption. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Steeletrap

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Steeletrap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#May 2014 (BLP discretionary sanctions)

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

February 8, 2015 Reverted wording and changed the meaning of the phrase
February 8, 2015 Defied the RfC closing of admin Nyttend after he pointed out the fundamental noncompliance of NPOV, and she adding back the term conspiracy theory
February 8, 2015 Went even further in noncompliance of NPOV by adding more contentious material to the BLP
February 8, 2015 Went into the body of the article and reverted the wording to change the meaning of the phrase
February 8, 2015 Reverted another editor's correction of BLP violations and again brought back the noncompliant contentious material

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[December 30, 2014]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#May 2014 (BLP discretionary sanctions) If I read the information properly, Steeletrap just completed a 3 week TB, and went right back to editing with no regard for DS, the recent RfC results, or policy compliance.

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is my first AE, and I apologize in advance for any technical errors I may have made completing this form.

[23] added information re: Steeletrap's behavior since return;

Specifico's claims against me for edit warring are false but expected. He is quite defensive of Steeletrap as evidenced at ongoing SPI [24]. A close review of the diffs at the 3RR initiated by Jytdog will confirm. My edits were measured to comply with NPOV, some were clean-ups of my own prose, citations, and redundancies as demonstrated in diffs below. When done, I removed the NPOV template because I felt the NPOV problems were resolved with my edits. What we're seeing now is, as one editor put it, "a collection of attackers." They do not want the Griffin BLP to be expanded, and insist on stating the contentious material in Wiki voice despite policy that is contrary.

Jytdog is not acting in GF. He has been WP:SQS since December 10, 2014 as the article TP will show. He is also WP:Forumshopping at AN, [25] When he didn't get a response, he added more sections and questions ad nauseam.

[26] Nyttend clearly explained to Jytdog on his TP - the strong point of the "no" was its clear point that "conspiracy theorist", as generally used in contemporary English, is a fundamentally non-neutral way of describing someone. If it's not neutral to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, it's likewise not neutral to call his ideas conspiracy theories. Let me be clear: the core policy is neutrality, and your words make me think that you're attempting to wikilawyer in order to undermine that core policy and make him look bad.
Diff and edit summary shows what I did to bring policy compliance: [27] (Expand lead, modify for compliance with NPOV per RfC close, include inline text attribution to contentious material per BLP policy)
[28] Jytdog reverted me with a faux summary, I reverted Jytdog once
[29] Steeletrap reverted me with a faux summary
I have participated in discussions on the TP for two months, made proposals before and after my edits - all of my edits were reverted and criticized by Jytdog and team exercising bad faith;

[30] <-- Proposal
[31] <--Proposal
[32] <--Explained expansion and NPOV corrections
[33] <--Summary of Jytdog's disruptive behavior

Arthur Rubin reverted my edit that removed NPOV tag saying, "not a chance; the lead is now much too long, but still severely biased." - showing total disregard for the RfC and closer. [34] Atsme☯^Consult 05:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Arthur Rubin's statements below, it should be rather evident that the goal in attacking me is to divert attention away from the disruptive editing of Steeletrap and those who have demonstrated quite clearly their primary purpose is to maintain Griffin's BLP as a WP:Attack page or WP:Coatrack. How many times must an editor be brought under DS before their actions are taken seriously? Atsme☯^Consult 20:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add-on to clarify that my edits conformed to WP:PROFRINGE, WP:BLP#Balance per my interpretation of policy. Steeletrap and other editors who have included or support fundamentally noncompliant contentious statements in order to maintain SQ are doing so by making blanket statements in Wiki voice sourced by partisan and questionable sources cited without inline text attribution. I make note of this because it is a behavioral issue - they have been advised - therefore it appears to be purposeful tendentious editing and dismissal of policy. I invited collaboration and discussion for improvement, but full reverts without any discussion are what resulted in defiance of policy. In an effort to dispel the notion and spurious claims made against me by Steeletrap and the collection of editors who are attacking me now, please read the following passages that I either added, or left as is in the article when making my edits :
In March 2011, he was interviewed on Fox News by Glenn Beck who recommended Griffin's book The Creature from Jekyll Island calling it a "fascinating read."[9] Sean Easter of Media Matters For America wrote a critical review of that interview stating, "Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories.<---lead
...but subsequently banned in the US as it is scientifically unsupported and not approved by the FDA.[11] Griffin includes a disclaimer in his book that states "This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery.<---lead
Edward Flaherty, an academic economist writing for Political Research Associates, characterized Griffin's description of the secret meeting on Jekyll Island as "conspiratorial", "amateurish", and "suspect".[30] Griffin's response was "[t]here is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory...." and "until specifics [of error] are brought to my attention, I stand on everything I have written."<---I actually did not write this passage. It was already there so I left it as is.
Since the 1970s, the use of laetrile to treat cancer has been described in scientific literature as a canonical example of quackery and has not been shown to be effective in the treatment or prevention of cancer.[36] Emanuel Landau, then a Project Director for the APHA, wrote a book review for the American Journal of Public Health, which noted that Griffin "accepts the 'conspiracy' theory ... that policy-makers in the medical, pharmaceutical, research and fund-raising organizations deliberately or unconsciously strive not to prevent or cure cancer in order to perpetuate their functions". Landau concludes that although World Without Cancer "is an emotional plea for the unrestricted use of the Laetrile as an anti-tumor agent, the scientific evidence to justify such a policy does not appear within it".<---passage was already there.
I have not been able to further expand or improve the article because of the disruptions to maintain SQ. It appears Griffin is being viewed more as a pseudoscience issue than as the BLP of an author who writes books about controversial topics, and who also includes disclaimers in his books as I noted above.

