Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:22, 20 September 2016 editTiny Dancer 48 (talk | contribs)272 edits →Tiny Dancer 48← Previous edit Revision as of 18:30, 20 September 2016 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,210 edits →Tiny Dancer 48: Collapse. Enacting a ban from all topics covered by WP:ARBR&INext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 230: Line 230:


==Tiny Dancer 48== ==Tiny Dancer 48==
{{hat|1=Indef ban from all topics covered by ], per the user's apparently inability to edit neutrally. The ban may be appealed in six months. ] (]) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning Tiny Dancer 48=== ===Request concerning Tiny Dancer 48===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EvergreenFir}} 21:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC) ; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EvergreenFir}} 21:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Line 383: Line 382:
**Was on the fence, Ed, but their most recent reply shifts me right over. Not sure an indef is necessary as a first preventative measure, but I'm not opposed if you, or another admin, thinks that's the best route to go. Sanction is necessary. ''']''' ~ (]) 07:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC) **Was on the fence, Ed, but their most recent reply shifts me right over. Not sure an indef is necessary as a first preventative measure, but I'm not opposed if you, or another admin, thinks that's the best route to go. Sanction is necessary. ''']''' ~ (]) 07:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
* Lord Roem points out that Tiny Dancer didn't continue his article edits after the September 9 block. But since that date, he is still all over the talk pages with his intense POV (as shown above) and I don't think he has the ability to edit Misplaced Pages articles in a neutral manner. So I would go ahead with an indef ban from everything covered by ]. A person with a strong POV on talk pages has the potential of wasting a lot of editors' time. He is unlikely to change his mind or be persuaded by data and sources offered by other editors. ] (]) 01:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC) * Lord Roem points out that Tiny Dancer didn't continue his article edits after the September 9 block. But since that date, he is still all over the talk pages with his intense POV (as shown above) and I don't think he has the ability to edit Misplaced Pages articles in a neutral manner. So I would go ahead with an indef ban from everything covered by ]. A person with a strong POV on talk pages has the potential of wasting a lot of editors' time. He is unlikely to change his mind or be persuaded by data and sources offered by other editors. ] (]) 01:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
*] has written above, "Maunus's statement is full of lies", while later in the same section he writes "I didn't call anybody a liar." Just had to get that observation out of the way, per ]. I'm issuing an indefinite ban of ] from all topics covered by ]. That includes the article ] as made clear by having the banner {{tl|Race and intelligence talk page notice}} on its talk page. This ban may be appealed in six months. ] (]) 18:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Volunteer Marek== ==Volunteer Marek==

Revision as of 18:30, 20 September 2016

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    Click here to add a new enforcement request
    For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
    See also: Logged AE sanctions

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Kamel Tebaast

    Appeal declined, though the topic ban expired during the time the request was here at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

    Appealing user
    Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – KamelTebaast 00:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    30-Day Topic Ban
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    Notification

    Statement by Kamel Tebaast

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

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

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

    1.Kibbutz Beit Alpha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    2. Yasser Arafat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ohnoitsjamie reverted me here with “unnecessary POV.”

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

    Nishidani reverted me here.

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

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

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

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

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

    Epson Salts, clarified here:

    For those editors who are having difficulty seeing the 1RR violation:
    According to WP:ANEW, "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Kamel Tebaast added this line to the article - 'JVP endorsed the platform of The Black Lives Matter movement, which, among other things, accuses Israel of "genocide" ' Malik's first revert, at 13:03, 7 August 2016 , removes the words "among other things, accuses Israel of " and replaces them with his own formulation. That's the first revert, a partial one, which undoes the work of Kamel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Another problem

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

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

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

    Sockpuppet: the elephant in the room

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

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

    Johnuniq made no comment regarding my editing, just popped in to push forward unfounded accusations against me from another proceeding that I am a sockpuppet, or someone else is a sockpuppet of me.

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

    Robert McClenon: “I suggest that this thread be closed with a warning to Bolter21 that any future allegations of sockpuppetry that are not actually reported at WP:SPI will result in a block.”
    Blackmane: “Editors have been blocked in the past for persistent accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence. As the saying goes, "put up or shut up"
    Cameron11598: The proof is in the pudding so to speak, if you have evidence for an SPI file one if not stop with the accusations.
    Drmies There is no evidence whatsoever that Comment, please is a sock of Kamal (and bringing up a sock in a highly-visible forum is really stupid anyway), and as was said before, put up or shut up. Unfounded sock accusations are frequently used as ammunition in conflicts, but they are a denial of AGF. So don't do it again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The sanction

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

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

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

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

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

    Consistency in sanctions

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

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

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

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

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

    References

    1. Joseph Gutmann (1997). "Beth Alpha". In E. M. Meyers (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. p. 299.
    2. http://www.weeklystandard.com/arafats-true-legacy/article/6127
    3. http://www.history.co.uk/biographies/yasser-arafat

    Statement by Lord Roem

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

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

    Statement by Zero0000

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

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

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

    Statement by Malik Shabazz

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

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

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

    Needless to say, I think this appeal should be rejected. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 3)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Kamel Tebaast

    Statement by uninvolved User:Blackmane

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

    Result of the appeal by Kamel Tebaast

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Given the fact that the appeal contains no acknowledgement that Kamel did anything wrong (they did) and consists of a series of attacks and aspersions on fellow editors, I'm inclined to not only decline this appeal but also extend it to an additional 90 days. Bans are intended to be preventative, and Kamel gives every indication that when the ban expires they intend to continue disrupting as before. I believe a longer restriction is necessary to prevent tendentious editing in this topic area. The Wordsmith 00:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I am generally hesitant to endorse additional sanctions for an appeal or conduct during it unless it's dead obviously in bad faith. While this appeal is unconvincing and I agree with declining it, I don't think it rises to that level, and so I would oppose the proposal to add time to the sanction. Editors are allowed to appeal AE sanctions, and I think we should be very careful of chilling that. I would, however, strongly caution Kamel Tebaast that ARBPIA is not an area where one will find very much tolerance for disruptive conduct, and future sanctions, if they should prove necessary, will become more severe very swiftly. Seraphimblade 04:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

    Tiny Dancer 48

    Indef ban from all topics covered by WP:ARBR&I, per the user's apparently inability to edit neutrally. The ban may be appealed in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Tiny Dancer 48

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Tiny Dancer 48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBR&I#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended) :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Tiny Dancer 48 is a relatively new account (joined 17:22, 26 March 2016). They didn't make many edits at first, but they did make some related to this AE request. They showed immediate familiarity with Misplaced Pages and how it works. For note, I will often quote Tiny Dancer's own words so that their context and character can be seen.

    1. 10:00, 27 March 2016 Edited on Nations and intelligence adding information about expert opinions on the influence of genetics on IQ. Edit was reverted by WeijiBaikeBianji as not being supported by an RS.
    2. 18:35, 6 May 2016 Blanks the United Kingdom section on Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred
    3. 17:20, 21 June 2016 Removes sourced content on Weev about him being in an anti-Semitic hacker group

    Tiny Dancer begins editing on Race (human categorization). At first, there were just two edits on the article talk page.

    1. 17:22, 21 June 2016 "Lol, quite. The childish sophitic and clearly Marxist arguments of the "race does not exist" crowd are an affront to human reason. Sadly individuals sympathetic to these clowns appear to have used their money to buy Misplaced Pages.".

    Recap: The user started immediately by editing on articles covered by WP:ARBR&I and continued that trend. Only two edits were ostensibly unrelated to this topic. The familiarity with Misplaced Pages, the topic of interest, and the combative/dismissive language used makes me think Tiny Dancer is sockpuppeting (judging by behavioral evidence and loss of good faith over time), but I was never able to connect them to a specific user (e.g., Mikemikev).

    At this point Tiny Dancer begins to edit war on Race (human categorization). Tiny Dancer was blocked for 48 hours for this per an AN3 complaint (see relevant sanctions below).

    Their behavior on the talk page was problematic. They continue on about "cultural Marxist", engage in assuming bad faith, IDHT, and POV pushing by dismissing basically anything by social scientists.

    1. 09:10, 24 August 2016 "It's truly pathetic. What the cultural Marxists want people to think is social = non-biological, but the opening sentence calls a biological construct (phenetic similarity) social. Ridiculous. But WP is run by cultural Marxists so good look with that."
    2. 09:14, 24 August 2016 "By the way Darwin defined race by shared ancestry and Mayr by genomic similarity. I'm not sure why anyone cares what some US sociologist thinks."
    3. 11:11, 25 August 2016 "Yes, it simply trots out Lewontin's fallacy, irrelevantly points out skin color is locally adapted, then starts waffling about US slavery. The statement was adopted by a stacked leftist executive board with no membership voting." (referring to the American Anthropological Association (AAA)).
    4. 12:44, 25 August 2016 Personal attack/incivility
    5. 13:39, 27 August 2016 Refers to Alan Templeton (a living person) as a "quack", dismissing material in the article sourced with his work.
    6. 17:11, 27 August 2016 "What on earth are you going on about? Please logically address my sources and points."

    Danielkueh posts on Doug Weller's user talk page about Tiny Dancer as a possible sock.

    1. 17:24, 27 August 2016 "I'm not entirely sure what this guy is going on about. I apologise about his opinion of my tone, but he has to admit I supported my position with sources and logic. In fact it's safe to say that I am correct and he is incorrect. Maybe he feels defeated and has to go complaining about how my tone frightened him or something, because he cannot back up his position logically and honestly.

    Accusations start flying

    1. 19:43, 27 August 2016 Accusations of "stonewalling" and tag teaming begin after being reverted as part of BRD.

    Edit warring begins and they post a lot on the article talk page. A few highlights:

    1. 13:42, 30 August 2016 "You're wikilawyering to push a lie"
    2. 19:44, 4 September 2016 "I think it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that race is considered biological by biologists and social construct theory is just some Marxist nonsense from American sociologists"
    3. 12:41, 5 September 2016 "You present nothing to support you, other than an assertion your POV is a consensus view. You are babbling irrelevantly about sources I never mentioned. This is ridiculous."
    4. 14:30, 5 September 2016 "It's you that is misrepresenting sources. Your hypocrisy honestly turns my stomach."
    5. 6:59, 5 September 2016 Accusations of POV pushing by a "regular cadre".

    AN3 response:

    1. 17:06, 7 September 2016 Final version of comment accusing me and others of stonewalling, OWN, bias, etc.

    Starts post at NPOVN. See Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Race_.28human_categorization.29. More of the same behavior.

    A series of personal attacks against My very best wishes and more of the same accusations. See User_talk:Tiny_Dancer_48#Advice.

