Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:19, 5 March 2016

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 Sir Joseph

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

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sir Joseph 17:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Bernie Sanders Topic Ban - One Week

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Statement by Sir Joseph

On the talk page there are a few editors who are stubbornly refusing to allow "Relgion:Jewish" in the infobox of Bernie Sander's article even though it is thoroughly sourced through reliable sources and self soured as well. A few editors then came up with a new policy that says that it has to come from Bernie's own mouth, as per Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Religion. Firstly, that is not a infobox policy, that is a categorization policy, but even so, the page says right on the top: "guideline,... best treated with common sense...and occasional exceptions..." When a Senator has a press kit on the SENATE.GOV's website we may treat that as his own words. That being said, I still found an article that had Sanders, IN HIS OWN WORDS, say, "I am proud to be Jewish." So I added that to the article as per the talk page. Since the entire talk page consensus was that Bernie's Jewishness could only be included only if he said it himself, here's an article that said it himself and I thought we can put this stupid matter to rest. Those editors opposing the inclusion of the Jewish reference, blindly ignoring all the evidence of his Jewishness, are requiring Bernie saying he is Jewish in his own words. So I found an article that said he is Jewish and proud of it. That is all Misplaced Pages should be doing. What these editors want to do is now determine level of observance and that is not what the infobox or what Misplaced Pages is all about. We don't do it for other religions and we shouldn't start doing it for Jews.

• As per Liz I am shortening my comments.
• JzG what rope? As Spartaz pointed out in his comment, you can't listen to guy Macon and his list of diffs. The ban was updated. So I sill fail to see the rope, and justification for an extension other than me bringing this appeal.
• To Bishonen and Laser, again, I never called anyone an antisemite and you should strike that out. As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, when you are scrutinizing only the Jew for special treatment, then something does smell wrong. Whether you mean it or not, it is perceived as such. Especially in 2016, most recently Cullen328 said something similar, Gamaliel, Nishidani and other upstanding editors said similar.
• Firstly if I may say I think there is a double standard judging by this and the below AE. Second, I also think many admins are looking at Guy Macon's timeline without realizing that the timeline was before Coffee modified his defective ban and I did not violate any TBAN. I really have no idea why you guys are thinking of a six month extension for something I didn't do. All I did was bring this appeal after I got a one week ban. Is that really such an offense? And I note again that Coffee posted a comment in the uninvolved admin section.
• @Coffee, I would be very hard pressed to say you are uninvolved in this AE.

Statement by Coffee

I have nothing to add to what I've already stated at my talk page, the article's talk page, and in the sanction at Sir Joseph's talk page. (Unless this is somehow unclear to other uninvolved admins... which I doubt.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As he is refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK, I've updated the ban to state page instead of article (as requested by Bishonen at my talk page). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: You may want to read the notice at the top of your appeal: "Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED)." — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

Sir Joseph is in violation of his topic ban.

• (16:58, 29 February 2016) Topic Ban:
• (19:11, 29 February 2016) Violation #1:
• (19:19, 29 February 2016) I Remove post made in violation of topic ban
• (19:22, 29 February 2016) Sir Joseph reverts removal.
• (19:23, 29 February 2016) Sir Joseph warned on his talk page
• (19:33, 29 February 2016) I explain that per WP:TBAN talk pages are included, ask Sir Joseph to self-revert.
• (19:34, 29 February 2016) Violation #2:

Sir Joseph has made six edits on other pages since my request that he self-revert and has been informed of the ban on talk page comments by several people, yet has not self-reverted. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Sir Joseph's various and sundry accusations towards me, my only interest in Bernie Sanders is to bring it into compliance with the consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. As my extensive edit history clearly shows, I have no particular interest in religion articles or political articles. Contrast this with Sir Joseph's edit history, which is pretty much Jews, Jews, and more Jews. I don't particularly like being called antisemetic for attempting to implement the consensus from those RfCs. I choose to edit using my real name and that's the sort of false accusation that tends to follow you around.