Atsme☯^Consult 16:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update Feb 12th: I just realized there is a connection (though not direct, rather an association) between G. Edward Griffin and the Mises Institute who endorses Griffin, and the Tea Party Movement involving Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Lew Rockwall, and the John Birch Society. I'm not sure how DS, TB, and AE work, but I also found the following:
Editing restrictions Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#blpenforce wherein users Arthur Rubin, Specifico and Steeletrap are listed: (excerpt) Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. and Steeletrap is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. and SPECIFICO is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. It may explain their tendentious edits, and why they support UNDUE contentious material in Griffin's BLP.
[35] See the section header: Why Griffin Is Basically Correct.
[36] section header Don't Take My Word For It,
[37], [38] which connects Lew Rockwell, Griffin, and Austrian School proponents. Is G. Edward Griffin's body of literary works not a related extension?
With regards to Arthur Rubin's comments about UNDUE and wanting more contentious material added to Griffin's BLP see: [39]. Arthur Rubin has had sanctions imposed involving the Tea Party Movement - Griffin is connected there as well. At the very least it explains what may be happening with regards to the insistence of those editors to add defamatory content to Griffin's BLP. Atsme☯^Consult 20:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guy's (JzG) comment is disappointing. He has failed to maintain a NPOV dating back to December when this BLP was first listed at the fringe theories noticeboard:
[40] - "I guess this is my area of particular interest, as a skeptic looking at cancer quackery in particular,"
[41] - edited through Callanecc's PP and has been the most aggressive in attacking Griffin
[42] - added a wing nut drivel template, which surprises me how that alone didn't get him TB.
[43] - off wiki site linked from his TP - WOO-BUSTERS.
[44], [45] - considering the National Institute of Health recognizes CAM and alternative medicine, I don't understand why WP is allowing editors to include defamatory passages in wiki voice in a BLP. I am not a defender/promoter of either, rather I am simply a writer trying to keep my hands clean by following policy and steering clear of statements of fact and improperly sourced contentious statements that trigger defamation lawsuits. 30+ yrs as a publisher/writer/producer gives one insight to such matters, particularly after having been there-done that in such matters in real life on more than one occasion. Atsme☯^Consult 01:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[46] Notified by another editor of edit violations at article TP
[47] Warned of the violations and my report to Callanecc who has been overseeing Griffin
[48] Callanecc asked me to make a report of this at AE which I am doing now.
[49] Steeletrap's response to Callanecc - the user has been notified.
[50] Notice of this AE

Discussion concerning Steeletrap

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 Steeletrap

I was not edit warring. The Griffin article has nothing to do with my topic ban. Hence in the last AE sanctions case against me--the successful one--no one raised the issue of my editing the Griffin page. Steeletrap (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC) The diffs cited of Jytdog admonishing me are out of context. Jytdog supported my edit that OP is objecting to here. He opposed an edit of mine which added new content. My edit was reverted and I did not re-add it. Steeletrap (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my single edit to the Griffin page--which I have not tried to restore, and whose reversion I accepted (via the Griffin talk page) prior to the commencement of this action--did not refer to him as a CT. It merely referred to him as a promoter of alternative medicine and fringe science. The man believes HIV does not cause AIDS, and that laetrile cure cancer, so my characterization is hardly non-NPOC. Still, I have accepted its reversion. Steeletrap (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Atsme has unclean hands in this matter. [51]. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog

Suggest boomerang. Please see 3RR thread I had opened with regard to Atsme just prior to this AE being opened by Atsme, here. Please also note Atsme's response in that board action. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC) (clarify that it was just before - a few hours Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

While Steeletrap did edit aggressively, Steeletrap later (in the midst of Atsme's edit warring described in my 3RR post above) posted on my Talk page acknowledging that she should have shown more restraint: see User_talk:Jytdog#In_retrospect.... That was after I had urged her to stop editing the article and seek consensus first, here: Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#Edits_today. I have seen no such insight from Atsme. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, if reviewing arbitrators want a separate thread on this, or for me to condense the evidence presented in the 3RR thread and present it here, or something else, please let me know.Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

We already have Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_review_of_close_of_RfC_at_Griffin_article where the issues have been discussed at length. That regards an RfC whose close is likely to be upheld which found calling a person a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's voice was improper.

The current issue is whether, presuming that the RfC closer's conclusions were proper, whether "advocate of alternative medicine and fringe science" in Wikipedia's voice falls under the same WP:BLP stricture as "conspiracy theorist" does when made in Wikipedia's voice.

It may be that this is a content dispute, but where an administrator Nyttend (who appears to be an experienced editor and administrator) has apparently ruled that it is a matter of WP:BLP requirement, then it is unlikely that ArbCom is likely to overturn it when the close was upheld at WP:AN. And in that case the issue should be whether the onus falls on the first to undo such an action [52] and not on the successive edits.

Callanecc's solution is good - but does not address that initial reversal of an admin's edit apparently made on BLP grounds. . Proposal's for "boomerang" or the like are, IMO, ill-judged. Collect (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The close was:

Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist". Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Which quite appears to indicate the closer viewed the term "conspiracy theorist" to be intrinsically "derogatory" and violative of NPOV - and the requirement for "self-identification" appears to draw directly onWP:BLP)

@Callanecc Either "1RR per week" or a variant which would not count clear attempts at compromise language as reverts (which I have always felt should be encouraged in cases of reasonable disagreement as to language). I also feel that reverts of a closing admin's edit may need to be dealt with at some point - perhaps WP should take a position that an edit done by an admin in affirmation of a close by that admin should be directly connected to any appeal of such a close? Collect (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pekay2

Stay on point. This is not about Atsme, but rather Steeltrap. It's bizarre that this team is supporting Steeltrap knowing that she made edits that the closer said are "a derogatory characterization of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view." [53]--Pekay2 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading the comments and don't understand the argumentum ad hominum attacks upon Griffin for daring to have opinions about controversial topics. The attacks on Griffin are not unlike the attacks upon NPOV editors.--Pekay2 (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin

It is quite proper to discuss Atsme's edit warring to include positive controversial unsourced statements about Griffin. That the close covered negative (actually sourced, but for the purpose of argument, call them unsourced) statements about Griffin doesn't make Steeletrap's (I'll come back to correct spelling later, have to meet my wife at a shopping center) addition of inadequately sourced statements about Griffin's views an improper edit; to the extent he/she was edit-warring, he was also cancelling BLP violations by Atsme. I'll check the detailed edits, later. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although my comment is absolutely correct, it is irrelevant to this discussion. Steeletrap now understands what he has done that is wrong, and is unlikely to do it again. Atsme, on the other hand....even if Atsme is correct as to the meaning of Nyttend's close, and the close is consistent with Wikipedia policies, Atsme's his edits still adds WP:BLP violations by adding controversial self-sourced positive statements about Griffin, unchecked by the controversial, sourced, negative statements which Nyttend would not allow. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

I've been watching this article from afar (relatively uninvolved aside from an RfC comment), but I was surprised to see this posting. I don't see any obvious egregious sanction violations by Steeletrap presented here. They definitely came into the article hot, but scaled back pretty quickly when the edit warring was brought to their attention and they were asked to slow down. The fact that they stopped the problem behavior pretty quickly would seem to indicate any action for Steeletrap isn’t going to actually help anything at this point in time.

However, this posting seems to be retaliatory in nature, so it does seem like a boomerang would be in order. Atsme has had a tendency to lash out at editors in disagreement as part of a battleground behavior multiple editors have warned her about, accuse others of stonewalling because her ideas are not getting traction in consensus, etc. [54][55][ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme&oldid=646423626#BRD_at_Griffin.2C_please]. Trying to help out Atsme with her own behavior issues has just resulted in strange retaliatory warnings [56] considering those warnings given to her test edits or improper because she's a "regular". Basically not wanting to hear about her own behavior problems, but turning around and making those same accusations of other editors. Seems very much like a WP:THETRUTH attitude the article has been suffering with for awhile. Statements above by Atsme are pretty common by painting others' actions as BLP, NPOV violations, etc. when it appears she just isn't familiar the spirit of WP:PSCI policy in how we handle BLPs, or the related Arbcom decisions relating to pseudoscience, fringe/conspiracy theories, etc. as Callanec posted in the admin section below. To an outside observer who's been following this topic, the case presented here looks more like a very large and dirty pot calling the kettle black for a smudge. Maybe it would be better to separate Atsme's behavior out into a separate case here if her behavior is really going to be focused on in the context of both BLP and pseduoscience sanctions; there is a lot of history that would need to be explored if that was the case. However, it does seem like the behavior of other involved editors (namely the OP of this posting) should be considered in the specific case of Steeletrap's interactions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Another day, another wall of text defence of quackery apologia on the Griffin article by Atsme.