    Culmination of all of this was these two posts

    1. 18:29, 14 September 2016 "Maunus assumes that "Ann Morning" is the leading light in biology and the Russians, Chinese and British are just "holding out" against her groundbreaking ideas. Another possibility is that she's a babbling Marxist pseudoscientist. Who knows?"
    2. 19:03, 14 September 2016 "The "agenda" of refuting Marxist pseudoscience with biology.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 03:42, 9 September 2016 User blocked by EdJohnston for 48 hours for edit warring on Race (human categorization) with a specific mention of WP:ARBR&I. EdJohnston said, in closing the AN3 complaint, that "If this continues, the next step could be a topic ban under WP:ARBR&I.".
    Diffs of previous relevant warnings, if any
    1. 17:53, 21 June 2016 User warned by Doug Weller about WP:NOTFORUM and article talk page guidelines.
    2. 18:11, 13 September 2016 User was warned by Doug Weller about personal attacks and behavior related to discussion of the topic on their user talk page
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 17:02, 27 August 2016 by Doug Weller


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I'm filing this per EdJohnston's comments about this being the "next step" and the clear pattern of abusive behavior and disruption.

    Laser brain - Sorry about that. I quite a bit over that. Would collapsing some sections in addition to trimming be okay? There's quite a bit going on here. I'll trim out some of the less serious stuff though. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    Chopped it down to 20 diffs in the main diff section. According to the prose size script, the "readable prose" is 283 works (see User:EvergreenFir/sandbox6). That's excluding the text after the diffs that are numbered. Guessing it's around 500 with those. Message or ping me if you need me to trim those a tad. I'd prefer to keep Tiny Dancer's actual words so they're context and tone (a big issue here) isn't lost. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    No comments from Tiny Dancer or any admins yet? I'm hoping for some review of this, especially since EdJohnston specifically mentioned ARBR&I. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    @Lord Roem: I had to trim out some of the diffs, but there were two present post-edit warring on 14 September 2016. You can see the original list of diffs at this version. While the edit warring has stopped for now, the talk page behavior continues and is unacceptable imho. The comments on this AE filing by Tiny Dancer show (1) a battleground mentality, (2) a continuation of the behaviors already detailed in the diffs, and (3) absolutely zero acknowledgement of any problematic behavior. Instead, they're just arguing with Maunus more, and not addressing anything detailed here. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    @Lord Roem and EdJohnston: Another disruptive edit on the article today: . Few more recent diffs showing continued bad faith, calling others liars, railing against AAA/sociologists, etc. , , , . EvergreenFir (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    I've disengaged in the discussions for now because of this AE request. Also, suggesting the AAA committed fraud is over the line. Hoping Lord Roem and EdJohnston will comment soon. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    1. 21:20, 14 September 2016


    Discussion concerning Tiny Dancer 48

    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 My very best wishes

    I think Tiny Dancer 48 has some knowledge in this subject area and wants to contribute in a good faith, however he has little understanding of the subject ("Races have a trait in common, but ... do not share a single phenotypic trait" below), has difficulty communicating with others and focuses on a single subject. Hence almost all their edits in article space were reverted, and none of the discussions he started led to any positive outcome. This looks to me as a case of WP:NOTHERE.My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Maunus

    Tiny dancer does have some knowledge in this topic. Unfortunately it is the kind of knowledge that one gets at "race realist" fora and websites, not the kind of knowledge that one gets from actually reading upto date mainstream sources about race and human biological variation. Many of the sources that he is parading are the same ones that have been used by prior race realist single purpose editors - which it has already been demonstrated either do not meet the reliability criteria as they fail to represent the adequately the scientific consensus, or which are quoted out of context to misrepresent the status of the pro-biological race pov. He suggests that a book by the cytologist John Baker in 1976 (in which he argues that "races" are distinct biological species, and which has been almost unanimously ignored by mainstream science since its publication for obvious reasons) would be a good book to build the article on - dismissing the statements by professional organizations such as the American Anthropological Association and the Encyclopedia Britannica article as worthless because they represent the "US Sociological perspective" (which is what he calls what others would consider the mainstream). He caricatures Ann Morning's book along the same lines without having read it - since Morning does not write about race, but is exactly a study of how social scientists and biologists differ in their uses of the concept "race" - and she concludes that biologists do sometimes still use the concept in "essentialist" ways in spite of the fact that biological mainstream discourse tends yt avoid the concept and stress that racial groupings cannot be used as essential constructions. Tiny Dancer is not interested in reading new sources like this, but only in pushing the safe old ones that supports his idea that his own POV neeeds to be more prominently represented regardless of what is current practice in the scientific fields that use the concept. This shows a basic unwillingness to play by the general rules of how weight is determined, basic unwillingness to cooperate on article building. Being an SPA, a topic ban against editing any content related to race might be enough of a sanction, but it probably isn't a good solution since Tiny Dancer might well go on to tangentially related topic areas where someone would have to follow them around to maintain the integrity of their contributions. A total ban per NOTHERE is probably the best remedy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    • I should note that tinydancers insistence on claiming that the social-constructionist view is particular to American sociologists (which is erroneous as evidenced by more than a handful of genetics textbooks written by geneticist) is also clearly a tendentious misrepresentation since the view has in fact been championed primarily by physical anthropologists since the 1960s. Physical anthropologists of course are biological scientists who specialize in studying the diversity of human anatomy across time and space. By referring to physical anthropologists as sociologists he is trying to make it appear as if their views are not specialized in biology and can therefore be discarded. Such tendentious misrepresentation is of course highly problematic and makes it very hard to assume good faith of an editor. Also as for the "essentialism", several books an articles to which I have referred at the talkpage - including Ann Morning's - race can be used in both essentialist and non-essentialist ways. Morning demonstrates that even though everyone agrees that essentialist uses are scientifically invalid some of its current uses in population genetics, behavioral genetics and forensic science tend towards the essentialist conceptualization. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Tiny dancer's comment on "Ann Morning's ignorance" clearly demonstrates the limits of hiw own understanding of biology. Defining race by ancestry or by genetic similarity specifically does not produce a category in which all members share any trait (because of recombinination in regards to ancestry, and because genetic clustering shows a pool of allelles that are shared by the members at a higher frequency than in other group - but in which no two members share all the specific traits in the pool and in which no traits are exclusive to members of the group) - that is the entire point of the genetic clustering debate which Tiny Dancer here demonstrates failure to grasp. Also again he is of course not realizing that Morning is reviewing what biologists write about race, not expressing her own view.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Ancestry or genomic similarity are precisely not "traits", as any biologist would know. And before the 1960s racial physical anthropology exactly used essentialist constructions of race - often based on single traits (e.g. cephalic index or similar) as anyone familiar with the history of racial science would know. Interestingly TD's idea that ancestry and similarity can be traits are EXACTLY the kind of essentialisyt misconception of the science that Morning shows is universally agreed is scientifically invalid, but which is still used implicitly in some studies that operationalize racial categories as distinct groups.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    • It is somewhat hilarious to read TinyDancer's statement that he has not called anyone a liar after having been called exactly that at least a handful of times, some of them on this very page. It seems Tiny Dancer is himself applying a Trumpian approach to truthiness - truth by authoritative assertion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Rhoark

    Dancer needs to WP:LISTEN and WP:DROPTHESTICK. No opinion on whether it will take admin intervention. Rhoark (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Tiny Dancer 48

    Maunus's statement is full of lies. My approach to the article is based on scholarly international surveys. Maunus's is based on an assertion of his POV. John Baker's book is excellent for the history of the concept. He covers the development in European natural sciences, also mentioning the concept in other cultures. The 1998 AAA executive board blame "White slave traders", a patently false and emotionally driven pseudoscience guilt tactic. Maunus wants to parrot this and only this, then accuses me of what he is doing, basing the article on his favorite source. Baker never says human races are species. The book by an Oxford biologist and historian may be ignored in American sociology, I don't know.
    Calling the biological race concept "essentialist" is a common meaningless strawman argument by biologically ignorant American sociologists. We cannot reference sociologists for biological views. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    "Nor did anyone believe the old essentialist view that there are clear cut, sharply-defined discrete race groups, all of whose members share some trait (or traits) that no members of other races share." Ann Morning
    Defining race by ancestry or genomic similarity will produce discrete groups which all share a trait. Is Ann Morning thinking about immutable Platonic idealism? Who knows or cares. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    "It is now clear that individual traits do not make for good differentia. But this is not a new discovery. It was recognized by Buffon, Blumenbach, Darwin, and the many others who argued that one should simultaneously take into account similarity in numerous traits." Sesardic
    I'm really not sure why Ann Morning's biological ignorance is of any relevance. Nobody thinks what she is talking about. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    The shared trait being genomic similarity or shared ancestry. No biologist bases race classification on one physical trait. Why mention that? It's the kind of amateur point that only a sociologist would waste everyones time going on about when trying to discuss biology. This is why we don't reference sociologists for biology. Or do we? What next? Referencing sports scientists for nuclear physics? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    It's possible US sociologists Ann Morning and Maunus are confusing "trait", or defining characteristic, with "phenotypic trait". Races have a trait in common, but as far as I know don't all share a single phenotypic trait. Why go on about this? Is it some cheap race denial strawman referencing no actual biological views? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    "Refers to Alan Templeton (a living person) as a "quack", dismissing material in the article sourced with his work." Yes, Templeton takes the "75% rule" for subspecies which refers to the possibility of a accurate phenetic classification of individuals in contact zones of hybridity and applies it to human genetics or Fst. This is a ridiculous misunderstanding. Subspecies Fst goes down to about 1% and there is no limit on this. He is then referenced four times for one race denial sentence. "A popular view in American sociology is that the racial categories that are common in everyday usage are socially constructed, and that racial groups cannot be biologically defined." Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    "Interestingly TD's idea that ancestry and similarity can be traits are EXACTLY the kind of essentialisyt misconception of the science that Morning shows is universally agreed is scientifically invalid, but which is still used implicitly in some studies that operationalize racial categories as distinct groups."