I would also like to comment on Sir Joseph's unsupported assertion "The claim that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish is the one that is dangerous and is a BLP violation." That comment is indicative of the problem that the other editors on the Sander's page are facing. Leaving aside for a moment that it is a bald-faced lie -- not one single editor has ever claimed that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish and Sir Joseph knows it -- it also shows a determination to Right Great Wrongs by hijacking a discussion that should be about removing his topic ban and turning it into a discussion about Bernie Sanders being a Jew.

In my opinion, the best interests of the encyclopedia would be served by an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to Jews of Judaism, broadly construed, with the standard offer that if Sir Joseph shows that he can edit constructively in other areas for six months there is a high probability that a request that the topic ban be lifted will be granted. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Statement by Curly Turkey

• @Liz: You're suggesting an empty Infobox field is OR? The argument is not whether he is or is not Jewish, which is covered in detail in the article body, but whether the Infobox should state: "Religion: Jewish" (and the larger question—whether infoboxes should state people's religions at all, which many of us are opposed to). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Winkelvi

It should be noted Sir Joseph has continued to discuss the Sanders article here and here, in spite of and in violation of his topic ban. Obviously, he doesn't take the TBAN seriously or care that it exists. Since his violation of the ban is pretty much being ignored, I have to wonder if admins who have commented take it seriously, too. Not trying to cause problems, but, really? Why is he being allowed to continue in this manner? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sir Joseph

Statement by Darkfrog24

At first this looks like just a content dispute, but according to Coffee's official notice, Sir J was sanctioned for failing to get consensus before adding disputed content. And Sir J seems to be saying "Even though I didn't wait for the other editors to say 'okay' on the talk page, I did find exactly what they asked for, so I shouldn't be topic-banned." Is that correct? As for content, I've been in a similar situation and it is very frustrating, but editors don't always say what it is that they really want (or they don't list all their reasons). What worked in my case was that a neutral party came in, figured out what the additional issue was, and then we ran a clearly worded RfC that addressed that issue directly. In that case, the other editors were asking for reliable sources, but the additional issue was the subjective editorial decision of whether the content improved the article. I didn't understand why no matter how many sources I found they still weren't happy. Once we were able to deal with these matters separately, things proceeded in a quick and civilized fashion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC) EDIT: Okay, I went through the RfC thread and I don't see any clear version of "Just find us a reliable source that says X and we're fine with the addition." Rather, the discussion focuses on ethnic vs. religious Judaism, on participation and on whether Sanders' Jewish status is notable. Maybe Sir J found what one or two of the many participants said they wanted, and props for the legwork, but that's not enough to reasonably assume that most of the participants would be satisfied. (Also, Spacklick seems to be addressing the editorial issue directly.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

"Jewish" has multiple meanings. It's original research to label someone as professing a religious faith when they may simply be commenting on part of their ethnic background. There are lots of agnostic/atheist Jews, and so on. So, it doesn't matter how many places he says he's proud to be Jewish, it has no impact on the infobox parameter unless and until we have him saying he's religiously Jewish. And that is probably something that should be a self-statement, for a BLP, especially one subjected to racist and faith-based slurs from Christian rednecks and the like. E.g., if Fox News claims he goes to synagogue, that's not a reliable source. An infobox religion parameter is a very blunt instrument. What Sanders's "Jewishness" entails, to the extent it's even encyclopedic, is a matter best explored in the article body, like the "Irishness" of various individuals in certain parts of that island in various time periods, and so on. Not every group label is a cut-and-dry matter. I don't see any recognition of this complexity and nuance on the part of the appellant, just a certainty that a great wrong is being done by not putting the word "Jewish" into that slot in the infobox.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  10:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death

BLP is quite clear, and has consistantly been upheld at the BLP noticeboard on this: we dont make blanket statements of fact over controversial issues regarding living people where there is contradictory information. We explore the contradictions in the prose. No one has denied Sander is Jewish. However there is enough contradictory sources, including statements from the subject, that having religion in infobox state 'Jewish' is not appropriate. No one has suggested it cant be explored in the article, as that would be the appropriate place. Infobox's however only allow for definite facts. Of which Sander's religion is not one.

Malik's threat above however is frankly ridiculous. We apply the same criteria to other potentially controversial infobox subjects like sexuality. Absent a clear declaration from the subject they are X, we dont state subject is X. Sanders states he is Jewish, but does not clearly state his religion is Jewish. There are no excuses - everybody should be aware by now why there is a difference, and if they are not, they shouldnt be editing articles on Jewish people.