I honestly thought Atsme was over this crusade by now, but apparently not. The fact that the Griffin article is a biography has absolutely no bearing on the fact that laetrile is quackery of a particularly pernicious and exploitative kind. It has been described as the most lucrative health fraud in American history, and it is just one of a number of conspiracy theories advanced as fact by Griffin. That that he is a notorious crank and proponent of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience is a simple fact, it is not our problem to solve, and certainly not something we should excise from the record.

I do not think Atsme can edit productively in any area related to Griffin. I strongly suspect that anything related to laetrile, and possibly even to the John Birch Society and its many bizarre ideas, may also be a problem.

It's a shame. Atsme is very nice, but on this subject she is entirely wrong, and obstinately so.

Arthur Rubin is precisely correct: Steeltrap will not repeat the problem, Atsme undoubtedly will, and is, and needs to be removed from this article before she ends up blocked for tendentious editing. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

At the risk of someone invoking Godwin's law, it is not a WP:BLP violation to describe someone as a conspiracy theorist, if reliable sources do so, any more so than it is to describe, for example, David Irving as a holocaust denier. This request seems to indicate that self-identification is required. It is not. Most conspiracy theorists don't describe themselves as conspiracy theorists. This is why we should rely on secondary sources (independent of the subject) with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.

That said, I have never heard of this person before, and did not check whether reliable sources described them as a conspiracy theorist. Mine is just a general comment about WP:BLP and WP:V policies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by S. Rich

I have followed Steeletrap for some time now. (Indeed, I've been accused of stalking in this regard.) Moreover, I have been involved in supporting requests for sanctions when Steeletrap stepped beyond the redline with various edits. With this in mind, I do not see a case for sanctions here. Steeletrap is excitable (hormone-driven?), snarky (non-AGF), often sloppy with her edits (necessitating self-reverts, etc), and too often adds "over-the-top" edit summaries ("These bunglers need Miss Steele's insight!" and "rmv per WP:Competent"). But this level of misbehavior does not rise to a level where AE is warranted. If Steeletrap violates her TBAN, I will pounce. But lacking more egregious editor-behavior transgressions, I recommend closing this thread. – S. Rich (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Steeletrap

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

I haven't looked at this in detail yet but I note that WP:ARBPSEUDO and WP:ARBCAM both apply here as well if we don't believe that BLP DS are the best option. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a real coherent case for disruption here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, especially as Steeletrap understands the problem and is quite likely not to do it again. Whether action is needed against Atsme I'm not sure. However it looks like it will be quite a long case with quite a bit of evidence so it might be worth someone filing an AE request specifically against Atsme so that everything can be kept together and clear. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Collect: Just checking, are you referring to 1RR/week? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll close this shortly. Atsme, the Tea Party topic bans connection here is quite a stretch. Please take some care not to throw around wild accusations like this, it is not appreciated. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian editor1996

Wrong venue. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Russian editor1996

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Russian editor1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Whilst the editor in question was plenty disruptive, I wonder why administrator Coffee blocked User:Russian editor1996. According to his block notice, he issued the block under WP:ARBEE. However, it was not logged at WP:AC/DSL/2015 until I asked him about it. What's more, the editor was never issued an alert per WP:AC/DS. Coffee has not explained why the editor in question was blocked indefinitely, and I can see nothing that warrants such a block. This seems entirely out of process. Coffee responded that the block was per "IAR", but no reason was given for applying IAR, and I'm fairly certain that DS should not be issued in a willy-nilly manner. RGloucester — ☎ 14:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, because nothing the editor in question did was worthy of being indefinitely blocked. He made a few minor changes to some Donbass war/Ukrainian crisis articles, certainly nothing particularly grievous. I've seen much worse behaviour ignored completely. The user in question has created articles before, and has been present for quite a while. I simply do not understand how this user was summarily blocked for no apparent reason. What's more, this was done under WP:ARBEE. The procedure for WP:ARBEE was completely ignored. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an "appeal". It is request for review of the inappropriate actions taken by Coffee, an overturning of the illegitimate action he took, and for his admonishment. I apologise if I formatted this request incorrectly. My concerns stand, regardless. RGloucester — ☎ 19:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has tried to stymie this request by claiming that this is the "wrong venue". I'd ask him to read WP:AC/DS, where it says one should "request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE")". RGloucester — ☎ 19:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Russian editor1996

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 Russian editor1996

Statement by enforcing administrator Coffee

This is ridiculous, as I've made apparent at my talk page. RGloucester stated himself on my talk page that "the editor in question was nothing but disruptive", yet wonders why he was indefinitely blocked. I would find this humorous, but it's really kind of sad that an editor on this site doesn't understand the concept of preventative blocking... especially, in major areas of concern for this site (like the Eastern European conflict), where disruption can cause ridiculous headaches for good editors trying to contribute to our site. Last year I completed many blocks of this nature, some with warning, some without (WP:IAR applied then as it does now). The editor was obviously WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia, and is now no longer able to edit. It's that simple. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by abhilashkrishn

I feel sad when people are not following the correct process when Blocking someone. Users should be properly informed when any actions are carrying out on them. - abhilashkrishn ^talk 11:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Russian editor1996

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

RGloucester, what are you hoping will happen here? Is this supposed to be an appeal? If, so, there are specific instructions that you didn't follow for appeals. Has Russian editor1996 indicated a desire to appeal? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah; this isn't the place to review inappropriate blocks if you aren't appealing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And to address your point about requesting review here, that item is clearly in a category of things that only the "editor under sanction" may do. I'd advise you to drop this just to avoid wasting everyone's time, unless you feel there is some material impact of what Coffee did, in which case you should find a different venue. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The discretionary sanction is invalid as there was no alert (but it could have been done as a normal admin action). @RGloucester: It's probably best to ask the Committee about this at WP:ARCA, that is, whether they are happy with this use of discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc

Tarc was blocked for 72 hours by Callanecc and serve his time; discussion about Avono seems to have petered out. No prejudice against a future report against either party. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Tarc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Avono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Tarc_topic-banned :

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

00:57, 12 February 2015 Commenting on a request for enforcement concerning NorthBySouthBaranof's gamergate edits
13:28, 12 February 2015 Commenting on a gamergate related article concerning WP:ARBGG.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[57]

Discussion concerning Tarc

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 Tarc

Diff #1, albeit snarky, is in regards to a policy question wrt ban exceptions, it was not a comment on the Gamergate topic. This was on an admin's talk page, and if said admin did not have a problem with it, I see little reason for Avono to come crying to AE.