    I see, now defining a category is an "essentialist misconception". Maybe we should throw out all concepts in a postmodern relativist frenzy because some whackjob US sociologist said the magic word "essentialist". Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    "I think Tiny Dancer 48 has some knowledge in this subject area and wants to contribute in a good faith, however he has little understanding of the subject ("Races have a trait in common, but ... do not share a single phenotypic trait" below),"

    This is absurd nitpicking. Ancestry and genomic similarity are traits in some sense. They are characteristics which can be used to classify. The "essentialist" strawman seeks to imply that there are no characteristics or traits which can be used to sort. This is false. Claiming I have little understanding of biology for this semantic quibble (when you show no understanding) is just a personal attack. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    I'm simply reacting to a tag team pushing the pseudoscientific US sociology POV. I'm happy to include that POV, they seem unhappy to give weight to the global biology POV. The POV pushing is a far more serious issue than the whining about my tone. The "you are ignorant" claims are simply dishonesty. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    EdJohnston: I do have the POV that race is a valid biological concept. I am not trying to push this POV. The other editors clearly have the opposite POV. And are pushing it in the article. This article has been dominated by American sociologists since SLRubenstein. The article remains similar to how he wrote it. This does not represent international biological views. It's very easy to take sides and say "editor X has a POV". This is cheap. You should be looking at the various POVs in academia and asking whether the article represents them. Whether I am trying to bring the article to NPOV. Your comment is nothing more than gratuitous ad hominem. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Evergreenfir: I didn't call anybody a liar. How ironic. I'm "railing" against the 1998 AAA statement, which has been debunked. And we got a consensus for an opening sentence. I would have liked it if you'd contributed to the discussion instead of pointing out how much of a mean person I am here. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Embarrassing failure was another possibility. Evergreenfir, what's your opinion on Lewontin's argument in the 1998 AAA statement? I mean, you do understand this stuff right? You don't just want me banned for violating your precious beliefs? Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    Here's Evergreenfir removing my edit citing "unsourced", but leaving the unsourced material it responded to. Clearly gaming the system to push a POV. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Tiny Dancer 48

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

    Volunteer Marek

    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 Volunteer Marek

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    CFredkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced

    Discretionary Sanctions (Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.) at Donald Trump

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 1:37, 14 September 2016 Content recently added by 3P
    2. 13:53, 14 September 2016 Content recently added by 3P
    3. 16:33, 14 September 2016 Content reverted
    4. 16:49, 14 September 2016 Content restored in violation of Discretionary Sanctions

    Snapshot of article Talk page at time of restoration indicating lack of consensus regarding content (bottom 2 sections)

    Nofication of OP of violation by uninvolved editors and OP's response.

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

    Prior notification of OP of DS at article

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    VM has clearly violated discretionary sanctions in this case. Multiple editors have noted this. The implication of his behavior is that he thinks discretionary sanctions don't apply to him.

    Please note: Despite SomedifferentStuff's claim below, this request does NOT involve a 1RR violation. Please see "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" above.CFredkin (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    User: Laser brain: If my behavior is going to be examined as part of this request, then I'd like to respond to the allegation that I've gamed the DS process somehow. (That seems to be the most common allegation.) I'd encourage the OP's to provide actual evidence to support the allegation. Presumably it means that I've been using DS to block content from being added to Trump's bio which is not actually questionable. If that's the case, there should be multiple examples of me reverting content (and declaring DS) and then my objection ultimately being decisively over-ruled in the Talk discussion.CFredkin (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    User: Laser brain: Also, please review the discussion in this section of the Talk for Donald Trump, titled "Depth of coverage on Trump Foundation and current NY inquiry". I pointed out that an entire paragraph of the disputed content is not supported by the source provided. Somedifferentstuff and VM both responded to my post. Net result: as of this post, the unsourced content remains in Trump's bio. Please tell me who's operating in the best interest of the project.CFredkin (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    Here's a list of archived AE activity regarding VM. (I'm not even sure if it's complete as I stopped looking after a while.) Seeing this list, I guess it's not surprising that a straightforward complaint of DS violation against VM would result in my being banned.

    1 No action taken. 19:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

    2 No action taken, see admin discussion below. 01:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

    3 Case was without merit and filing party blocked for sock puppetry. 22:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

    4 No action taken 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

    5 Not closely related to the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions so outside the jurisdiction of AE. 07:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

    6 Volunteer Marek and Russavia are banned from interacting with each other. Russavia is blocked for two weeks for violating his Eastern Europe topic ban. 07:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

    7 This complaint is archived in the expectation it can be reopened when User:Volunteer Marek returns to Misplaced Pages editing. 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

    8 Submitter blocked indefinitely. 08:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

    9 Volunteer Marek warned for incivility. No other action. 17:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

    10 Jacurek, Volunteer Marek, Dr. Dan and Lokyz are sanctioned as described in this thread; M.K is warned. 06:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)CFredkin (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    I'll also note that the only actual evidence I've seen of alleged recent wrongdoing on my part is a post by Bishonen on my Talk page alleging that I gamed DS by reverting after 26 hours. Everything else has been generalized accusations.

    It's interesting that the only editors who posted here as 3P's who have not edited Trump-related articles (as far as I can tell) were Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Vanamonde93. However, I believe Vanamonde93's post here was retribution for my opposition to his recent admin candidacy.

    Leading the charge (although late to post here) to get me banned is MastCell, the admin who does no administrative work. As far as I can tell, all the edits he makes don't actually require administrative authority. So why does he have it? Because it's great for intimidating other editors and it allows him to get away with being generally nasty toward those he disagrees with (e.g. , , and . He can't engage with me administratively, because he's been pushing his own agenda on Trump articles, so instead he gives this dog whistle to his buddies.

    That was the signal for Bishonen (who had previously, and not long ago, declared that she was not going to get involved with DS enforcement) to head to my Talk page and threaten me with a ban for reverting after 26 hours on a page with DS. That's right, VM can get away with being the recipient of an amazing number of AE enforcements without so much as a slap on the wrist. But heaven forbid I revert after 26 hours on a DS page, and I'm threatened with a topic ban.

    Then there's Drmies, who brackets her appeal here for boomerang sanctions against me with posts(, ) advocating deletion of an article I created.CFredkin (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

    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 Volunteer Marek

    Here we go again. Please see the, what? last three? reports against me this month - all closed with no action - for why this is bullshit. This is a blatant attempt to abuse discretionary sanctions bordering on harassment.

    Here is the relevant discussion at User:NeilN's talk page.

    Here is User:MastCell's comment there: . The edit summary is on gaming discretionary sanctions and it refers to CFredkin's behavior (just like he's doing here). MastCell's comments are so on point that they deserve being quoted in full:

    " it's pretty obvious what CFredkin is doing. He reflexively reverts any material that might reflect negatively on Donald Trump, typically with a vague or non-existent rationale, and then demands "firm consensus" before the material can be re-inserted. Any attempt to achieve consensus is then filibustered with further vague objections, most commonly some variation of "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-in-Hillary-Clinton's-article".

    The discretionary sanctions are intended to promote caution in inserting potentially contentious material, but he's realized that he can render any material "contentious" simply by reverting it. It's a pattern which, combined with his editing history, makes it clear what he's up to. He's gaming the discretionary sanctions, and I see other editors, including Marek, getting frustrated with it. More to the point, if the discretionary sanctions are giving editors like CFredkin or Anythingyouwant de facto veto power over content, then they're not being enforced in a productive way."

    because that's EXACTLY what CFredkin does. He blanket reverts any editor who's not one of his allies, claims that discretionary sanctions protect his edit warring and then filibusters any discussion to make sure that he can always claim that no "firm" consensus has been achieved. This is also the case the particular case of this request. Here's the talk page discussion . There's five different editors who disagree with CFredkin. But hey, CFredkin objects, so "no firm consensus" so "I get to do whaa I want!!!".

    Here's User:Somedifferentstuff's relevant comment : "If Volunteer Marek deserves sanctioning then so do half the editors at Donald Trump, in particular CFredkin for consistently gaming the system in regards to discretionary sanctions with his drive-by deletions. I know this is silly season but enough already. I won't even get started on Anythingyouwant as I was in awe of the description here --- and low and behold, he strikes again".

    For the record, I don't know Somedifferentstuff from a hamster and though I've obviously seen MastCell around (since he's a super-veteran editor) I don't recall interacting with them in any substantial manner. So it's not just me that has noticed and is getting totally fed up with CFredkin's behavior (Anythingyouwant does sort of the same thing, but he's not so obnoxious and transparent about it) and thinks it's long over due for a topic ban. CFredkin should've been topic banned when they first made an appearance making BLP vio edits. But hey, assume good faith, let it slide, and here we are now, four months of irritation too late.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    And to be explicit, there were four editors on the talk page plus myself who agreed with retaining the text. Ok, Anythingyouwant appears to have changed his mind later but at the time of my edit under discussion, their comments on talk indicated support for keeping the material. That's five editors who want to keep the text. And one editor - CFredkin - who wanted it removed. And he removed it. Against consensus. And then tried to invoke discretionary sanctions and filed this report as some kind of abracadabra magic spell that gives him immunity from being reverted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    Zaostao, please don't accuse me of lying. Especially when it's your fault you have problems with reading comprehension. My statement clearly refers to the issue of including text about the Trump Foundation - you know, that's why I quote editors' statements about it and link to the section about it. What you are pointing out is that there was no consensus for something else - mentioning the New Jersey Generals in the lede. And I agree with that, which is why I self reverted that portion of my edit .

    Again, in regard to the pertinent issue - whether to include material on the Trump Foundation - there was indeed five editors, and strong consensus for inclusion when CFredkin tried to remove it and when I restored. So stop throwing unsupported accusations around and strike your comment. (Also, why are you showing up to every article I edit?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    Zaostao, first please don't alter your comments after someone replied to them, as you did here, since that makes it look like I'm replying to something other than what you actually said. Second, there was indeed no consensus for including the NJ Generals and I did a partial revert. Now Trump University, the discussion was more mixed, and I was considering self-reverting that as well but you beat me to it . If you really want to know here is the timeline:

    • I undid CFredkin's revert at 16:47
    • I went to real life work. Anythingyouwant complained on my talk page that instead of immediately responding to CFredkin's admin-shopping at NeilN's talk page I "waited six hours". Gimme a fucking break. If I have to go to work, I'm gonna go to work, not check Misplaced Pages every ten minutes to see if someone somewhere said something bad about me. Tough noogies guys, get over it.
    • I got done with work and noticed that CFredkin was trying to stir up controversy and haranguing admins and running around crying "discretionary sanctions" as he usually does when consensus is against him. I didn't have much time to look at the whole thing, but I did a quick partial self revert at 21:59 to show good faith. I then drove home
    • I had dinner.
    • I quickly checked Misplaced Pages and quickly responded to the attacks on me at NeilN's page.
    • I hang out with my family and watched a cartoon with my kid.
    • I checked Misplaced Pages again at about 00:00 Sept 15, had some time to actually pay attention to what all this was about and made some more edits.

    But now it seems that I was STUPID to actually partially revert myself at 21:59 (Sept 14) since now you're trying to use that against me to argue that "I was aware" of ... something or other. I'll keep that in mind and try to be less accommodating in the future, since apparently making a show of good faith just gets twisted against you.

    Look, it's freakin' ridiculous of you to demand that I respond immediately on Misplaced Pages to every little storm that someone concocts in some tea cup. I responded to the concerns on the same day, when I had time to actually sit down with Misplaced Pages. And your insistence on bringing this up just evidences how bad-faithed your editing is (and you still haven't explained why you're stalking my edits).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    And btw, I'm gonna go to work again now. So whatever crazy shit you guys come up with in the mean time, don't expect an immediate response. Probably shouldn't state this, since now there'll be a flurry of attacks (get him while he's busy!!!) Have fun with yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    @ D.Creish.