Personally I think anyone making threats to go to the press unless they are allowed to tag public figures as religious Jews should be banned for life from all Jewish-related articles. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In reply to JamesBWatson - His PR presspack (which was available on the website) listed his religion as 'Jewish'. -ninja edit- Appears to still be available on right hand side via 'download press package' button. If there were no contradictory sources, as a primary source this would usually be enough. However when the subject themselves also states they are not religious it gets a bit murkier. Its just not clear cut enough for a definitive infobox statement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JamesBWatson

SMcCandlish and Only in death are perfectly right: I have known many people of Jewish ancestry who describe themselves as "Jewish" despite not believing in or following the Jewish religion, so describing oneself as "proud to be Jewish" is not proof that one follows that religion. Since Sir Joseph makes it abundantly clear that his ban appeal is because he wishes to persist in his campaign to include Jewish as Sanders's religion, substantially on the basis of the statement "I am proud to be Jewish", without indication whether that means "religiously Jewish" or not, the appeal should not be allowed. Furthermore, Sir Joseph also makes the bizarre claim that putting "Jewish" as ethnicity is "antisemitic", and if he intends to edit in relation to jews on the basis of such weird views as that, then that is further confirmation that he should not be trusted to edit in relation to jews. He goes on to say "All the other politicians do not have to worry about their religious observances but if you're Jewish then you need to measure it up or you might not get to be labeled Jewish enough by the Misplaced Pages editors", but if after all that has been said to him about this issue, on various pages, he still has not grasped that the whole point is that neither he nor anyone else has produced evidence that judaism is Sanders's "religious observance" then that is yet further confirmation that he is incapable of editing in this area, and that the topic ban should stay.

One last point: Sir Joseph says "Relgion:Jewish (sic) is on his Senate.gov website", but I have searched http://www.sanders.senate.gov and various subpages of that page, such as http://www.sanders.senate.gov/about, and nowhere can I find that stated. Can Sir Joseph tell us exactly where in that web site the information is to be found? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Maunus

I second SmCandlish's statement. The argument for putting the label in the religion slot, ignores the fact that unlike the word "Christian" the word "Jewish" is polysemic and does not only refer to religion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector

Is this section meant to be broken up by sub-headers? No matter I guess.

Sir Joseph is clearly in violation of his topic ban, I mean there can be no question, this entire appeal is continuing to discuss Bernie Sanders, the topic that Sir Joseph is banned from. I expect to see appeals in the form, "this topic ban is invalid because <evidence the ban rationale was incorrect>" or some such. For example, Sir Joseph could argue that Coffee was mistaken and SJ actually didn't add contentious information with without (corrected 20:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)) firm consensus, and/or point to the discussion which established that consensus, or that he didn't edit war to reinsert it, or perhaps Sir Joseph would argue that he was not aware of the discretionary sanctions. But that is not Sir Joseph's approach, he's merely continuing to argue that he's right. But let's assume he did make an appeal of that sort.

Was there consensus for the edit? The large, open RfC on the talk page suggests not. It's still open, of course, but I think it's a pretty big leap to say it's going to close as support. So there's no consensus.

Did Sir Joseph edit war to add the edit? He sure did. Not to mention that these edits came while the matter was still being hotly contested on the talk page, he ought to have known, sourced or not, that these edits would be contentious.

Was Sir Joseph aware of the discretionary sanctions? I find it hard to believe that anybody edits in topic areas like these without knowing about the WP:BLP policy and related DS, but just in case he also missed the editnotice, there's this warning on his talk page.

Is the blocking administrator WP:INVOLVED? No reason has been given as to why Coffee should be considered involved here, and I can't find one.

