Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:11, 10 February 2015

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 WP:AE WP:ARE 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: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or 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: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. 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: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and 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-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or 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: 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. 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. 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. 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 action appeal by Ubikwit

Theobald Tiger

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

Request concerning Theobald Tiger

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeairn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Theobald Tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Landmark_Worldwide#Discretionary_sanctions_.28January_2015.29 :

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

1. 30 January 2015 Personal attack in edit summary, mass revert without discussion
2. 30 January 2015 Mass revert, disregarding active talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
3. 30 January 2015 Personal attacks
4. 30 January 2015 Mass revert of multiple edits, disregarding active talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
5. 29 January 2015 BLP violations on article talk page
6. 29 January 2015 personal attack
7. 29 January 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
8. 29 January 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussions (multiple reverts to article)
9. 4 February 2015 personal attacks, including "You know nothing of NRMs and cults, you do not even know what primary sources really are, your objections to encyclopedic content are based upon prejudice and self-interest. Your means are wikilawyering, taking the moral high ground, lying, insinuating and denying the obvious."
10. 4 February 2015 another accusation of COI
11. 4 February 2015 personal attacks, accusation of "bullying"
12. 5 February 2015 accusations of deception, COI, smearing, etc, immediately after being warned to comment on content not contributors (and with a link to WP:NPA).
13. 8 February 2015 Bulk insert of unsourced material into a BLP, removal of sourced material
14. 9 February 2015 revert without regard for talk page discussion, edit warring, inclusion of unsourced material in a BLP
15. 9 February 2015 edit warring, inclusion of unsourced material in a BLP, removal of sourced content
16. 9 February 2015 edit warring on BLP

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 31 January 2015

Discussion concerning Theobald Tiger

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

Statement by Theobald Tiger

I will comment briefly on the difflinks provided by Tgeairn:

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Astynax

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

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

Statement by Legacypac

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

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

Statement by DaveApter

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

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

Further responses to comments by Cathar66

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to Astyanx

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

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

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

Statement by Cathar66

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

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

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

• Regarding Dave Apter's assertions

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Theobald Tiger

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

• I haven't had a chance to have a look through the evidence here yet, just commenting to prevent archiving for now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Gouncbeatduke

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 Gouncbeatduke

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

WarKosign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gouncbeatduke (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:ARBPIA :

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

The user repeatedly behaved in uncivil manner towards me, bordering on personal attacks. Any attempt to reach a conesnsus was ignored and responded by edit warring, often in seeming teaming with a similar minded editor. The user demonstrates battleground mentality, treats every user in disagreement as an "anti-Arab POV-pusher".

Here are examples from a single discussion/edit war in the lead of Israel. I understand that you will not go into a content dispute, the content is only mentioned to explain the user conduct.