Diff #2 is an observation that either the God-King or an Arbitrator may be being a bit less than truthful, as their statements are in direct contradiction to one another. Again, not a discussion about Gamergate itself.

The weight I put upon a "complaint" filed by a) a single-purpose-account who b) was not involved in either discussion is immeasurably infinitesimal. In both instances, I was discussing the failings of Wikipedian editors in regards to policy. None of it was directly tied to the hallowed gamergate...a topic which no longer exists on my watchlist in any form. In perusing recent AE cases though, it is heartening to see that several of Avono's GG cohorts have been shown the door, which is likely the source for this angsty and malicious filing. He and bros no doubt celebrated the Arb finding that topic-banned...or banned outright in the case of the shafted Ryulong...several of us, and anticipated that the coast was clear for a pro-Gamergate slant to the topic area. It must be a bitter pill to swallow to see karma returned in thrice. For that, my joy is immense. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avono, I have a field of cares; gaze upon it, and witness the barrenness thereof. You had your say, I had my rebuttal, and I am not going to lower myself to further debate. The admins are perfectly capable of looking at what was said without further elucidation from you. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins, IIRC from WP:GGE, comments like AQFK's that advance no argument and provide no diffs or evidence were rather frowned upon. Given the mob tactics that were all too common around this topic area, it helped reduce the SNR considerably. Tarc (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AQFK, the point is, you're adding nothing but a "yep, I dun think that thar boy's guilty" opinion, and your hasty rewrites, reversions, and tweaks subsequent to my comment above have done nothing to change that. With that, I do not perceive a need to say more. Tarc (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing further to say regarding someone who lies so blatantly. I quite clearly pointed out that AE comments devoid of evidence that are just a "me too" opinion were frowned upon at GGE. That is all. I am off to important things. Tarc (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avono

You edited a talkpage titled "Barnof" in which Carrite states Your interpretation of BLP that ostensible BLP defense excuses violation of an Arbcom topic ban by NxSBaranof is, shall we say, unique. That you have at the same time moved to topic ban off one of Baranof's innumerable opponents does not speak well for your judgment. Please consider yourself "involved" with respect to any future motions made against him — his site ban is coming. This relates to an enforcement request related to NBSB editing the GG page under WP:BANEX. According to WP:TBAN ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages. NBSB ban exception occurred when he edited the gamergate article. The discussion about the Arb was related to the Gamergate case. Therefore I conclude that these edits are covered under the broadly constructed topic ban. Avono (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I don't see how diff #2 is anything but a topic-ban violation. The point of a topic-ban is to get an editor to completely disengage from a particular topic, not to let them poke around the edges of it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc: Ummm...so you're saying that cites to a diff[58] "provide[s] no diffs or evidence" and that arguments that "the point of a topic-ban is to get an editor to completely disengage from a particular topic, not to let them poke around the edges of it" advance no argument? Seriously?? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc: Ummm...no. You originally stated that cites to a diff aren't cites to a diff and that arguments that advance an argument aren't arguments that advance an argument.[59] You did say these things, correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc: So you're accusing me of being a liar?[60] I've been accused of many things on Wikipedia, but this might be the first time I've ever been accused of being dishonest. Can you please tell me what exactly I've lied about? Here are the exact words of my comment:

I don't see how diff #2 is anything but a topic-ban violation. The point of a topic-ban is to get an editor to completely disengage from a particular topic, not to let them poke around the edges of it.

Which part of that is a "blatent" lie? ArbCom has already determined that your conduct is so problematic...

Tarc has engaged in edit warring (e.g., [60][61][62][63]) and battleground conduct (e.g., [64], [65], [66], [67]). Tarc has already been sanctioned in three previous cases (Feb 2012, Oct 2013, Oct 2014 Oct 2014).

[61]

...that it required your ban from this topic.[62] Do you honestly think that resorting to personal attacks in an WP:AE request where you clearly and obviously violated your topic ban helps your cause, or confirms ArbCom's finding in this case as well as the three previous findings?

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

Already NBSB has been warned by HJ Mitchell that he walking on the wrong side of the razors edge. Avono pointing out the same issue wit Tarc is not somehow sanctionable against Avono. Bernstein is blocked. There can be no interaction with him. It's ludicrous to even propose that pointing out actual TBAN violations is somehow the fault of the victims. If admins don't like the TBANs take it up with ArbCom but not those that report it. They are TBanned for a reason, not by mistake. Tarc was warned as well so "snarky" doesn't cut it as an excuse. --DHeyward (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: @Callanecc: The most prolific reporter of people "on the other side" is NBSB. Even with his topic ban NBSB was able to edit Jimbo's talk page on the topic, make borderline BLP reversions and report Retartist (no boomerang there?). Yet NBSB is not site banned (yet) or even sanctioned for this behavior in any way. If Avono comes anywhere close to NBSB's reports, it might be fair to look at it the way you propose but until then, he's a small drop in the giant swamp. --DHeyward (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: @Gamaliel: - it wasn't clear if you wanted NBSB diffs and what the purpose is. If it's to look at further sanctions against NBSB, that is not my thing and won't provide them for that. However, if it's for comparison regarding Avono and used to exonerate Avono, I would provide them as an example. I believe I have four separate users being reported for discretionary sanctions in addition to the post arbcom examples that were more recent. I didn't bother looking through ANI reports. In short, I don't think Avono is a problematic reporter given the wide latitude that has been afforded other reporters. Callanecc, your comment that providing diffs would be casting aspersions seems opposite to what you intended so please clarify. --DHeyward (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: My statement was only that scrutiny being brought on Avono is disproportional to complaint filers in general (the number of complaints is over time and would be considered stale and post-arbcom - nevertheless, volume of complaints was never scrutinized so it seems rather arbitrary to implement now). I do not wish to make this a "ban them all" discussion which seems to be what you are asking for in terms of evidence. My argument isn't that NBSB deserves more scrutiny, only that the proposal for Avono is disproportionate than what has been previously applied. That should matter to those trying to apply even handed standards. The volume of complaints has never been brought up before so this new standard has not been applied. Just as NBSB was not sanctioned for his BANEX being legitimate, it seems logical that a AE report that resulted in a AE action is justified. --DHeyward (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ_Mitchell I believe the complaint was over multiple talk pages and particularly this one [63] and filed immediately. The slow part was that the discussion got sidetracked by talk of sanctioning the filer. You should probably recuse yourself if you believe an AE sanction request is a "grudge" when other admins have already found a sanctionable complaint while still others agree it was a good faith report. AE requests can be declined without attributing malice to the filer. I don't recall "grudge" being used in previous sanctions and doesn't appear to be "uninvolved" language if that's how you view enforcing these sanctions. You may wish to revise using your talk page as an Arbitration Enforcement Free Zone as it's not a privilege enjoyed anywhere else on WP. --DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher

@Black Kite: Please could you move your comment into the statement section. You have discussed the content of related articles[64][65], as well as participated in a content disputes in the article on issues not pertaining to BLP violations.[66][67][68] Bosstopher (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Black Kite:I read the principles stated in the Arbcom decision before making this comment. It says you're allowed to make content reverts when BLP is being violated, and when it's "minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias." I do not think the edits I posted fall under either of those categories as they involve content disputes. I was under the impression that the reason ArbCom made no comment on accusations of you being involved was because you didn't actually carry out any admin actions unbefitting (I swear that's a word even if my browser spell-check tells me otherwise) of an involved editor (as even involved admins are allowed to do BLP revdels). But in case I've misunderstood, pinging drafting arbs (@Roger Davies:, @Beeblebrox:, @David Fuchs:), to make sure I'm not barking up the wrong tree and drudging up matters that were already settled in Arbcom. Bosstopher (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

Is there evidence that Avono has submitted dubious reports? If there is none, why should they be restricted from future reporting of others' disruptive actions? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Guy Macon

I strongly agree with the basic principle that commenting on the bans of people who banned from the area you are banned from is a violation of your ban. It stops a lot of "nibbling around the edges". Limited comments on your own ban are acceptable, in my opinion, and comments indication that you either agree with and will obey a topic ban or that you disagree with but will still obey a topic ban are especially valuable.

These are, however subtle distinctions that are not obvious from the standard topic-ban wording, and thus a user should get at least one warning / explanation of the consensus / de facto policy before being blocked for such behavior.

I am also very concerned that a user has been blocked by another administrator for comments made on an administrator's talk page. I have always assumed that, should I be sanctioned in any way, I am free to discuss anything about that sanction and related sanctions with any administrator on his talk page, including commenting on the bans of people who banned from the area I was banned from. It should be up to the administrator who I am talking with to decide whether to tell me to stop discussing something his talk page. I would like to see the block clarified to show that it was for the comment on the non-admin's talk page only.

Editors who are sanctioned, including topic bans, often feel wronged and wish to seek redress instead of disengaging. Assume for the sake of argument that in their particular case they have a point. Do we really wish to force them into email discussions with the admin and lose the benefit of open discussions with a history that anyone can view? Now assume for the sake of argument that in their particular case they have no case at all. Isn't it better in such a case to have the admin they asked explain this and encourage them to disengage and to do so where everyone can see the comments on both sides?

There has to be a balance between sanctioned users dropping the stick and feeling that they have to go elsewhere to seek redress. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tarc

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

It seems that both users are continuing to use Wikipedia to fight over GamerGate here. These comments by Tarc appear to be borderline, but these sorts of edits should be discouraged. Avono was recently topic banned by User:HJ Mitchell from discussing Mark Bernstein after repeatedly commenting on his off and on-site remarks and making several attempts to get him blocked for violating his topic ban. Perhaps Avono should be topic banned from trying to get other users blocked or banned? Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything here that is enforceable. In fact, I do wonder if Gamaliel's last sentence above is viable, because I (and frankly the community) do tend to take a dim view of dubious AE requests against those who disagree with them. But I'd suggest that Avono at least come up with better than this as an AE request. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Bosstopher: No, I won't be doing that; the definition of administrator involvement via enforcement activity (and comments thereon) was made quite clearly at the ArbCom case. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see Gamaliel's idea as viable with a bit of modification. I would suggest that if Avono wants action taken against a user that they be limited to a single message to a single admin about a given user. If that admin thinks it has merit then that admin can follow through with action or discussion. If the admin does not think the complaint has merit then Avono should not pursue the matter further. I think it is important that we provide Avono some recourse. Chillum 02:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We have to find the line between allowing for a genuine petition of redress and not allowing editors to emply topic bans as cudgels. Gamaliel (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with the above comments, both looks to me to be violations of a broadly construed topic ban (especially the second one) and are disruptive and incivil. The consensus over a period of time here has been that commenting on the bans of people which are banned from the area you are is a violation of that ban. Whether action is needed against Avono I'm not sure, but this is definitely a good faith report. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt this is a good faith report. But when the same user generates a lot of good faith reports about a number of editors on the opposite side of the same topic dispute, even if they all individually have merit and are made in good faith, we have to look at whether or not having this user from follow around others looking for violations is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, however the purpose of arbitration is the 'break the back' and to stop behaviour which is disruptive. Violating policies and guidelines is disruptive, reporting those violations isn't and as far as I'm concerned should never be. If there is someone generating a bunch of enforcement request which are all in good faith, and there is actually a violation then IMHO that's good as it continues to ensure that policies and guidelines are being followed. If the person doing the reporting demonstrates a battleground approach by doing so then that's another thing but I'm not sure Avono has reached that point yet (though I'm happy to be convinced otherwise).

In any case I'd suggest a 72 hour block for Tarc for the TBAN vio. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: I am not familiar with or do not recall NBSB's reports aside from the one against Retartist, but if you present a request here with diffs, I will look at it along with everyone else. That report against Retartist concerned a significant BLP violation and so the consensus of administrators was they would not block due to this. None of Avono's reports that I am aware of are about BLP violations. I am not concerned about the volume of Avono's reports, I am concerned about their focus on a particular individual. Now that he has been topic banned from discussing that editor, he appears to have moved on to a different editor. It is a pattern that concerns me. Gamaliel (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to say the same thing re NBSB and Retartist, except to add that without diffs it's casting aspersions and needs to be removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: I was referring to diffs regarding NBSB making disruptive (etc) reports or breaching their topic ban to look into whether sanctions are needed. Making arguments like 'but other people do it' usually aren't given much attention here. If you don't wish to provide diffs regarding NBSB please remove the unsupported claims you made against them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, I agree (especially with your last sentence, my comment up there). My point is that if you're going to make accusations against people ('most prolific reporter of people "on the other side" is NBSB', 'he was able to edit Jimbo's talk page on the topic', 'make borderline BLP reversions', 'report Retartist (no boomerang there?)') you need to support it with evidence (ie links and diffs), if you don't you're WP:Casting aspersions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've blocked Tarc for three days for breaching the ArbCom TBAN and left this section open for further discussion re Avono. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This block leaves me a little bit worried. I've thus far tolerated comments on my talk page by topic-banned editors for as long as they haven't engaged in substantive discussion of content and haven't done anything else disruptive, and I'd prefer to keep it that way because blocking people for the odd passing comment on my talk page seems petty. If we are going to do it that way, then it should be zero tolerance across the board, not just for the ones that somebody with a grudge digs up and brings to AE days after the fact. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All reports to AE are after the fact and this one was around 24 hours after which is around normal and what you'd expect for someone to notice it to has the inclination to do the paperwork. Odd passing comments are what people get blocked for when they violate their topic ban no matter where they are, though I agree to an extent and in this case there were extenuating circumstances (disruptive and incivil as I said above). The second one on TRPoD's talk page was the big one as I said above. I'm not sure what you mean by across the board since reports to AE, to admins or that admins notice is how enforcement works. I note that ArmyLine was blocked for commenting on someone's block in an area they'd been TBANed from. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course all reports are after the fact. All I'm saying is that if we're going to start blocking people for posting on admins' talk pages, we should do it consistently, not just for the ones that somebody happens to pick up a day later and report to AE. Even with the purest of intentions, that looks to the one who was unlucky enough to get blocked like inconsistent high-handedness at best and bias at worst, and is only going to bring all manner of effluent down on our heads. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree, but if an admin doesn't see it and act, AE reports are the way we deal with it. Plus, as I said, this wasn't just a comment on an admin's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AnsFenrisulfr