    You already brought up this MVBW business and tried to make something of it in like fifty million previous AE reports against me and in all of them nothing happened, because there was nothing to it. Just drop it. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND is showing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    I mean, seriously, is there some external forum or website or something where you guys collect and share these diffs, because you and a few others keep posting the same set and it almost looks like a cut-n'-paste.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    Re Anythingyouwant - Anythingyouwant says " VM made six edits spanning 21:59 to 22:46 including this refusal to revert Trump U from the lead". This is blatantly dishonest. Oh screw it, let's call it what it is - it's Anythingyouwant lying his ass off. I made a partial self-revert. This partial self-revert did not include reverting a part which ATW apparently wanted me to revert as well. And now he shows up here and pretends that my good faithed partial-self revert was a "refusal". Do you see me refusing anything in that edit? No? That's because I'm not. But yeah, I'll keep in mind that trying to compromise with some people only makes them use that against you for the future. This is classic WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic where every action by an editor one disagrees with is made to look bad and nefarious even when it's actually doing what you want.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    And like I already replied to Zaostao - this boils down to the fact that I didn't fully revert within six hours after CFredkin went crying to an administrator. Like I already said, I was at work and wasn't even aware he had done this. I briefly noticed it six hours later but as I was busy with other stuff I made only a couple quick edits, including self-reverting myself in part. But that's not enough for the battleground warriors. They expect and demand that when they complain about something, the editor being attacks comes running to fulfill their wishes immediately and without delay. I want this and I want it now! Ok... how old are you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    And oh yeah, did I mention that majority of the edit had "firm" consensus on the talk page when I undid CFredkin's revert? Cuz it did. This is just CFredkin yelling "discretionary sanctions! discretionary sanctions!" as an edit warring and POV pushing tactic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, ATW, it was a lie. I didn't "refuse" to do anything which is what you are claiming. I made a partial self-revert rather than full revert. And no, I didn't break DS since the edit restored material which had support on talk page for the most part. If you had been nicer about it, and didn't try to make this into a battleground and had just waited a bit longer (like I said, at work) we could've worked it out amicably. But this isn't really about the edit in question, is it? It's about trying to hang a sanction on someone who gets in the way of pushing your POV. Because whether "Trump University" is mentioned (literally, as briefly as possible) or not, and whether I self-revert after six hours, or ten hours, doesn't matter all that much. But it provides you with this bullshit excuse to agitate here on WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    Dervorguilla - yes, and I self reverted that part about the Generals as soon as I noticed. Frankly, it was such a minor part of the dispute, and of the text, that it didn't immediately pop on my radar. But when it did, I undid my edit. What's the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by My very best wishes

    I think the POV-pushing by CFredkin is immediately obvious from many his comments. Consider this for example. He tells: If we are going to say Trump is "racist" in the lede at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, then it seems completely fair to include this reference here. Both comments are equally well sourced and character-based.

    Everything is wrong here:
    1. The lede at the Donald Trump presidential campaign in fact does not tell that he is a "racist"
    2. He makes assumption that if something bad was said about one presidential candidate, than something bad should also be said about another presidential candidate, just to "get even"
    3. CFredkin is obviously against saying about Trump that he is a "racist". OK. But he votes "Yes" so say an equally bad thing (according to his own comment) about another candidate.

    My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Word "firm" was removed, but I do not think it changes anything in this AE discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    The restriction tells: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). I guess it comes from Template:2016 US Election AE. Was it actually authorized by Arbcom for all pages related to US elections 2016? Based on comments below , I can see that no, it was not specifically authorized by Arbcom, and it was poorly worded.

    I think this restriction should not be used as something prone to WP:gaming. For example, anyone can remove anything he does not like (no matter how well this is sourced and relevant) and claim: "hey, that was challenged by reversion, where is your consensus to include?". And this is actually happening, like here (see also edit summary). Moreover, making a restriction "to enforce BRD" is a questionable idea because WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

    • Volunteer Marek: 27 edits since December 2015;
    • CFredkin: 222 edits since March this year.
    Muffled 08:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Zaostao

    Volunteer Marek states "And to be explicit, there were four editors on the talk page plus myself who agreed with retaining the text. Ok, Anythingyouwant appears to have changed his mind later but at the time of my edit under discussion, their comments on talk indicated support for keeping the material."

    Volunteer Marek restored the contested material at 16:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC) and the talk page discussing this issue at the time showed no support for the inclusion. Anythingyouwant disagreed with the inclusion citing WP:MOSBIO, Buster7 said "OK. Maybe no mention in the lead but the Generals could be mentioned somewhere in the article," and Muboshgu said "Generals definitely not important enough for the lead. Trump U probably not."

    So Volunteer Marek's claim that "there were four editors on the talk page plus myself who agreed with retaining the text" is simply a lie, he had not discussed restoring the material, and there were only three editors on the talk page, none of whom supported the inclusion. Zaostao (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    There was no support for the inclusion of Trump University in the lede either, but you left it in when you were self-reverting. You also did not discuss any of this on the talk page, in fact, the talk page when you made your partial self-revert was exactly the same as it was when you made your original restoration of the contested material. The excuse being that "but I meant to restore this contested material (Trump Foundation), not this other contested material (New Jersey Generals & Trump University) that I re-added as collateral" is not valid, and you showed awareness that you made the restoration of the New Jersey Generals and Trump University material along with the Trump Foundation material when you made the partial self-revert that left the unsupported Trump University material in the first paragraph of the lede.

    You restored contested material without discussion and against the consensus on the talk page at the time of restoration. Zaostao (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    I appreciate you giving me the time line of your day Marek, but if your time is limited, may I suggest that you spend that time working and with your family instead of restoring contested material without discussion? It would be beneficial to all parties.

    Addition: Marek states that "Now Trump University, the discussion was more mixed, and I was considering self-reverting that as well but you beat me to it."
    1) He admits here that he was aware that he also restored the contested Trump University material along with the Trump Foundation material, and also was aware of the discussion that he did not partake in (how else would he know the discussion was "more mixed" or not), but chose to leave the contested Trump U material in when he made the partial reversion that removed the New Jersey Generals material.
    2) This seems inconsistent as after I removed the contested Trump University material, Marek then made his first contribution to the talk page (his first in 12 days actually: 3rd September to 15th September despite having restored the contested material on 14th September) stating that he thought Trump University was important enough to be in the lede. He also later said that "Of course Trump U is notable. Why in the world would it not be?" in response to CFredkin stating "Neither seems notable enough to warrant mention in the lede," so I have to seriously question whether Marek was actually considering removing the Trump University line himself or if that statement was a lie—although it doesn't really matter either way as he still restored contested material without any discussion on the talk page and when the talk page was actually in consensus against the restoration. Zaostao (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    Also, Marek complains about my presence here, but does not complain about My very best wishes' presence despite the fact that they showed up before me? As D.Creish has shown below, I think if there's anyone who is "stalking your edits", it is MVBW. Zaostao (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    "one can at least hope that discretionary sanctions should be interpreted in a way that removes obvious single-purpose tendentious agenda accounts like CFredkin, rather than rewarding them while punishing the people who have to deal with them." –MastCell

    Is this speaking as if the account being reported in this filing isn't (at least recently) a single-purpose tendentious agenda account? Do the same 3,000 edit test for VM, how many are not partisan edits to politics related articles? Zaostao (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement By D.Creish

    You're correct, it's not relevant. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I don't know whether this is relevant here but I'm concerned about possible WP:TAGTEAM-ing by Marek and My very best wishes in political articles.

    In Debbie Wasserman Schultz Marek makes two reverts which remove the same block of content:

    1. 17:42, 1 August 2016
    2. 20:21, 1 August 2016

    When Marek's second revert is reverted, MVBW (having never edited the article before) makes another two reverts removing the same block of content Marek had removed:

    1. 23:06, 1 August 2016
    2. 09:13, 2 August 2016

    In Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy (under 1RR) Marek removes a significant amount of content, is reverted, then reverts:

    1. 18:16, 14 September 2016

    and again MVBW (having never edited this relatively obscure article) reverts to remove the same content:

    1. 00:20, 15 September 2016

    One could chalk it up to shared interests but MVBW's edit summaries and (occasional) talk page comments don't reflect an understanding of the text he's restoring or removing.

    For example, in his first revert above he refers to Wasserman-Schultz denying Sanders access to the DNC's computerized voter database as a "petty detail", when the incident was covered in every major RS, and the cited source was a NY Times article focusing exclusively on the incident.

    In his 3rd revert his edit summary is: rv per BLP. The arguments on article talk page look convincing, but account(s) look suspicious. Something published by newspapers is not research. Except none of the editors whose content he reverted had posted on the talk page... and while one account looks suspicious the other two look normal. His reference to "research" is a bad paraphrase of Marek's talk page comment where he objects to including a USA Today "study."

    The only part of MVBW's summary that seems reasonable is "rv per BLP." His reversion also restores a broken link corrected in a separate edit, suggesting he didn't examine the content or edit-history before restoring and simply deferred to Marek's version.