So I don't see any reason that this ban should be overturned. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Liz

Since you asked the question, JamesBWatson if you go to his About page there is a box that says "PRESS PACKAGE DOWNLOAD (PDF)". If you download this biography, which I assume is official, it states that Sanders religion is "Jewish". I don't think any editor of Misplaced Pages is qualified to judge how religious Sanders is or what he means by Jewish. It's his self-identification. Any interpretation of this by a Misplaced Pages editor is pure original research. Liz 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

As only involved in responding to discussion at BLP/N and OR/N, the issue is that while the press kit (which may or may not be authored directly by Sanders) says that, his statements directly recorded by the press as self-identification beg the question of his religion. The press kit is conflicting with his statements to a point where saying "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox may be wrong. It would be OR to try to come to a conclusion either way from these sets of conflicting statements. It's well recognized that what his religious beliefs are is important, but can't be readily summarized in one word. Hence, a solution that I offered at OR/N that seems to have consensus is to have "See (Religion section)" as the entry in the infobox - it doesn't deny he has stated some type of faith, but it is something not readily captured by one or two words. In my eyes, this is the similar practice that we allow people to omit infoboxes from bio articles if they believe the infobox is insufficient for capturing a person in a brief snapshot. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Darouet

Result of the appeal by Sir Joseph

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

• The topic ban seems reasonable to me. The page has an obvious edit notice that quite clearly states "You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring." You were fully aware that the RfC on the talk page has not yet been closed one way or the other, so it was clearly inappropriate to make the edit and even more inappropriate to edit war over it (for the record, I gave an opinion on the RfC but have otherwise had no involvement in the article, so no idea whether that makes me "involved" or not). Number 57 18:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban. I see Sir Joseph has claimed, in his appeal to Coffee, that he didn't know his edit was contentious. To someone who has spent an hour today reading the RfC on Talk:Bernie Sanders, as I have, that is an absurd claim, and I find it difficult to assume it was made in good faith. Compare also the diffs Coffee supplied in his reply here. It looks to me like a topic ban is the only way to stop Sir Joseph from trying to get his opinion into the article by sheer weight of edit warring on the article + repetitiousness on the talkpage. Have a read of WP:REHASH, Sir Joseph. (And incidentally of WP:CANVASS to, regarding this message.) I'm frankly not sure a week is enough. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

Adding: Sir Joseph's broad hints in his most recent post that his opponents are motivated by antisemitism ("antisemitic", "troubling") are completely unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

@Sir Joseph: It might be better to give evidence for your claim that I'm not uninvolved than to keep "reiterating" it. I think people would be more interested. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC).

• Support existing ban and extension to six months. I concur that there's no way Sir Joseph didn't know this was a contentious edit. I am also very troubled by his statement above about antisemitism—I note that he has been blocked in the past for calling other editors terrorists. --Laser brain (talk) 19:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• I have blocked Sir Joseph for edit warring to reunsert a topic ban vio. clearly they cannot control their editing, which eans we need the topic ban. Spartaz 22:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Now unblocked as I hadn't realised the sanction had been updated and the talk page edit predated that. Still support refusing the appeal. Endorse ban extending to talk page. Spartaz 23:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support ban, which should include the talk page. Debating what religion should be ascribed to someone in the infobox of their article is obviously a hot-button issue. I see no case here for lifting the topic ban. Agree with User:Bishonen that a one-week ban may be considered short, so I would advise Sir Joseph to be careful in the future. It is worth noting that User:Laser brain has proposed an extension to six months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll support the six months too, Ed. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC).

For the record, at this point, I also support extending the ban to 6 months. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• The topic ban is clearly righteous and needs to be extended to cover the talk page and I agree that it should be extended to six months. This is a textbook example of WP:ROPE, if nothing else. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Closing soon: The original ban was by User:Coffee, and it was for one week. As modifiied, it covers editing any page related to Bernie Sanders. It will expire at 16:58 on 7 March. Although User:Coffee has commented in the admin section, his opinion is not counted for purposes of the appeal since he is the banning admin. According to WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications, appeals can be granted at AE only by the 'clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators'. Among the five admins who commented (not including Coffee) nobody supports granting the appeal. So the appeal will be declined when this closes. To avoid confusion, I suggest that any admin who wants to extend the ban to six months should go ahead and do so as an individual admin action after this closes. Then that new action can (if necessary) have its own appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

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 I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (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/Genetically modified organisms#Discretionary Sanctions :

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

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (aka jps) and Alexbrn have edit-warred material into the article GMO conspiracy theories based on self-published sources and other poor sourcing, ignoring objections. Jps created the article on January 31, 2016 to look like this. Many of the sources do not meet our sourcing guidelines. I pointed this out here and then took out a number of these unreliable sources . (Please note that Genetic Literacy Project is run by Jon Entine a Pro-GMO advocate. ; Mark Lynas does similar pro-GMO advocacy .) jps went ahead and put the material back in without addressing any of the concerns and without achieving consensus first here. I reverted here. Alexbrn edit-warred the material back in here despite continuing objections here. Tsavage also explained the problematic sourcing here.