• GregKaye added a {{cn}} tag to a statement about Israel's declaration of independence in the lead of Israel (that the borders of Israel were not specified) and wikilinked to the UN partition plan that did specify the borders. I provided the missing source that proved that the declaration intentionally did not mention the borders suggested by the partition plan and removed the wikilink that this source proved irrelevant.
• Gouncbeatduke replaced the statement with another that is not supported by the source and is relevant to the UN partition plan, not to the declaration of independence. Edit summary was "(replace POV-pushing with NPOV version of article cited)". I reverted this edit with "Factually incorrect - UN revision plan suggested borders for "a" state, not "the" state that was declared", GregKaye un-reverted the edit without any comment.
• Gouncbeatduke created a talk page section named "Edit warring by WarKosign", incorrectly stating that I've twice reverted the article (actually one edit and one revert), that I removed all references to the UN partition plan (actually it remained referenced two sentences above) and that I was "pushing" a certain version (actually the stable version that existed before their edits). I responded explaining my edits, Gouncbeatduke dismissed my explanation with "I think we both know you are misrepresenting your edits." and wrote that my version was less NPOV (without giving any reason).
• I renamed the talk page section to more appropriate "Relevance of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to borders of Israel" and continued discussing the content with GregKaye and other editors. The only contribution from Gouncbeatduke was accusing me of "regurgitating the anti-Arab narrative" and saying that "current version of the article is a much more NPOV", again without any usable explanation.
• After some more discussion I made (what I consider) a compromise edit and asked the editors to comment on it. Gouncbeatduke reverted the edit commenting "returning to last good version prior to User:WarKosign multiple edit warring reverts", renamed the talk page section back to "Edit Warring by User:WarKosign" and moved a statement together with an unrelated quote, effectively restoring half of my compromise edit while removing a relevant source and introducing another source misrepresentation.
• I added a tag for Gouncbeatduke source misrepresentation and wrote on the user's talk page asking to remove the attack in the talk page section name. The user responded again accusing me of edit warring and pov-pushing without any actual details, and refused to change the section name. Note that the user actually renamed the section on their own talk page, demonstrating understanding of how take page section names matter. Eventually GregKaye renamed the section to something more appropriate.
• The user removed the misrepresentation tag while leaving the misrepresentation, with the comment saying "Please discuss in talk section before reverting again" (so far I reverted once in the whole discussion, while Gouncbeatduke reverted at least 3 times). The user insists to keep dispute tags for other matters, so they clearly understand their importance.
• The discussion continued for a while then Gouncbeatduke "contributed" another baseless accusation. I expected the user to understand the uncivility of such accusation after having explained it on their talk page, so I asked the user to retract the statement, with no response so far.

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)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think the user is well-intended but unready to collaborate. They seem to think that NPOV is some magic word, once they say it everybody is obliged to accept whatever unexplained and unsourced edits they make. The best possible outcome of this request would be to have the user drop battleground mentality and collaborate in order to achieve their stated goal of NPOV.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Gouncbeatduke

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 Gouncbeatduke

The current version of Israel article reads “Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN but ultimately not recognized by either Israel or neighboring countries.” As best I remember, User:WarKosign and blocked sockpuppet User:Ashurbanippal where the two editors pushing a version that said “The borders of the new state were not specified”. I believe the current version of the article is a more NPOV. I believe much of the article reflects a pro-Jewish/anti-Arab bias, likely a systemic bias from the fact there are so many more English speaking Misplaced Pages Jewish editors than Arab. Part of the article’s bias is to downplay the view of the UN on Israel’s borders, and up-play the promulgations of the Israeli Government regarding the borders. I therefore believe the current version of the article with the “Borders for a new Jewish state were specified by the UN” statement helps to bring about a more NPOV.

I am not Arab or Jewish, I have no bias feelings either way on the subject of Israel, and I am only interested in seeing a NPOV article. I believe that I am in a minority among those editing the Israel article, and most editors have a very strong pro-Jewish bias. I understand Israel is a tough neighborhood, where religious extremists often kill people and attempt to kill more just because they are Jewish. However, I think a NPOV Israel article is a better way to combat extremism than a biased article that fuels resentment.

I believe User:WarKosign and blocked sockpuppet User:Ashurbanippal have engaged in intimidation tactics against many editors who desire a NPOV Israel article. These include accusations of Antisemitism and bad faith by User:WarKosign, for example, his “Israel is critisized out of blind hatred, i.e. new antisemitism. Comments made by … are a good example” statement in the Israel talk section. However, as this is an emotional topic, I would not be inclined to file an Arbitration request or request sanctions against User:WarKosign. As I have said to User:WarKosign in the Israel talk section “I have no problem with you other than you editing behavior, as far as I know you are a good person. I think we both recognize that most of your edits to date push a pro-Jewish POV, and I don't see how we can make progress towards a NPOV article without being honest about that. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a pro-Jewish or a pro-Arab POV, just that a NPOV Misplaced Pages article is not the place to express it.” Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by WarKosign

@Gouncbeatduke: Your statement is misleading on many points:

1. The subject of this discussion is your uncivil behavior (pushing your own POV while you're accusing other editors of the same). If you are ready to begin discussing the content, let's do it at the article talk page and not here. Now you accused me of intimidation. Read this essay, it matches many of your recent actions. If any of my actions matched this essay kindly let me know which.
2. Current version of the article is what GregKaye and you pushed. You never bothered achieving consensus before making the changes, and then reverted all the attempts to correct your factual errors and source misrepresentations you introduced. Previous version (one that you accused me of pushing) was stable. When consensus can't be reached the previous version is the one that should remain.
3. What you consider NPOV is clearly and obviously biased. Saying that you want NPOV is not enough, you need to collaborate with editors that have bias opposite to your so everybody are equally unhappy with the compromise.
4. You are misquoting my statement: "There are opinions that often Israel is critisized out of blind hatred, i.e. new antisemitism. Comments made by the IP user are a good example - instead of legitimately criticizing problematic decisions made by Israel, the user requires Israel not to be treated like "just another country" but as "illegitimate and ... perhaps the most hated country in the world"."
5. You wrote twice that you have no problem with my personality, yet used the talk page to accuse me of POV pushing and ignored my every attempt to discuss the content of the article with you. I would much rather you hated my guts but worked with me to improve the article. “WarKosign” 18:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler

• @Callanecc, it does not appear that Gouncbeatduke is a "relative newcomer." I asked Gouncbeatduke if s/he had ever editing under a different username, and s/he stated, "I decided to WP:CLEANSTART". As a single-issue editor, Gouncbeatduke does not seem to be abiding by the recommendation that "it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start." Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Gouncbeatduke

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

• There does seems to be an issue here regarding Gouncbeatduke's conduct specifically their use of incivility and personalising disputes rather than engaging in the core issue. Having said that I'm not convinced that there is enough evidence to do anything more than provide some informal guidance (ie third para regarding Misplaced Pages's norms and expectations of editor conduct (especially considering that they are a relative newcomer). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I am seeing an issue here with how they approach discussions and issues they disagree with. I'm considering whether a logged warning regarding battleground, civility and edit warring would be appropriate, or perhaps a topic ban from Israel related articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest we start there, and escalate if it becomes necessary. Nothing is at risk immediately (there isn't an ongoing edit-war or BLP issue, for example), so starting with encouraging encouraging reform is proportionate and can be taken into account in the event of recidivism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
      • New timestamp to postpone archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by MarieWarren

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

MarieWarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – v/r - TP 03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

"To enforce an arbitration decision and for misrepresenation of sources to push a point of view on the page Abortion Rights (organisation), you have been blocked indefinitely from editing"

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

Statement by MarieWarren

I believed that the representation of the organisation was correct. My other actions with regard to this organisation was to make it accessible on wikipedia through providing an updating of the name to its current name. I was providing a summary of information that was on its website. I consider this to be consistent with the ethos of wikipedia. There was no point of view expressed but simply a stating of information that was present on their site. I do not think that this appeal will be successful but if it is I will ensure that I do not edit this organisation again. MarieWarren (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TParis

• Statement by MarrieWarren copied on behalf of user account per request on unblock template. Nothing to say here. The user had been warned previously and continued to misrepresent sources. The source has a list of unsafe abortion practices that could lead in injury or death. The user claimed that the organization is promoting unsafe abortion practices. The user's only purpose on Misplaced Pages is to identify which organizations are pro-Abortion.--v/r - TP 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Squinge (talk)

The "Information on how to perform an abortion" section added by User:MarieWarren to Abortion Rights (organisation) was such a gross misrepresentation of the cited source that simple incompetence is not a plausible explanation. We're looking at blatantly dishonest POV-pushing here, in my opinion. Squinge (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by MarieWarren