    A more thorough search showed the pattern repeating:

    If I continued searching I'd expect to find more. Effectively they appear to operate as one account with extra revert and consensus privileges. D.Creish (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    Reply

    @Volunteer Marek: I mentioned your and MVBW's involvement at AE only once previously. I don't think "tried to make something of it in like fifty million previous AE reports" is a remotely fair or honest representation. Please retract it along with the personal attack that follows. D.Creish (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Somedifferentstuff

    First, the initial filing of this complaint is malformed. It list 4 diffs, 3 of which do not involve Volunteer Marek (you need at least 2 diffs to demonstrate a violation of discretionary santions - i.e. 1RR). Second, the above section by D.Creish appears to be some type of "guilt by association" attack. It is largely focused on another editor called My very best wishes, who appears to be following him around. In other words, it is not his responsibility to monitor the actions of a fellow editor, much less be ascribed sanctions for their behavior. Lastly, whoever takes on this case needs to look at the discussion that took place here. Cheers. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by SPECIFICO

    It's clear from this thread that CFredkin is abusing AE to pursue a political agenda against Volunteer Marek because Marek is upholding WP policy in the face of Fredkin's POV and Battlegound editing. CFredkin should be TBANned from American Politics per ARBAP2. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    It should also be clear to the Admins who are declining to enforce ARBAP2 that their inaction is enabling various anti-Clinton POV editors to run out the clock, gaming the system long enough for their stuff to stay on WP and Google search results through the election. There really isn't time for Admins to ruminate, warn, study and relitigate all this misbehavior. All of this nonsense e.g. using WP to post anti-Clinton conspiracy theories as if they were fact, will be removed on the normal WP cycle -- about 12-18 months -- but the POV warriors know that, and so did Arbcom when it authorized Admins to act with appropriate timely sanctions to put a stop to this behavior. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    @Dervorguilla: appears to be stating that a punitive remedy should be levied against Volunteer Marek. But on WP, remedies are applied for prevention, not to shame and blame. Furthermore, Dervorguilla, you fail to consider the context of battleground and POV behavior by other editors. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Anythingyouwant

    The edits in question by VM were twofold: partly to the opening paragraph of the lead, and partly to a section about the Trump Foundation. This AE complaint is reasonable as to both, and reasonable as to either one separately, regardless of the outcome. For brevity's sake, I'll confine the rest of my comment here to the first edit by VM (i.e. his edits to the opening paragraph). At 14 September at 13:53, the following sentence was added to the opening paragraph of the lead: "He is the founder of Trump University and the New Jersey Generals football team." This sentence was removed at 16:33 on 14 September. Then Volunteer Marek edited this BLP by restoring that sentence at 16:47 on 14 September. At that point (16:47) there was already a talk page discussion with no consensus for including this material (three editors had commented and none of them supported reinclusion of the disputed sentence). Volunteer Marek had previously been informed about discretionary sanctions at this BLP. VM's edit summary said: "restore well sourced material removed with misleading edit summaries". But there had been nothing misleading about the edit summary VM criticized (please compare VM's blank edit summary for a non-minor edit at 16:49); even if VM had been correct that someone else's edit summary had been misleading, that wouldn't give VM power to revert new and contested material back into the opening paragraph without consensus, contrary to discretionary sanctions. Shortly after his edit to the opening paragraph at 16:47, a complaint was filed at 17:12 over at the user talk of an uninvolved admin, who requested at 17:52 that VM answer the complaint. VM made six edits spanning 21:59 to 22:46 including this refusal to revert Trump U from the lead. Finally, another editor removed Trump U from the opening paragraph at 23:37. So, VM had plenty of time and opportunity to comply with the discretionary sanctions, and chose not to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    Just to be clear, this refusal to revert Trump U from the lead paragraph did revert some other stuff, but still it was a refusal to revert Trump U, exactly as I said above (without "lying my ass off"). I don't think VM ought to be praised for violating discretionary sanctions less than he tried to do initially.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    Believe me, VM, I'd have much preferred if you hadn't screwed around with the lead paragraph of this very high profile BLP, because then I wouldn't feel obliged to stick my neck out like this at AE. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    @User:Lord Roem, you refer to "VM's self-revert", but if you click on it you'll see that it was only a partial self-revert, and VM himself described it as such in his edit summary. The material that was not reverted had no consensus at the article talk page, including insertion of "Trump University" into the opening paragraph. It's nice and all that VM reverted himself a little bit, and I will certainly keep that tactic in mind next time I want to get away with controversial insertions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    MastCell has now pinged me twice, so I will now respond. I have already denied that any misrepresentation was made by me in the incident five years ago to which MastCell refers. I do not want to comment any further here in this proceeding, unless or until anyone suggests sanctioning me, at which point I would like to see specific diffs and allegations to which I can respond. Preferably, we won't get to that point, but please let me know if and when we do. For now, I deny MastCell's accusation that I have recently lied about anything at the Donald Trump talk page. MastCell omits to mention that an uninvolved admin has already absolved me of that bogus charge (User:NeilN wrote "Different editors place different emphasis on different parts of guidelines. Doing so is not deliberate misrepresentation"). MastCell also omits to mention the explanation I gave him at the time, and omits that other experienced editors shared opinions similar to mine. Again, if I am being considered now for sanctions, please let me know why so that I can respond appropriately. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Belated statement by Dervorguilla

    "I disagree with ... putting ... in the first paragraph ... 'He is the founder of ... Generals football team', per WP:MOSBIO," says Anythingyouwant. "OK. Maybe no mention in the lead," says Buster7. "Generals definitely not important enough for the lead," says Muboshgu. Looks to me like a reasonably well-founded consensus against reinstating, not for reinstating. Yet Volunteer Marek, an experienced editor, goes ahead and openly reinstates. He appears to have been openly taking a needless risk. I think he and other interested editors (including this editor) deserve to learn what the consequences are -- both for a risk-taking editor and for an editor who correctly calls him out. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Dervorguilla (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    : "I disagree with ... putting ... in the first paragraph ... 'He is the founder of ... Generals football team', per WP:MOSBIO," says Anythingyouwant. "OK. Maybe no mention in the lead," says Buster7. "Generals definitely not important enough for the lead," says Muboshgu. Looks like a well-founded consensus against reinstating. Yet Volunteer Marek -- an experienced editor -- goes ahead and openly reinstates. He appears to be taking a needless risk. He gets properly called out. I think he and other interested editors deserve to learn what the consequences are -- both for the risk-taking editor and for the editor properly calling him out. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by MelanieN

    I think this diff (a comment by Bishonen at CFredkin's talk page) might be helpful in evaluating this situation. (Note: I am WP:INVOLVED in several of these articles, so anything I say here is as an editor, not an administrator.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Also relevant: this comment by MastCell at NeilN's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Recent activity: On September 19 VM and CFredkin got into a small edit war at Political positions of Donald Trump, in which they both did things that would have been sanctionable under Discretionary Sanctions. However, that article has not been identified as being under DS so the edits were allowable. I would like to suggest that somebody place a DS warning on that page, and possibly other Trump related articles, because this is by no means the first time that this kind of edit warring has happened there - by people who are clearly very well aware of what they can get away with in the absence of DS. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Just another straw in the wind: In a discussion at CFredkin's talk page, User talk:CFredkin#Gaming 1RR in American politics, he claimed that VM violates AE sanctions but gets away with it because "the same admin intervenes on your behalf at AE each time to give you a pass." When challenged to say who he was talking about, he backed down and struck the allegation. This seems to be to fall somewhere in between bluster and tendentiousness. Not to mention his unsupported claims that the admin community is "biased" and is "selectively enforcing policies". There is definitely a battlefield mentality here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Vanamonde93

    I have interacted substantially with both Marek and CFredkin, so I am commenting here as an editor only. Marek's behavior was sub-par, and in my view he should certainly have been more circumspect about the revert: but he has self-reverted, which does not seem to leave too much to be sanctioned. I want to echo MelanieN's comment, and add that CFredkin's track record in this area is poor. I, too, have found that his modus operandi, more often than not, is to remove any material of Trump (or other mainstream republican candidate) and then demand consensus for its inclusion, or else insist that it is undue weight. He also tends to dance very close to the edge on many of the restrictions in place on US politics pages, whether they be 3RR, 1RR, or requiring consensus for contentious material. I can post diffs if necessary, but this is easily verified by looking at the number of warnings on his talk page, or the reports here. Moreover, a point he makes frequently is that Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump (for example) should be treated symmetrically, because that is his interpretation of NPOV: which of course is incorrect. NPOV means giving due weight to all significant points of view in reliable sources; and reliable sources treat the two candidates differently. Vanamonde (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by MastCell

    I agree with the consensus below that this request is meritless, but I'd like to expand on my comments here, on stonewalling, filibustering, and abuse of the discretionary sanctions by CFredkin, the filer of this complaint. CFredkin is a prolific single-purpose agenda account, whose only apparent interest in Misplaced Pages is in its potential as a platform for right-wing talking points. Here's an exercise: go back in CFredkin's contribution history and look for edits that don't directly involve partisan US politics. And if you find any, let me know—I went back about 3,000 edits or so before I gave up. If he has contributed anything to this project besides partisan political edits, please show me.

    CFredkin also shows a striking disregard for this site's behavioral norms and policies. He was busted for abusive sockpuppetry designed to push a partisan agenda (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/CFredkin/Archive), but was let off with a 2-week block. He subsequently racked up multiple blocks for edit-warring, again in service of his partisan agenda. He has become more adept at avoiding these sorts of bright-line violations, but he continues to edit-war in a more subtle manner (see this thread for one example). In light of his flagrant disregard for site policies when they stand in the way of his political agenda, his newfound stance as a defender of the project's integrity is strikingly hypocritical.

    The most concerning behavior is the abuse of discretionary sanctions. CFredkin's m.o. is to reflexively revert any material that might reflect negatively on Donald Trump, regardless of how well-sourced, relevant, or policy-compliant the material may be. He then demands a "firm consensus" to reinstate the material, pointing to the discretionary-sanction requirement for contentious edits. The final step is that he stonewalls any effort generate consensus on the talkpage (together with Anythingyouwant). At best, his approach makes it a grueling weeks-long slog to insert any material into the article, since he's realized he can render anything "contentious" simply by reverting it and then invoking the discretionary sanctions. At worst, he effectively vetoes appropriate, policy-compliant material that goes against his partisan agenda, and then uses the discretionary sanctions as a weapon against good-faith editors who recognize what he's doing, as in this filing against Marek.

    I'm not under any illusions as to our ability to deal with this sort of subtle, corrosive tendentious editing, but one can at least hope that discretionary sanctions should be interpreted in a way that removes obvious single-purpose tendentious agenda accounts like CFredkin, rather than rewarding them while punishing the people who have to deal with them. MastCell  19:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Oh no. According to CFredkin, I'm infamous, as "the admin who does no administrative work". This is a transparently disprovable lie; I've logged nearly 8,000 administrative actions here. Perhaps he meant to say that I haven't adminned much recently, which is true. Of course, I haven't edited much recently either, mostly because I'm tired of dealing with people like CFredkin.

    CFredkin also provides several diffs to support the claim that I'm "generally nasty". Please, scrutinize those diffs, because he's saved me the trouble of digging them up. The first two (, ) relate to an instance where I called him out for a blatantly dishonest misrepresentation of a source. (He took a source describing the business community's horrified reaction to Donald Trump, and cherry-picked from it to write that "Trump has been endorsed by a number of members of the business community"). I'm not sure why he thinks that this reflects badly on me, rather than on him, but it is worth reviewing, especially in the context of other evidence of his unscrupulous approach to this project (for example, his deceptive use of sockpuppets).