At this ANI, jps's behavior was outrageous. Jps lied about the content of sources: . He originally said that Domingo 2011 was "much criticized" . When Petrarchan47 pointed out he was lying and asked him to "prove it" , he responded with three journals , none of which criticized Domingo. An independent editor Sammy1339 confirmed it was a lie here. Rather than address the misrepresentations, jps made a mockery of the proceedings. Jusdafax noted this disruptful behavior , as did Petrarchan47 .

1. Domingo, José L.; Giné Bordonaba, Jordi (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants (5 February 2011)" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734–42. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID 21296423.

--David Tornheim (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

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

This warning has been on the article talk page in which both users have participated since 19:27 January 31,2016. I put further reminder pinging user here and another on the talk page here.

• 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 1/31/2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Regarding Kingofaces43 false allegations that I reverted solely based on "no consensus". Although I did not explain all my reasoning in the edit notes, In every single case, I discussed the revert on the talk page, and King was present in every one of those discussions. Often I created a section on the talk page and pinged the editor.

• For ,, I restored material that had been stable in the article for a long time. The deletions were one-side and I and other editors discussed the non-NPOV removals here.

• For , see discussion and my comment

• For , see

• For , the edit note gives other reasons. I further discuss on the talk page here: (part of this discussion).

King's remaining diffs are just as poorly represented, but to spare Liz and others, I will limit providing more diffs:

• For the sentence about "pull a full 180 degrees" to "edit war content back in":
  • The first group of 3 is covered in this complaint: I was not adding but removing material that was based on blogs and self-published sites by pro-GMO advocates.
  • The next 3 diffs I restored well-sourced relevant material that was removed unilaterally. I even improved one of the sources.

The key difference between material I removed in the first 3 diffs and material I restored in the next 3, is the quality of the sources. That is why I brought this action. There is no reason for editors who have been here as long as jps and Alexbrn to waste our time trying to force material with such shoddy sourcing into the encyclopedia, when they know better.

For the remainder of King's diffs, he actually brings up actions taken against me by a now-topic-banned editor--I brought those exact actions as evidence at the ArbCom that resulted in that editor being topic-banned.

Regarding Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's statement:

Neither of those two editors are new to GMO's or new to Misplaced Pages. Both were at the GMO ArbCom proceeding. And both had edited and commented on GMO articles prior to the creation of the conspiracy article, advocating pro-industry positions. However, a new editor BarrelProof has shown up that immediately saw the problem that brought this action. . --David Tornheim (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

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 I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

Claims of edit warring are pretty strange. Certainly no violation of 1RR or even anything close to that (weeks in between reversions?) has occurred by anyone active at the article. I have encountered a lot of resistance from people of a certain political persuasion when it comes to the GMO controversy. Unfortunately, discussion on the talkpage has occasionally degenerated into problematic arguments by anti-GMO activists that, for example, sources such as academic books published by Oxford University Press were unreliable. Sorry about my exasperation. I will try to dial back the snark as much as possible.

It would be nice if you all would give David and Petra little breaks from this subject as they are the ones who are most problematic in baiting and changing the discussion from content toward argumentative rhetoric. The AN/I discussion was outlandish for its demonstration that anti-GMO activists are so ideologically inclined to attach themselves to their favored sources, they cannot even understand when the sources are contradicted. I also find it particularly galling when they try to claim that Mark Lynas and David Entine are somehow corrupt sources (e.g., an argument that because Entine works for AEI and climate deniers also work for AEI that therefore Entine is not a reliable source for information on genetic engineering, biotechnology, or food safety -- what?). Petra has gone so far as to claim equivalency between Lynas and Vani Hari which is a level of incompetence regarding the identification of reliable sources that is fairly unrivaled at Misplaced Pages since maybe the time we were overrun with climate deniers.