Topic-banned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning AnsFenrisulfr

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: AnsFenrisulfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamergate :

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

[69] First ever edit, acknowledges membership of the gamergate cult.
[70], edit no. 32, is plainly not the action of a genuinely new user, raising very strong suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry in an area already overrun with drama-only accounts collaborating off-wiki with an agenda orthogonal to Wikipedia's foundational goals.

AnsFenrisulfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a "brand new user" who has essentially no contributions to Wikipedia other than commentary around Gamergate, some of which seems to me to amount to simple trolling. The user exhibits classic gamergater WP:CPUSH tactics. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DS notice was issued by Gamaliel, 22:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC) ([71]) but does not appear to have triggered the edit filter.

This account should, I think be speedily removed from the fray.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning AnsFenrisulfr

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 AnsFenrisulfr

Wow, just... wow. So, the first diff you use as evidence is my apologizing to someone. And the second is of an AE report which I have APOLOGIZED publically to NbSB for laying against him, due to me misunderstanding BANEX. [72] <- Me apologizing to NbSB

I am also somewhat perturbed by you implying I am a sock... because I knew how to do something. I had 13 days between my last post in GamerGate Controversy and that date. Did it not occur to you that I could have been spending that time researching how Wikipedia RUNS? Which would have been entirely in line with my repeated questions to other editors on how to do things? Is this kind of treatment normal for new editors? AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add. I have made NO edits to the GamerGate controversy article. Intentionally so. I chose to restrict myself to only the talk page, allowing more experienced editors than I to change it. This is Bad Faith at it's worst. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish to point out highly Uncivil language by JzG. So I am part of a Cult am I? AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this appears to need to be said. Prior to the AE request I had 13 days where I had not even touched the GamerGate Controversy article, and instead had gone to the Oshkosh, Wisconsin article to ask if something was procedural with the intent of changing something on that article if it was not. Let me state this again, I had not TOUCHED the GamerGate Controversy article in 13 days, and had and still HAVE no intention of touching it again. I had only filed the AE request because I thought NbSB was actually violating his topic ban (Turns out, he was not) and I would have done the SAME if it had been someone like TheDevil's Advocate or LoganMac. 173.89.145.97 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkBrad I intend to avoid Wikipedia and the GamerGate article in particular until everything blows over (Probably several months... at best) before returning to try to learn Wikipedia on less... insane articles and times.

@JZG Stop calling me a sockpuppet. If there is any way to check, please do look at the fact that my IP address is HIGHLY unlikely to be the same as any banned member. I am my own person, your blind hate of "SPAs" and "Socks" not withstanding. I wished to remain civil to you, but you keep throwing around that accusation in direct violation of Wikipedia's policies on Civility, and with no evidence at all beyond what you think. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein Previous slights off wiki, I felt I should apologize to someone I may work with, rather than possibly have them find out later. It was professional courtesy, and an acknowledgement I was wrong. I also spent that entire '19 days' doing extensive research on the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. one such thing to cross my path was the notice I was being held to discretionary sanctions, which I then looked up to understand, which lead me to understand AE. The process of FILING an AE request is very thoroughly explained in the form you fill out. This seriously took only about 2 hours research to understand, and I am quite baffled how both you and JzG seem to think this indicates anything,m since anyone who took that 2 hours would understand this quickly. Finally, as to the IP, my IP isn't very 'unique'; in the sense you imply, more "It is unlikely I share an IP with any of them, because I am not a sock". AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone suggested that I offer a self-imposed topic ban on the subject. I am unsure what a proper length would be, but seeing as I have no intention of editing the GamerGate Controversy article to begin with, I would be happy to accept this as an idea. AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I couldn't agree more [re Wikipedia not needing this], but apparently that view is controversial. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Comment moved from "Result" section below. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Starke Hathaway

Meh. The first diff is an apology, of all things, and exactly the sort of behavior that should be encouraged in a collaborative editing effort, particularly in a contentious subject area. The second diff is a good faith report of editing by a banned user who, technicalities aside, has made it clear they have no intention of staying away from the topic area from which the community, via ArbCom, banned them. Lest we forget, one of the stated rationale for the ArbCom sanctions was to clear out entrenched and combative editors to allow fresher and more collaborative users into the topic area. There is no evidence of disruption here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here is AnsFenrisulf apologizing on NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page for misunderstanding the ban exceptions and bringing the enforcement request. It takes a really dramatic assumption of bad faith to conclude that this user is here for the purpose of disruption. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. The problem with gamergate is the constant emergence of new or long-dormant accounts, who are usually at least nominally civil but are here solely to push an agenda (and create massive drama when they fail). How many genuinely brand new users manage to make a properly formed AE request with their 32nd edit? How many times do we allow "brand new" gamergate accounts to come and do the same thing over and over? The topic ban should be applied liberally to all those who are clearly participating in or driven by the off-wiki collusion - and as Tony says, this is a slam dunk for that. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Yes, this is a pretty obvious Remedy 1.2(ii) candidate under the discretionary sanctions. Bag it and move on. Those of a more charitable disposition may want to try a nudge and then sit and watch what happens before passing a topic ban. The incorrigibly saintly might simply direct the SPA to more productive areas and hope it takes the hint. But don't fool yourselves, admins: Arbcom wants this pestilence (the Gamergate nonsense) gone from Wikipedia and empowers you to do what is necessary. This is not 4chan. --TS 01:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

My only comment is being a SPA violates no policy. Most people who start editing on Wikipedia focus on a specific topic. It might raise suspicions but in itself, it is not sanctionable. It's not only tolerable, it's normal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, looking at the account's total editing contributions (58), I see zero edits to article space. I now see your point although if I was an admin, I wouldn't leap to an indefinite block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

The two diffs do not seem actionable. I don't see rule-breaking. Being an SPA is not an offense as long as an editor abides by Wikipedia's policies. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by abhilashkrishn