    (The third diff involves Anythingyouwant, who's previously been sanctioned for misrepresenting policies, doing more of the same). I think I was firm in response to these instances of dishonesty, but not "nasty", although I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. MastCell  04:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by MrX

    My perception of CFredkin's editing career is reflected perfectly in MastCell's statement. CFredkin started as an SPA with a troubling history of edit warring. After several blocks, he was more careful about crossing 3RR, but still continues to edit war . More troubling, is that he has learned how to use WP:ARBAPDS as an implement to veto content that doesn't mesh with his point of view . These, and many more reverts like it, seem to be attempts at GAMING the system.- MrX 23:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Some of the motivation for CFredkin's editing conduct seems to derive from the need to correct perceived inequities in how Misplaced Pages covers politicians on opposite sides. Comments like these suggest an agenda to RIGHTGREATWRONGS:

    On the positive side, CFredkin is almost always civil, and does use the talk page to discuss content. He has also made numerous improvements to article content, albeit within a narrow range of subjects.- MrX 00:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Result concerning Volunteer Marek

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I don't know if AE is set up to handle this but from where I stand, both parties have made claims against one another and both parties' behavior should be examined. --NeilN 16:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    • This request doesn't hold water. There's a lot of semi-legalistic arguments in the above statements about how one should go about discussing before reverting or adding in reverted material. The re-addition of the 'Generals' sentence seems strange to me, but VM's self-revert seems to resolve that, at least in my mind. However one slices it, I don't think this singular edit is indicative of any behavior that needs to be sanctioned. I'd close this with no action, like the previous requests regarding VM. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Laser brain, do you have any findings? Also, I note that the "firm consensus" wording in the template that implemented the AE remedy has been replaced with simply "consensus". This should change the behavior of editors. --NeilN 13:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm leaning heavily toward a boomerang for the filer. I see quite a bit of troubling behavior in diffs provided by MelanieN and MastCell, and I believe CFredkin is gaming DS to remove his perceived opponents. This thread is also very concerning, and I do believe he is gaming 1RR and illustrating that he considers Misplaced Pages to be ground zero for ideological political battles. He's edit warring and now making unfounded accusations of admins at the same time his behavior is being examined here, which indicates that he lacks the ability to see his own part in these conflicts. I suggest a three month topic ban from post-1932 US Politics. --Laser brain (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Support boomerang. A three month topic ban from post-1932 US Politics, broadly construed, is just what I had started to consider applying myself, but through AE is better. If CFredkin has ever, in his diligent editing of these articles, restored content which reflects well on Clinton or poorly on Trump, or removed content which reflects well on Trump or poorly on Clinton, I haven't seen it. I'm not saying it can't have happened, but it must be vanishingly rare. He's a tendentious editor, and specifically, he has been using the discretionary sanctions as a way to force his preferred content into articles. That is not acceptable, no matter how polite a person is while doing it. Actually even the "polite" part of CFredkin's polite POV-pushing has started to flake off a little during this discussion; not that superficial courtesy is what's at stake here. I support Laser Brain's proposal. Bishonen | talk 14:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC).
    • I support this boomerang too, and think that three months is generous, given how old and consistent some of these diffs are. Some highlights: invoking the BLP here is completely gaming the system. This edit is very questionable and its edit summary also attempts to gain the system of DS. Same thing here, in that infamous set of edits to the Trump lede--though I actually agree with its removal from that paragraph, but it should have been placed elsewhere in the lead (that's just an editorial thing, of course). This edit to the Trump article, same thing--threatening BLP/DS while whitewashing the article. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by MarkBernstein

    There is no consensus to overturn the sanction, so the block remains in effect. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

    Appealing user
    MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    6 month block imposed here.
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator

    Statement by MarkBernstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by The Wordsmith

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

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

    Statement by PeterTheFourth

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

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

    Statement by Masem

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement by Rhoark

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

    Statement by GamerPro64

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

    Statement by Starke Hathaway

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

    Statement by Ryk72

    MarkBernstein is a deeply disruptive and profoundly unproductive editor.

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

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

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

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

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

    Until then, I urge that the appeal be declined.

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

    - Ryk72 14:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Strongjam

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

    Statement by DHeyward

    A couple observations:

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


    Statement by (involved editor)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by MarkBernstein

    Statement by uninvolved User:clpo13

    • I agree with Peter that this doesn't look like a violation of the topic ban. The content involved in the offending edit does not have anything to do with Gamergate. Also, note that Mark was previously warned about editing alt-right because, like 8chan, the page mentions Gamergate. However, The Wordsmith found there to be no violation of his topic ban in that case. clpo13(talk) 21:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
    • If we're going to call 8chan a Gamergate topic, let's throw Reddit into that pot as well. KotakuInAction has been involved in Gamergate just as long as the 8chan boards have. Or better yet, let's not paint an entire website based on the actions of a subset of its users. clpo13(talk) 22:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement of uninvolved User:Lankiveil

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

    Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

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

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

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

    Statement by Drmies

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

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

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

    Statement by Calbeck

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

    Result of the appeal by MarkBernstein

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Misplaced Pages supposedly isn't a bureaucracy; it appears highly bureaucratic to block MB, for six months yet, for a non-Gamergate edit to 8chan, an article which isn't in any of the categories Misogyny, Sexual harassment, Video game controversies, Video game journalism, Women and video games, or any other category that hints at Gamergate. (I picked the list from the categories at Gamergate controversy.) All 8chan has is a framed line with an orange hand, on the talkpage, stating that "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully", in amongst a shrubbery of other top templates. You have to read that with far more interest than most people ever take to the bloated top stuff on talkpages, and then click on the link hidden in the word "subject", to even see a mention of the Gamergate sanctions. This warning was added by Mike V on 22 November 2014.. (Reformatted by RGloucester on 19 March 2015 when the community discretionary sanctions for Gamergate had been superseded by ArbCom sanctions.) Apparently discretionary sanctions mean that any single admin can put any article under discretionary sanctions indefinitely, at their discretion. The article isn't mainly about Gamergate, and MB's edit wasn't about Gamergate at all. In my opinion the block should be vacated, or at the very least shortened. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC).
    • I frequently see enforcement requests and appeals where editors want to split hairs about whether certain content within a DS-covered article is related to the topic. We shouldn't be in the business of determining that. Editors get banned from pages, not individual paragraphs or sentences within pages. Sanctions aren't that granular, nor should they be. We also shouldn't be in the business of arguing whether a page should be included in DS for a given topic, in this venue. "I don't agree with this page being covered under DS for this topic" isn't a valid excuse for violating a topic ban. I don't believe that Mark wasn't aware the 8chan page is covered under Gamergate DS. He has repeatedly flouted his topic ban and if it were me applying the original sanction, I would have indeffed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I would decline the appeal. Mark Bernstein's attitude might yet change, but here is his current position: "As I said, I no longer support or condone the project, but I am perhaps willing to help clean out such litter as I happen upon. I submit this reluctantly at the request of people who retain more faith than I in Misplaced Pages." This 'cleaning out of litter' tends to be in the penumbra of Gamergate, in this case the 8chan page. It appears that Mark feels compelled to act in service of the greater good, but these actions are usually at the edge of his topic ban and are bound to stir up the conflict. if we could be sure that Mark would observe both the letter and the spirit of his topic ban, and stay away from grey areas things might be different but the pattern has continued for long enough that such a change in his thinking seems unlikely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    • It looks to me like 8chan was formed by people involved with Gamergate, in response to Gamergate proponents being restricted or kicked off from other forums. Given that, the article is clearly related to Gamergate—I don't even think one needs to "broadly construe" very broadly at all to conclude that. A topic ban means to stay well away from the banned area. Tiptoeing around the line will often result in stepping over it, and in this case, it did. Seraphimblade 17:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    • This is plainly gaming the system. Everybody knows that 8chan was one of the sites used by Gamergaters. This is not even broadly construed, it's bang in the zone. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Everybody knows? Maybe I'm nobody, because I don't know an 8chan from an 8track, but I'd say give the guy a break. Jonathunder (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    Sanctions clarification request: 2016 US Election AE

    Per consensus here, "firm consensus" has been changed to read just "consensus" in all affected notices. Seraphimblade 16:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Statement by Sandstein

    Template:2016 US Election AE, placed on various election-related articles' talk pages, directs: "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." It does not say what "firm" consensus means; and this is not a term of art used in any policy or guideline that I know of.

    In my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, I found ordinary (rough) consensus in a talk page RfC at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. Because the content at issue in the RfC had previously been challenged, editors disagree about whether the RfC's result amounts to "firm" consensus and can be implemented.

    "Firm" can be read as describing the form of consensus-finding (as, e.g., through a formal process such as an RfC), or as describing a degree of consensus (e.g., a very clear supermajority), or a combination of both. In my view, either can reasonably be described as "firm". However, since the creator of the template, Coffee, is currently inactive, I ask other admins who have been active in this topic area to help clarify the template's meaning and possibly wording.  Sandstein  07:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    I agree that the removal of the word "firm" would resolve the matter. Thanks, all!  Sandstein  11:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Dervorguilla

    "Firm" doesn't mean "large", so "firm consensus" doesn't likely mean "large consensus". Firm does often mean "not easily challenged or undone" (usage example: "holds a firm position as the country’s leading poet"). M-W Unabridged, s.v. "firm".

    What kind of consensus could not be easily challenged? At the very least, it would comply with these three policies:

    1. WP:CONACHIEVE. Was the proposed edit ever adapted (ever altered or limited) to bring in at least some dissenters?

    2. WP:CONLEVEL. Were notices posted at related articles and WikiProjects?

    3. WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Does the consensus calculation take into account the apparent concerns (or voiced opinions) of those dissenters who ultimately stopped responding? (Logically, they may well have been the very editors who were the least "emotionally or ideologically invested in winning".)

    This kind of consensus could not be easily undone. It would accordingly help achieve the apparent purpose of Coffee's template: To stop the repeated reversing or undoing of edits on these highly visible pages. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

    Statement by Awilley

    Absent the input of User:Coffee (who has been asked thrice for clarification) I believe that the original intention of the "firm consensus" clause was to prevent revert wars involving multiple users who each revert once, and to enforce WP:BRD. Defining a higher tier of consensus (as some have interpreted the clause) is not in line with Misplaced Pages principles and is not conducive to article improvement. I think the problem could be solved by simply replacing the words "firm consensus" with "consensus" or "clear consensus". There's no reason to require a higher standard of consensus than is normally required to exit the BRD cycle and implement an edit. ~Awilley (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

    Update: I did some digging and found Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Clarification request: American politics 2 (July 2016) in which Coffee clearly states that the clause in question was meant "to prevent a situation where an editor adds something, a content editor reverts it (using up their 1RR), and then the other editor uses their one revert to replace their edit. That happening is obviously not optimal, and it actually has happened in these articles before. I would love, and am completely open to, finding a different way to word the restriction..." Given this, I think the modification I'm proposing should be quite uncontroversial. ~Awilley (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    @MrX, I BOLDLY made the change to the primary DS warning template here. Any admin who disagrees that consensus here is "firm" enough to warrant that change is welcome to revert. If nobody reverts me within 24 hours and if no other admin has made the changes to the other templates you listed (thanks!) I'll follow through and make the change on those templates as well. I do wonder why we are using multiple templates for different talk pages instead of just transcluding one or two.