Result of the appeal by MarieWarren

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

• Per the information above, and my review of the thread in ANI archive 865, it seems that User:MarieWarren is here on Misplaced Pages to push a POV on abortion. She does not seem to care about the details of what the sources say. I recommend declining this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• I agree that it would be better to keep this user away from Abortion related articles, however if MarieWarren is willing to contribute constructively to other areas I'd be willing to consider granting the appeal and replacing with a indef TBAN from abortion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Since we can't indef block under DS, the block should be parsed as an 1-year DS block plus a normal indef block, with only the former in AE's scope. Regardless of the technicalities, the source misrepresentation is blatantly obvious, and the claims made in defense makes it doubtful that this editor could ever constructively contribute to any area of this project. Decline. T. Canens (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• As I see it, the fundamental problem with MarieWarren's statement is that it shows no acknowledgement at all that there has been any problem with her editing. If she cannot see what the problem is, then she will not be able to avoid making the same mistakes again. She seems to think that the block is just a result of her editing of one article, and says that she will not "edit this organisation again" (presumably meaning the article about that organisation). However, that assurance is nowhere near sufficient, as she has exhibited the same problems in editing a number of different articles, not just one, and avoiding one article will do nothing to prevent her from doing the same on other articles.

For the reasons I have described, I think we should decline the request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I would call User:MichaelBLewis72 a  Confirmed sock of MarieWarren, and it appears both accounts are editing similar areas. It may be helpful to evaluate this as y'all evaluate this appeal. Courcelles 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks:

• MarieWarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MichaelBLewis72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:MichaelBLewis72 has been adding papers by 'M.B.Lewis' to articles. For example here. He has stated he is an expert on face recognition and Google Scholar shows that someone of that name is recognized in the field. One option is to leave the indef of MarieWarren in place, ban MichaelBLewis72 from the topic of abortion and ask him to cease adding his own papers to articles as a condition of continuing to edit. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, they are technically indistinguishable. They could very well be different people, but CU brings them back technically identical. Courcelles 04:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have a very low opinion of people who misrepresent sources, ad I see no mitigating circumstances here. Even ignoring the possible sockpuppetry, I see no reason to trust MarieWarren to not continue misrepresenting sources if she were unblocked. Consequently we should decline this request. Huon (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• I was initially encouraged by MarieWarren's response to a discussion in my talk page regarding her synthesis of these abortion-related sources and how they apply to the organizations whose articles she edited. I later found out that despite the fact she appeared to have understood why her edits were inappropriate, she simply continued to perform them. I'm not very hopeful this time around, so I do not look kindly on this appeal. I think she is here to simply push her POV. §FreeRangeFrog 22:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• New timestamp to postpone archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Close soon?: I suggest declining the appeal by MarieWarren since no admin favors it. The other account, User:MichaelBLewis72, has not edited since 13 January. Conceivably this is a different person using the same computer. Why not leave an alert for him under WP:ARBAB but take no other action at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett

Three admins have opined that this is stale (that is, the comment is too old to be sanctionable). Normally, I'd leave a request open longer, but I'm closing this before the heat-to-light ratio deteriorates further. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 7 February 2015 (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 Eric Corbett User who is submitting this request for enforcement Gamaliel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Eric Corbett (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Eric_Corbett_topic_banned : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 1 February 2015 Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 25 January 2015 Most recent block for violating the same topic ban. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on . Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint To me this is a blockable violation, especially coming so soon after another violation of the same topic ban. Given that this issue came to my attention in the comments of a Signpost story (I am one of the new editors-in-chief there) and that I've more than surpassed my drama quota of late, instead of blocking myself I bring this matter here for others to assess. Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Eric Corbett Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Eric Corbett My understanding of the purpose of LB's Kaffeeklatsch was that it is intended to provide "a safe place for women Misplaced Pages editors to get together". I don't see what that has to do with the GGTF or the gender gap in general, however broadly construed. Eric Corbett 17:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel. I'm not aware that my ban extends to "gender-related discussions", as Ironholds claims. My understanding is that it relates to "the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians". Where have I commented on either? Eric Corbett 18:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Statement by ChrisGualtieri Sorry, but I don't intend to muddy the waters much here, but an IP editor mentioned 10 minutes later that User:TallNapoleon/Association of Established Editors still exists. When I was reading the discussion I glossed over it, but I felt that Corbett was referencing it. Though I suppose Eric Corbett's very action in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch might present issues given the repeated issues of Lightbreather and Eric Corbett. Is the issue that this page was gender selective and Eric Corbett was chiming in that presents an issue or was it that specific edit's content or summary? I'm sorry, but I don't understand the issue without a better explanation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks to Ironholds my confusion has been cleared up. Possibly another issue in this Diff here. While I am overly cautious on the first... the second instance seems to break the GGTF topic ban and the provision about "Eric Corbett prohibited" from making such remarks. The edits were not helpful or necessary either... it just seems, mean. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Edited:Dropped the actual content in lieu of a plain diff. Statement by Ironholds Fully endorse an AE block here. This was quite clearly within the realms of Eric's topic ban. @ChrisGualtieri:: Eric is banned from "editing any pages relating to or making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed". I'd think that commenting on discussions about the retention/deletion of an experimental space aimed at improving the gender gap would quite clearly fall under both ii and iii, even narrowly construed. Is that clearer than the initial note by Gamaliel? Ironholds (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC) I'd suggest that repeating them word-for-word here is probably an extension of the same problem, Chris, while I recognise that you're trying to be helpful ;p. Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC) @MONGO: what? The initial remedies were nothing to do with article space, so that's a moot objection. If you're objecting to the remedies, well, first, we don't get to decide what ArbCom decided, and second, discussions about the kind of environment we create and the processes it follow have a tremendous impact on the article namespace because they impact the kind of people we attract, the environment they exist in, and how they behave - it has systemic bias implications at a minimum. The mainspace is not a standalone kernel. And, have you ever seen Eric take warnings as a reason not to repeat the same behaviour? Because mostly I see him treating warnings as a platform to soapbox from. Ironholds (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC) So in other words, "I can't argue that this isn't a valid enforcement of the arb remedy, because it is, I'd just like to try for jury nullification". Glad we've worked that out. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Comment by MONGO It's the big yawn. Eric is apparently no longer allowed to have an opinion, anywhere. This wasn't in article space as it's not an article. Regardless of the arbcom remedies, it's pretty ridiculous to ever penalize someone for this sort of "breach" of remedies when it is NOT adversely impacting article space. At the extreme...a stern reminder is all that is necessary here...and I don't think even that is necessary.--MONGO 17:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC) @Ironholds: I do not concur with the arbcom remedies in that case. I found them to be flawed and were I to be an admin that spent time enforcing arbcom sanctions I would have to recuse from anything related to Eric Corbett and GG issues. However, I am not an admin so all I have is my opinion and my opinion here is that this petty bullshit sucks.--MONGO 17:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC) @Ironholds: Being a nobody all I have is my opinion. You're free to disagree with me.--MONGO 18:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Comment by Giano Have people so little to do that obsessing over Eric Corbett has become their sole occupation. This is all becoming more than boring why not just have his tongue ripped out with a red hot iron - isn't that normally the sort of thing that bigots like to do those whose opinions they happen not to share? Giano (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel: It matter not how this matter came to your attention, you have brought it here because you are trolling for trouble - nothing more. I have sat idly by for far too long while all this gender gap rubbish (yes, I said rubbish - get used to it, you'll be hearing it a lot more often from now on) and persecution of Eric Corbett has been discussed. It's people like you that give this project a bad name, you are vindictive and obviously obsessed - you need to get a life. Giano (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Comment by Gamaliel @Chillum: do you have any basis for your assertion that this is "an attempt to get Eric blocked"? A violation was pointed out directly to me here, I reported it. If I wanted to block Eric, I would have just blocked him myself. Gamaliel (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC) @Chillum: thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC) @Eric Corbett: Lightbreather's proposal is clearly intended to address the gender disparity on Misplaced Pages. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC) @Giano: Vindictive? That word, I do not think it means what you think it means. What do I want revenge for? Did Eric run over my dog? Your outburst here says far more about your suitability as a Wikipedian than it does about mine. Gamaliel (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Statement by EChastain This is the third request for such action against Eric Corbett in the last two weeks. initiated 24 January 2015 by Lightbreather, resulting in a 48 hour block of Eric Corbett Eric Corbett (2), initiated by Rationalobserver, long comment by Lightbreather on 28 January 2015. Case closed and deleted shortly after. EChastain (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Please look at the previous block, which was controversial and opposed by the majority of admins commenting: It led to a Clarification request: See this Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling particularly this part focusing on Eric Corbett and this ammendmend request: So how to handle these requests is controversial and still being discussed by arbs. The point of ds was to curtail disruption, but it seems to have furthered disruption. EChastain (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Eric Corbett This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. It appears to me that the comment is near the ill-defined outer edge of the topic ban. Whether it crosses the blurry line boils down to semantics and speculation about motive. I'd be inclined to discuss this if the comment had been made today or yesterday, but it's nearly a week old now, so unless there is evidence of other potential violations in the meantime, I think this should be closed as stale. Failing that, there are two questions that I think should be answered, given that there is scope for debate about whether the comment was a violation: Ignoring everything else, could Eric have made the comment without realising he was encroaching on his topic ban? And was the comment, or the effect of the comment, disruptive? The answers to those questions are likely to be significant mitigating or aggravating factors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC) The sanctions were put into place to prevent disruptive editing. While if we construe broadly enough it may be a violation I don't think we need to be that broad. The comment was not disruptive to the encyclopedia and frankly this report seems like more of an attempt to get Eric blocked than to help the project. Given the staleness of the report and other factors I described above I don't think action is needed. Chillum 18:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel: My sincere apologies, I did not realize this was being reported by proxy. Even if this was your idea it was a failure of AGF on my part, I have struck that comment. I just woke up and I appreciate you pointing out my faux pas. Chillum 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC) I suggest the request is closed quickly because it is stale and it is not clear, despite what some may think, that it violates a restriction so broad that almost anything could be considered covered by it. If any action is deemed to be necessary, I suggest that the only action is that a statement is made that reports done by proxy in future should never be accepted because they could be open to gaming of the system. (I make this comment without intending to criticise anyone up to the time of this report here.) I also suggest that a recommendation be made that people should spend more time on adding content.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC) No, lets keep it going and let everyone see what sad individuals these people obsessed with gender gaps are. Giano (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect

Steeletrap

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

Request concerning Steeletrap

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#May 2014 (BLP discretionary sanctions)

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. Notified by another editor of edit violations at article TP
2. Warned of the violations and my report to Callanecc who has been overseeing Griffin
3. Callanecc asked me to make a report of this at AE which I am doing now.
4. Steeletrap's response to Callanecc - the user has been notified.
5. Notice of this AE

Discussion concerning Steeletrap

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

Statement by Steeletrap

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

Statement by SPECIFICO

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

Statement by Jytdog

Suggest boomerang. Please see 3RR thread I had opened with regard to Atsme prior to this AE being opened, here. Please also note Atsme's response in that board action. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Statement by Collect

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

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

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

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

The close was:

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Steeletrap

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

NorthBySouthBaranof

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 NorthBySouthBaranof

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AnsFenrisulfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

NorthBySouthBaranof (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate :

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

NbSB removes a link in the talk page, cites

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Per Sanctions to be Reinforced, NbSB is currently Topic-banned from the article.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The citation of the exemption is improper. The link they claim to be a BLP violation was cited on the talk page, was explicitly said by the poster to be a source for possible additional sources, and not a source to be used in the article itself. Thus, they are in violation of their topic ban.

Also, because I could see the label of SPA or Attack being thrown at me. I had wished to avoid the GamerGate article after I received Bite, and have even by eying other articles that interest me.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof&oldid=646560006 He has been notified.

Discussion concerning NorthBySouthBaranof

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 NorthBySouthBaranof

Statement by (username)

Result concerning NorthBySouthBaranof

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

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=646479745
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&oldid=646479629
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans

• Misplaced Pages arbitration