Upon checking, I can't find any wrong in AnsFenrisulfr's actions. First one is an apology and second is an assumption from requester. - abhilashkrishn ^talk 14:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EChastain

Seems like a new user who's trying to figure things out. I feel AnsFenrisulfr is a real human being and should be given some help and guidance rather than snuffed out completely so soon per two diffs. Agree with Liz, starship.paint, and abhilashkrishn. EChastain (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to figure things out? When edit 32 is a request to apply sanctions to someone, furthering the gamergate cult's long-term agenda? Your assumption of good faith goes somewhat beyond what could be expected of Mary Poppins. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with comments by Liz above. And the suggestion by Newyorkbrad below. Give the new editor a chance. If the desire is to attract new editors, then some learning curve (a steep one) is to be expected. Since the disruptive, rude editing of some long time editors is being tolerated, so why not give a new editor some rope. You can always kick them out later if they don't shape up. EChastain (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher

AnsFenrisulfr has made a strong effort to improve their behaviour and learn the rules of wikipedia, he has apologized for his mistakes and shown an eagerness to learn. While he may be an SPA who focuses mostly on loci of GG drama, he is the ideal all drama SPAs should aspire for. Nonetheless I agree that he should probably do something other than comment on contentious talk pages, and make some actual contributions to the encyclopedia Bosstopher (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AnsFenrisulfr: Perhaps not wholly related to the issue at hand but as people are discussing varying ways in which you can contribute to wikipedia... May I suggest taking part in the Wikiproject Wikify February Drive. It's nice and boring in a relaxing and cathartic way, and helps improve the thousands of messy articles the wiki has. Serves as a nice break from shouting at people/being shouted at on the Gamergate talk page. Bosstopher (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:Aren't you not meant to write comments in other people's statements? (sorry about the double negative) Is this an IAR thing for convenient reading purposes? Bosstopher (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's virtually impossible to track otherwise. Sorry if that offends people, I genuinely believe that the intention here is to discuss things in a mature way and reach a proper conclusion, not to slavishly follow process even when it makes things more obscure. I realise that this is an old-fashioned view and verging on naive in today's Wikipedia. Incidentally, I wasn't able to find any substantive contribution at all to anything other than gamergate when I looked originally, but in any case the problem here is not so much that it's an SPA, as that it's almost certainly a puppet, and we have way too many single-purpose drama accounts on that subject area, most of whom are engaged in relentless WP:CPUSHing, because they are at least intelligent enough to realise that anything else will lead to a speedy ban. That's one of the reasons the case took so long, as far as I read it. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the comment that most of the new SPA's popping up are civil. As someone who only glances at the GG talk page occasionally I can think of two not so civil newcomers[73][74]. Also AnsFenri has not even been that pushy, first edit he ever made was acknowleding that almost all of the edits made by tRPOD (someone I doubt anyone could call a pro-GG POV pusher) to the article, were perfectly fine.Bosstopher (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein:To be fair Mark, wouldn't anyone be very upset if people accused them of being a sockpuppet? With regards to the IP comment he could just as easily be someone from a very obscure country that supplies very few Wikipedia editors, if I was such a person in such a position I would have made exactly the same comment. And you seem to have misunderstood his first edit (either that or I have). I assume what he's referring to is chatting shit about the "5 horsemen" on reddit. AnsFenri seems to me like someone who's just been reading far more KiA than any person ever should ever read, and has therefore been scared to edit non article space out of fear of an evil cabal that watches every single one of enwiki's 4.7 million articles and auto reverts anyone who isn't Ryulong (this is one of many reasons why no one should ever take anything written on KiA seriously). I just think this is someone who's been far more cautious than they had any reason to be (see his approach to topics which are not GamerGate [75]). He's probably been spectating for a lot longer than he's been editing, and it comes across to me as someone being overly apologetic (and at some times rightfully apologetic) rather than trying to pretend that they have less wiki experience than they actually have.Bosstopher (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

Today, the subject is very upset that anyone would think him a puppet.

The subject’s very first edit of all time is an apology to The Red Pen Of Doom for previous slights [[76]]. On 22 January the subject affects to be uncertain how WikiMarkup works; 19 days and less than three dozen edits later, the subject is crafting effective filings on moderately obscure disciplinary pages. The subject points to a highly unique IP address which would, apparently, instantly exculpate him from any suspicion of being a sock; that this is exactly what an expert sockmaster might seek has, of course, not occurred to them.

Under the circumstances, this prodigy might anticipate that people of more modest talents may wonder. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by another user

Result concerning AnsFenrisulfr

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

I don't understand why we spend so much effort and angst over obvious SPAs. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, yes. So just topic ban this one and they can still edit any other article of the millions of articles on the encyclopedia. We should not continue to pretend that accounts like these are not here to push their agenda, nor should we continue to allow sensitive and controversial articles to serve as the apprenticeship of novice encyclopedia editors. Gamaliel (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we should actively prevent newbies from editing controversial areas, if that was your point. Was it? Has AnsFenrisulfr done anything disruptive to warrant a topic ban, assuming AnsFenrisulfr is not a sock? I don't see anything. Now, is AnsFenrisulfr a sock? I don't see any compelling evidence, but I am no SPI specialist. If that is all this case hinges on, perhaps opening a case there instead would be more appropriate? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel and Erik, my understanding of the DS is that uninvolved admins can impose a topic ban without the need for AE, or have I misunderstood? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Yes that's correct, discussion here between uninvolved admins is generally to get other opinions on whether there is a need for sanctions and if so what sanction would be best. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Callanec. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with SPAs, even those with an obvious agenda, as long as they're here to build an encyclopaedia and make a good-faith attempt to follow our policies. What I do mind, though, is brand new accounts that involve themselves deeply in our internal politics and show no interest in the mainspace. I've hinted to AF that they might want to do something else, but their only interest seems to be in politicking. I recommend an indefinite block per NOTHERE or, failing that, a topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely unimpressed with this editor's participation in Wikipedia thus far, but it might be useful to ask him how he would plan to utilize his editing privileges going forward, if allowed to continue to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the evidence and the subject's own comments, I recommend an indefinite topic-ban from the GamerGate area, with the scope as defined in the case remedies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with NYB. T. Canens (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steverci

Block as a sockmaster, no AE action needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Steverci

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Steverci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 :

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

The above diffs are from one article, but he does the same on at least another 3 articles that I mentioned below.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. [77]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Steverci has been edit warring across multiple articles, exhibiting a battleground mentality and making controversial edits without reaching consensus with other editors. Just in recent days, he made multiple reverts, sometimes on the brink of violation of 3RR, on a range of highly sensitive articles, including Khaibalikend Massacre, Shusha massacre, Shusha, Sayat-Nova. Shusha was protected. Steverci was warned by the admins at least 3 times. In addition to the official alert mentioned above, he was warned twice more during the last month: [78] [79] Also, he received warnings from other editors who found his editing inappropriate, for example: [80] [81] Apparently, warnings had no effect, and battleground activity continues, so I believe it makes sense to consider placing this user on an editing restriction. Grandmaster 00:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Parishan could have used a better judgment, in this case I think he was baited into an edit war by Steverci. Parishan is a long-standing editor with tens of thousands of useful contribs, while Steverci is the one who starts an edit war on almost every page he moves on to. So many warnings within a short period of time speak for themselves. Grandmaster 08:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some diffs to demonstrate an editing pattern:

Douglas Frantz: inappropriate content restored 3 times, despite objections of another editor: [82] [83] [84]

Khaibalikend Massacre: inappropriate category restored 4 times, despite objections of another editor: [85] [86] [87] [88]

Shusha massacre: inappropriate category restored 4 times, despite objections of other editors: [89] [90] [91] [92]

There are might be more, but I did not know this user before I encountered him in the article about Shusha. Grandmaster 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of tendentious editing, this time on Armenian diaspora. 2 rvs removing sourced info without any edit summary: [93] [94], then another one followed by a comment at talk: [95] Apparently, Steverci believed that the number of Armenians living in Azerbaijan was lower than the sources suggested, so he simply removed the sources with higher estimates. When another editor objected and asked to provide reliable sources, Steverci initially failed to do that, see discussion at talk: [96] But then someone suggested a different estimate in the book by Thomas de Waal, and as that source was accepted as reliable, Steverci removed the sources with higher estimates, and inserted de Waal stating that the number of Armenians living in Azerbaijan was 5,000. [97] I checked the source, and it actually says: There were somewhere between five and twenty thousand of them in the city, almost all women married to Azerbaijani husbands. As one can see, the source provides a range of 5000-20000, of which Steverci only picks the lower estimate, thus misrepresenting and misquoting the source. This is clearly not in line with WP:Cherry, and is in fact tendentious editing in order to advance a point. Grandmaster 15:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[98]

Discussion concerning Steverci

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 uninvolved FreeRangeFrog

(note: I am uninvolved in the reason for this AE request). My perception of Steverci is that he has arrived in Wikipedia to very clearly push a WP:POV, ignoring our policies and guidelines in the process. Evidence of this can be seen currently at the bottom of my talk page, which involves his slow edit warring and contentious editing of Douglas Frantz, a bio about a journalist that he decided to turn into a case study in what Steverci claims is "Armenian Genocide denial" where the reliable sources in the supposed controversy simply don't support that level of detail (unless of course Armenian-centric sources are conveniently used). Issues of WP:OR, synthesis and weight notwithstanding. Steverci first came to my attention because his sandbox (sorry, admins only) was reported to BLPN and subsequently taken to MFD. Reading that article about a film turned into yet another soapbox essay about what he and his favored sources claim is "genocide denial" should provide a sense of the editor's troubling biases. Which would be OK if they were limited to his sandbox, but now they've spilled out to a BLP. This latest issue should not be seen as an isolated incident, but rather as a pattern that will continue to repeat itself. That entire pattern should be taken into account when deciding on an arbitration enforcement outcome. My recommendation would be to flat-out topic-restrict Steverci from any Armenian-related topics or material, broadly construed, before more damage is caused and more time is wasted. My interaction with them leaves me no doubt that this will end just as badly as many others have ended up when they arrived here to tell us the "truth" about a topic they're emotionally invested in. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steverci

I never violated the three revert rule or any rule for that matter, yet somehow Grandmaster felt the need to warn me instead and not mention that Parishan has actually violated the three revert rule:
[99][100][101][102]

According to WP:3RR, violating the rule guarantees a block.

It is also interesting that he is accusing me of edit warring on the Khaibalikend Massacre, Shusha massacre, and Shusha articles, yet it was Parishan who began each edit war: [103] [104] [105]. If someone stalking and reverting my edits, sometimes without explanation, they are the one who is exhibiting more battleground mentality.

I have never had the be blocked or banned for anything before and have always tried my hardest avoid an edit war. I am currently having a lengthy disagreement on the Tiridates I of Armenia article, and have allowed the user to keep his version in the mean time. When a new user aggressively removed all the content I added to the Alexander Suvorov article several times, I reported the incident instead of playing the edit warring game. When I had wanted to remove clear POV unsourced controversial content on Persecution of Ottoman Muslims, I took it to the talk page and waited for a complete consensus before removing it again. The other day I disagreed with an addition to Armenian Apostolic Church and went straight to the talk page.

Grandmaster claims I do not listen to warnings, but I've always ceased what I was doing both times I received them (one was over a misunderstanding) even when I felt the admin was being unfair. An example of someone who does not know how to heed warnings would be someone who has broken the same rule over and over. Parishan has previously been blocked for violating the 3RR not once, but twice. Grandmaster has been blocked for violating the 3RR rule SIX TIMES.

If anyone should be given enforcement here, it is Parishan. --Steverci (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is preposterous to say I "baited" anyone, because as I already pointed out, Parishan was the one who began the edit wars. And saying I start an edit war on every page I edit is absolutely baseless. Hell, in the past couple hours, Parishan has broken the 3RR yet again with a different editor. Just by giving his contribution page one look, it seems like he has a bit of a hobby of starting edit wars with User:NiksisNiks and User:Ninetoyadome. Perhaps they would like to add something? --Steverci (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:FreeRangeFrog You have more or less just said "This is all to promote the ________ agenda!" --Steverci (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ninetoyadome

Steverci has made numerous contributions and I feel like he was drawn into the edit warring by Parishan, who has been banned on a number of occasions for doing just that and apparently has not learned. Parishan has been pushing his POV on Armenian related articles and Steverci has been undoing his/her biased changes. A warning, in my opinion, should be sufficient to Steverci. Ninetoyadome (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Steverci

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

It does appear that Steverci is here to tell us "The Truth™". The sandbox was a very lengthy essay denouncing the historical inaccuracy of the film beyond any sense of proportion, and the edit-warring over categories is worrying. I'm inclined to think that some sort of admin intervention might be necessary, but does anyone have any more diffs to show that this is part of a long-term pattern? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this whole thing is moot (including the discussion below) since Steverci has now been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Since I commented on the case I prefer not to close it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Anita Sarkeesian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This merits attention. It's a BLP covered by the Gamergate arbitration case and there should be no edit wars at all in that topic at this stage.

Please fix this. You were given the tools at WP:ARBGG. --TS 01:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I read this, the issue here is primarily with User:Theduinoelegy, who was informed as to the existence of discretionary sanctions a week ago. Does anyone see any reason for us not to sanction as requested? NW (Talk) 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly deserves sanctioning. Dreadstar ☥ 04:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've imposed a 90 day topic ban. [106]. Please let me know if anyone disagrees with the ban or the length. Dreadstar ☥ 04:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with this. NW (Talk) 04:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.