    @Anythingyouwant, just as I oppose defining a higher tier of consensus I would oppose formally defining a higher tier of editor. How would we determine who is a "lead editor" and who is not? Who would be the judge? ~Awilley (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    @Anythingyouwant, it's one thing to talk in general terms about distinguishing between long-term content editors and, say, single-purpose silly-season POV pushers. It's another thing to rewrite a rule to explicitly favor reverts made by one type of editor. Our definition of "consensus" already does that implicitly, directing us to "incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines". I am getting the feeling that your resistance to just going with regular old "consensus" is because you don't like the result of the "rough consensus" RfC that started this discussion. ~Awilley (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Alsee

    Good job Awilley finding that link. The purpose of the "firm consensus" text is not to create some weird new standard of consensus. The purpose of the text is to allow Admins to invoke the Voice Of Doom, or an actual block, to deal with disruptive editing. It should be changed simply to "consensus". Admins obviously should not block someone for applying an edit that has gotten any level of RFC-consensus, or for applying an edit which has gone through reasonable informal debate to a constructive outcome. Alsee (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by MrX

    Given that there seems be agreement that our policies don't define "firm consensus"; that Coffee probably added that adjective to reinforce the message; and that the adjective does nothing more that inspire Wikilawyering, is there some reason why an admin is not stepping up to remove the word "firm" from the edit notices (linked below for convenience) so that we can all get back to work?- MrX 15:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Anythingyouwant

    Kudos to Awilley for finding that stuff about what Coffee meant. I see that I was pinged by Coffee into that discussion, but never got around to it. The bit excerpted above by Awilley is interesting, and uses the term "content editor". Coffee previously explained what he meant by that: "The whole point of this restriction is to reduce the unnecessary workload faced by editors actually working to make these political articles neutral, reliably sourced, properly weighted, and thorough (and in the case of the BLPs, in full compliance of the requisite policies)... I'll refer to such editors as 'content editors' henceforth." So it seems Coffee meant that when "content editors" oppose a revert, then a "firm consensus" is more likely lacking for the revert. Perhaps we would clarify by replacing "firm consensus" with "consensus that includes lead editors" or "consensus that includes any lead editors (or is a large RFA-type consensus)".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    @Awilley, I thought the object here was to figure out what Coffee meant, and he plainly wanted to distinguish between what he called "content editors" and other editors. If we decide to disregard that distinction (which may or may not be impractical), then your bold mid-discussion edit to the discretionary sanctions would be appropriate. Your edit seemed kind of premature to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    @Awilley, you went and changed the template before there was any discussion among uninvolved administrators. Now that three uninvolved administators have discussed the issue, I am fine with removing the word "firm". I especially like that outcome because now the image I !voted for will be more likely to go at the top of the BLP (but that image discussion did not influence my comments above, and I'd have to be a very lousy editor to want discretionary sanctions to be molded so as to advance my position in one transient editing dispute). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    Comment by My very best wishes

    According to Arbcom (Page restrictions), Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Did it authorize Coffee to impose this rather strange restriction for a large set of pages? I think it was not included by Arbcom in the list of possible restrictions above ("semi-protection, full protection, ...") for a good reason: WP:Consensus equally apply to all pages and hardly needs any special enforcement. I think this restriction is not helpful.My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

    Discussion among uninvolved administrators

    • I think, since the term "firm consensus" here seems to be causing a lot of confusion and disagreement, I would support modifying the remedy to simply say that changes must be supported by consensus. We already have clear guidelines as to what that term means, so hopefully that will be clear enough to prevent interpretation issues. Seraphimblade 02:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree with Seraphimblade, don't think anything else is necessary here besides that slight modification. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I support Awilley's bold edit to the template, and I think we're in agreement here. I invite some admin who's not just going to bed to please remove the word "firm" from all the edit notices conveniently listed by User:MrX above. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC).

    Monochrome Monitor

    Editors are reminded that Arbitration Enforcement does not rule on content disputes. The question of if and how to include census data is remanded to the community for resolution through the normal channels. The Wordsmith 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Monochrome Monitor

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Monochrome Monitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBPIA3 : disruption
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 17:34, 15 September 2016 removing the fact that the villagers were all Muslim in the 1922 census and the 1931 census from the Hizma village.
    2. 17:42, 15 September 2016: removing the fact that the villagers were all Muslim in the 1931 census from the Beit Iksa village


    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
    • Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 16 November 2015


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


    Discussion concerning Monochrome Monitor

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

    Statement by Monochrome Monitor

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

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

    — blockquote

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

    Statement by (Bolter21)

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

    Statement by Nishidani

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

    Statement by Kingsindian

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

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Monochrome Monitor

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

    Bolter21

    In view of the self-revert, no action taken. Bolter21 is reminded to be cautious of revert limits in areas covered by arbitration remedies. Seraphimblade 20:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Bolter21

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Mewulwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Bolter21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Amendments :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 16 Sep 2016 First revert
    2. 16 Sep 2016 Second revert two hours later
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any


    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • 1RR rule appears clearly when editing the page
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

    Discussion concerning Bolter21

    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 Bolter21

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

    Statement by Number 57

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

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

    Statement by JzG

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

    Statement by Kamel Tebaast

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

    Statement by Zero0000

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

    Statement by Nishidani

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

    Result concerning Bolter21

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

    Sean.hoyland

    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 Sean.hoyland

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Sean.hoyland (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

    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Amendments

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 21:54 16 Sept First revert (notice no explanation in edit summary)
    2. 03:00 17 Sept Second revert 5 hours later, this time claiming a BLP violation.


    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    3 month topic ban for 1RR violation.


    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.
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months. He mentions ARBPIA 79 times in the edit summaries of his last 500 contribs, so it's safe to assume he is aware.
    • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 3 May 2016.


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Sean.hoyland (who according to the banner on the top of his user page edits exclusively in the ARBPIA topic area because of something related to "suppressing dissent" ) first appeared on the Walid Khalidi article after two weeks of no editing. Despite never having edited this article or its talk page before, he reverted another editor without explanation in the edit summary or talk page . I reverted him reminding him of BRD (can be seen in the first diff I link to above). He reverted me, again with no explanation. He was reverted and 5 hours later made the second revert noted above, where he refers to BLP but does not explain what the problem is exactly.
    I notified him on his talk page that he violated 1RR and invited him to either participate in the discussion and explain the nature of the BLP violation he sees there or self-revert. He removed my warning and did neither.

    @Kingsindian, even if your description were accurate (and it isn't. Anyone can see only 4 people including you and me have participated in the discussion in the past year, and you arrived after Sean's 1RR violation), restoring the RIGHTVERSION is not exempt from 1RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    I added a link to a previous case in which Sean was reported for violating 1RR and received a 3 month topic ban. I would also like to point out that he has been warned about accusing other editors of being socks without providing sufficient reasoning, as he did below.
    Putting aside his ridiculous justification, I don't care if he talks to me or not. It has been long established here and elsewhere that "reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior" . He can address his comments to someone he likes, but he can't invent reasons for reverting without discussion and in violation of 1RR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    @JzG, could you please explain how this is "a deliberate attempt at entrapment", and by whom? Am I reading you correctly and you think someone tricked Sean into making reverts without discussion or edit summaries, and in violation of 1RR? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    @AnotherNewAccount, you'd think a BATTLE laden rant in which an editor announces he will not collaborate with those he finds ideologically unacceptable would elicit some kind of reaction from the admins but apparently that's acceptable behavior for ARBPIA and this board. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Sean.hoyland

    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 Sean.hoyland

    Ed, I don't think your solution will work. Firstly, I don't think there can be a legitimate consensus to include a misquote presented as a legitimate quote and so I will not pursue one. The evidence that demonstrates that the Village Statistics 1945 survey was misquoted was provided on the talk page (see here) and the orginal document can be seen at the National Library of Israel here (see Explanatory Note, paragraph A/5). Secondly, I choose who to engage with in ARBPIA. It is not a choice for anyone else to make and it excludes people I regard as belligerant ethno-nationalist POV-pushers and/or sockpuppets. There also has to be a good reason to expose myself to the inevitable pitifully infantile personal attacks that accompany engagement with these kinds of editors on talk pages (many examples of which can be seen at Talk:Walid_Khalidi#Dr_Brawer_quote), and in this case there was not. So for me, there will be no response to statements made by NMMNG and Epson Salts here or anywhere else, no dialog or collaboration, no replies to questions, no explanations and no discussion on talk pages and no seeking consensus with these individuals on this or any issue. If that results in a block or topic ban, the benefit for me personally outweighs the cost of engagement. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    I should add that, while I have made hundreds, perhaps thousands of 1RR violations in ARBPIA reverting disruptive editors (as anyone can see from my edit history), I don't believe this was a 1RR violation. I think the removal was justified by WP:BLPREMOVE because a statement that criticizes a living person based on a demonstrably false quotation of the source they used fails the basic verifiability test. The source cited is simply wrong. The associated quote can and should be removed, in my view. There was no justification for the repeated restoration of the misquote and no amount of waiting or discussion could produce a situation that would justify its restoration based on policy. A legitimate consensus for that is impossible. There was nothing to wait for and there is never a good reason to avoid the inevitable reports that follow from any attempt to suppress the illegitimate actions of belligerent ethno-nationalist POV-pushers in sock and/or non-sock form. 1RR is not there to facilitate editors repeatedly and knowingly restoring false information into a BLP and self-preservation is not a valid reason to delay an action that an editor or bot regards as justified by policy in my view. Any long term editor knows that effective suppression of the disruption and contamination that inevitably follows from Misplaced Pages's inability to exclude these kinds of editors from ARBPIA will have costs for the editors doing it. So admins can do as they see fit and there will be no complaints from me. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    AnotherNewAccount, you are correct that I have 'no intention of editing collegially with those whom he deems "belligerant ethno-nationalist POV-pushers'. You are incorrect in assuming this is related to an "ideological agenda", but that doesn't matter. I had the privilege of attending a good college where working 'collegially' was possible. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to edit this way in ARBPIA with all editors, but right now that is neither possible or advisable in my view. The topic area does not have an effective admissions policy and so the notion of 'editing collegially' is wishful thinking and an irresponsible policy that exposes editors to attacks and the idiocy and ugliness of nationalism. My view after many years of editing, is that editors in ARBPIA should not collaborate with these kinds of editors because it is counterproductive. Editors who violate WP:NOTADVOCATE should not be here in the first place. Collaboration perpetuates the toxic unsafe environment which is why my edits are now restricted to uncommunicative bot-like reverts mostly of long-term-abuse accounts. I am glad that you misidentify these as "often good-faith new editor" because the less you know about it the better. ARBPIA should be treated as an unsafe work area in my opinion and shutdown until Misplaced Pages can provide an effective measure of protection to editors and content.

    Re: Kamel's 'directly rendering Misplaced Pages's policies meaningless' statement. This is nonsense. Misplaced Pages's policies are already meaningless. Bear in mind that in practice I have absolute impunity. I can literally do as I please. If blocked I can create as many accounts as I wish, all of which would be impossible to confirm as sockpuppets because, like many others, I have the access to the resources and experience necessary to do that. The fact that I wouldn't do that is just a random factor over which Misplaced Pages has no effective control whatsoever. Blocking is only effective against people with integrity, which sadly means it is largely ineffective in ARBPIA.

    Re: Sir Joseph's statement "It is a common practice for those on the Palestinian side to claim sockpuppet for other people. We see that here and that has to stop. It is a chilling atmosphere when every dispute has allegations of sockpuppetry." The reason it's common practice to claim sockpuppet for other people is because it is common practice in ARBPIA for people to use sockpuppets. I'm aware that accusing someone of sockpuppetry without filing an SPI report is an article of faith the Church of Misplaced Pages. I haven't accused anyone of sockpuppetry here but I would have no qualms doing so even if it resulted in a block. I have simply reflected the reality that in ARBPIA the editors can be legitimate editors or socks, and the mix is probably 50/50. Complaining about the number of sockpuppets or telling people to shut up about sockpuppets does no good either way. It changes nothing. Blocking a sock changes nothing, they will just come back. In practice, if an editor that resembles a sock behaves well, does not violate WP:NOTADVOCATE, complies with all content policies, they will be left alone. But if they harass editors they dislike, which is what usually happens, or go back to their misuse of Misplaced Pages, someone is going to say they resemble a sock, and wishing they didn't or blocking them for voicing their opinion changes nothing. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Kingsindian

    Please see the comment I made here on the talkpage. The basic issue is that there is (at least) 6-2 or 7-2 consensus on the talkpage to pare down some material, which is being obstructed by one editor by using wikilawyering. In the face of this obstructionism, Sean.hoyland has violated WP:1RR. You can "punish" the 1RR violation, or see the underlying issue. Up to you. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    I am not surprised that Epson Salts is wikilawyering here as well. Here's the consensus timeline. The initial discussion was a year ago, which nobody objected to, 3-0. Here Zero made the first edit which they forgot to do a year ago. Epson Salts reverted (3-1). Sean Hoyland reverted (4-1). Nishidani commented (5-1). NMMNG commented and re-reverted (5-2). Sean Hoyland reverted again. I comment (6-2). Pluto2012 commented (7-2).
    This is of course not the first time Epson Salts has engaged in wikilawyering. Nor is it the first time they have given an unsolicited opinion that Zero and Nishidani should not be editing in ARBPIA, insinuations about source falsification, personal attacks and so on. One can easily find a ton of pages where they insert themselves into a content dispute, always to throw gasoline on it. I can give diffs if required. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Zero0000

    Although it would have been good for Sean to state his explanation more expansively on the talk page, I believe that it is a reasonable judgement that the revert was justified by the BLP rules. As KI says, one editor is wikilawyering to keep a fake quotation in the BLP, that reflects badly on the subject of the BLP, despite everyone agreeing that it is fake. Even if you disagree that this justifies a revert, I think you should see it as a fair call made in good faith. Zero 05:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    @EdJohnston: Actually a link to a scan of the misquoted document has been on that talk page for over a year; see Huldra's text "I agree". Everyone has long all they needed to check that there was indeed a misquote. Zero 23:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    Epson Salts is easily the worst editor in the I/P area at the moment and I challenge anyone to identify any positive contribution he/she has made to the encyclopedia. What I see is endless POV-pushing, stonewalling, sneering and abusive tone and bad faith. The case brought here is actually representative. Any editor who is dedicated to article improvement, on noticing an objectively incorrect item in an article (in this case, a BLP even) will be thinking about how to fix the error within the rules. Epson Salts instead wastes the time of multiple editors by fatuous wikilawyering to keep the incorrect item in the article. The reason is quite obvious if you examine the direction of his POV-pushing. He/she even went to WP:NORN without notifying anyone else in the discussion and tried to get support by means of a distorted description (he/she makes it sound like a disagreement between an editor's opinion and a source's opinion, but it is nothing of the sort). Zero 23:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement byEpson Salts

    This is a very clear cut case of 1RR violation. Even the editors who posted here in support of Sen.hoyland do not deny that fact. I won't go into detail into the misrepresentations by Kingsindian or Zero as to the nature of the dispute (the quote is not 'fake' - we are talking about a possibly missing ellipsis; the current discussion is 4:2; it obviously can't be obstructionism by a single editor if they concede there are at least two who opposed to their position etc...) - because we are not supposed to be rehashing and deciding content issues here- that's for the talk page discussion - a page where Sean hoyland has been conspicuously absent. The question before us here is - do we allow 1RR violations for what some editors think are 'good' edits. That's a very slippery slope. Epson Salts (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    @Drmies: You are confused as to the argument I am making. A noted scholar, who is a geographer by training and current occupation, who is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal on a topic of geography, is an academic source. An activist, who is an anthropologist by training and a current researcher in internet activism, who is published in a group blog on a topic far outside her academic expertise (WII history, Nazism and Arab antisemitism), is not. There's nothing inconsistent about this position.
    Would you care to point out where I am wikilawyeirng on the relevant talk page? I have already said I am willing to rephrase the Brawer crticism and have asked Zero0000 for a proposal for such re-write - what is the issue?
    And let me understand the position you are taking: It is ok to violate an Arbcom mandated 1RR restriction, refuse to discuss the reasons for the revert, and declare that you will continue to do so in the future , provided it is a revert to the "right version"? It would be useful to know this. Epson Salts (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Nishidani

    There is no 'misrepresentation' by those editors. The second diff constitutes an IR violation, but was motivated as a WP:BLP violation. Zero outlined a case one year ago that the quote from Brawer comes from him running together two sentences widely separated, with a crucial element missing, to formulate a criticism of another scholar, Walid Khalidi.Nota bene that on perceiving this, he did not rush to 'score' a point, the vice of many editors here. He waited a year for further collegial input This is an inexpugnable fact which ES still challenges above: 'we are talking about a possibly missing ellipsis. I.e. the talk page has the evidence, a scan has been provided to verify the full text, the fact that Brawer in defiance of fundamental scholarly practice dropped the (. . . .) marks indicating an ellipse, to get at Khalidi is proven. For ES it remains a possibility. That is wikilawyering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT principles.

    A further point.In reverting Sean.hoyland’s revert Epson Salts’s edit summary reads: disruptive edit warring by editor not participating in the discussion. But that is precisely what ESS does. For example, this, at Max Blumenthal, where he reverted never having participated on that talk page. Epson Salts varies policy reasons for reverts from page to page, indulges in abuse of, and bad faith accusations of several editors, and when told to desist replies:'You get back exactly what you dish out', which misses the point. I asked him to stop abusing Zero, not me. There is no trace in Zero's edit record of intemperate language. Hoyland should have waited: there were several eyes on that page. But it is not as if he can't see what has been obvious to several editors since ES arrived on the I/P scene.Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Huldra

    Ah, this is a case of horrible "wiki-lawyering"; saying that if anyone is scholar, is a WP:RS, therefor should be represented. Well, there are countless of WP:RS-sources which gives the number of killed in the Deir Yassin massacre around 250. Today we know this isn´t true, so we do not use them in the article (except to note that the estimates of killed were earlier larger.)

    That Brawer is a scholar does not mean that everything he wrote is correct. When shown that what he wrote was not correct, then it is a horrible (sanctionable?) idea to put it into an article. Huldra (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Kamel Tebaast

    Most all of Sean.hoyland's edits are reverts, s/he walks the fine line and knows the rules, and you admins are suggesting a warning for a 1RR. No topic ban! No block! Nothing! A warning! You're out of order! You're all out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order! That man, that crazy man, reverted everyone, and he'd like to do it again! It's just a show! It's a show! It's "Let's Make A Deal"! "Let's Make A Deal"! Hey Admins, you wanna "Make A Deal"? I got an insane judge who likes to let off Palestinian nationalists with warnings! Whaddya wanna gimme Admins, 3 weeks probation? KamelTebaast 07:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    @Drmies: Not my fault you don't know one of Pachino's best scenes ...And Justice For All
    @Zero0000: The worst editor in the A/I area is Sean.holyland. Since 11 August 2008, s/he has made 5,739 revisions. Clearly very little "positive contribution he/she has made to the encyclopedia".
    @Kingsindian: You don't find it ironic that you wrote about Epson Salts giving "unsolicited opinion" about other editors while you were giving an unsolicited opinion about another editor?
    @Admins: Enough with all these straw man and misdirection arguments, refocusing on other editor diversions, and, a first that I've heard on Misplaced Pages, "entrapment". With 5,739 REVISIONS, most all in the A/I area, Sean.hoyland clearly knew the rules. S/he made two reverts in five hours and bi-passed the opportunity to self-revert and discuss in Talk. A sanction must be given. If not, you are directly rendering Misplaced Pages's policies meaningless, and you are adding to the real concern that Misplaced Pages has one set of rules for editors who support Palestinian nationalism and one for editors who support Israel. KamelTebaast 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Sir Joseph

    Two things need to be kept in mind. (I am not taking any sides in the content dispute or 1RR since I haven't looked into it.) It is a common practice for those on the Palestinian side to claim sockpuppet for other people. We see that here and that has to stop. It is a chilling atmosphere when every dispute has allegations of sockpuppetry. Secondly, the claim that there will be no interaction, no explanation, no discussion is completely contrary to Misplaced Pages. When someone edits they are editing under the guidelines that there will 100% be discussions and explanations. These comments need to be addressed, independent of the actual 1RR case presented here. 🔯 Sir Joseph 16:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by AnotherNewAccount

    This is a very clear 1RR violation, and I fail to see how the content in question violates BLP guidelines either. (As for Kingsindian's supposed "consensus", it looks very much to me like a traditional ARBPIA non-consensus: the standard sizable group of pro-Palestinian editors with strong views all agreeing with each other, out-arguing the rump of 1-2 opposing editors by sheer force of numbers. Neutral editors, are of course, entirely absent.)

    Scrutinizing the accused editor's overall conduct of late, I question whether Sean.hoyland is even here to build an encyclopedia anymore. The last few months' editing has consisted of little more than ideological revert ninjaing and POV-motivated enforcements of 30/500 without even the courtesy of an explanation to the often good-faith new editor being reverted. Reading his rant above, it's clear that he has no intention of editing collegially with those whom he deems "belligerant ethno-nationalist POV-pushers" - that is, those editors who oppose his heavy ideological agenda. I was originally going to suggest he be placed on 0RR, but demonstrating this clear battleground mentality, I now think administrators should consider a topic ban. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

    Result concerning Sean.hoyland

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