jps (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs (for those who like them)

WP:BOOMERANG may apply here as well. These are all David diffs since he filed the report:

• Revert by David. See WP:KETTLE.
• Heavy handed ordering of other editors. Basically asserting an odd form of ownership over the article ordering what edits I can and cannot do without so much as suggesting discussion is possible.
• continuing to harass an editor banned in the relevant arbcom case

Responses

@Liz:: You're absolutely right about the arbcom GMO case. The problem, I think, is similar to what happened with global warming. There are just many editors with the same agendas willing to hop back into the game after their friends are banned and there is no arbitration of content (which is really what is needed because at the end of the day that's where the dispute lies -- not in behavior). What ended up happening in the climate change omnibus case was an outright ban of basically everyone with the deniers remaining banned and the "pro-science" folks slowly restored. We're almost at the point where all the things that the pro-science crowd wanted to do back in 2009 are accomplished, but some might argue that Misplaced Pages is better for having done the shoot first, ask questions later approach since it was ultimately difficult to pin the disciplinary action on any one ideology. But make no mistake, we know which "side" won that battle and it is pretty clear to me which "side" will win this battle too in the long run. If it takes a Boris-style suggestion of kicking us all to the curb to get it done because of the dysfunctional way Misplaced Pages administration and arbitration works, I guess that's okay by me. As the mother who asked that Solomon give the baby to the other woman rather than splitting it in twain, I would rather a decision made that will ultimately save the encyclopedia from becoming a haven for anti-GMO paranoia rather than preserving any small part I may have in helping this situation along. But you might consider whether the article I have written (for the most part) really is as bad as my esteemed colleagues who have dragged me here would have you believe. jps (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

This is more complicated than what the filing editor describes. Bottom line: jps should be strongly advised to dial back his sarcasm and snark, with the understanding that continuation will likely result in action here: , , .

At the same time, there is some reason for exasperation on jps' part, and some degree of conduct from the "other side" that gets rather close to baiting. I've gone through every single diff that David T. provided. The so-called edit warring isn't quite that, although David was just as much involved in it as anyone else – and I don't see anything disruptive on Alexbrn's part. When David talks about "unreliable sources", he is throwing PZ Myers and Scientific American into the mix, so the content dispute has a lot more shades of gray than what is presented. About the Domingo source, well, we can probably quibble over whether it was "much criticized", or just "criticized". The three sources cited by jps draw somewhat the opposite conclusions to Domingo, and since then another reliable source has directly refuted Domingo: . Anti-GMO activists cling to the Domingo source, which is why it seems to be such high stakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

Tryptofish described the overall situation well, but I do have to suggest a boomerang for David Tornheim as jps mentioned for a vexatious AE filing like this, which has resulted in action on other editors before.. David Tornheim does have a tendency to antagonize the situation in this topic by some very clear cut fringe-advocacy behavior, which is only continuing to exacerbate the community's patience as we've seen in jps' case. WP:KETTLE is the most apparent behavior problem associated with battleground behavior for anyone that's been following David's actions in this topic.

Edit warring often occurs with David making demands as jps pointed out or where they revert a new edit basically demanding in edit summaries that material cannot be changed without their approval even when they don't attempt to open up initial talk page discussion on it, which runs entirely against WP:DRNC. However, when it comes to David's own edits, they pull a full 180 and try to edit war content back in they are already aware didn't have consensus such as this string (some intermediate edits not included), and this More kettle issues come up at the ANI David tries to cite as evidence if someone takes the time to read through their multitude of posts, especially the battleground aspect of bringing up Nazi's, etc that pops up in a few posts.

David has been warned multiple times at ANI now for battleground, edit warring, and general tendentiousness. , plus by admins for peanut gallery type behavior in this topic at admin boards. Continuing that behavior and jumping to AE when someone shows reasonable frustration is just more battleground. We're past the point of warnings, so it's starting to look like the path to a topic ban is already being well traveled. If that doesn't seem clear to admins yet, reading the edit summaries in my diffs should be enough indication for a 0RR restriction for David as an intermediate step at this point.

In short, if someone truly believes there is something actionable here in terms of jps, we pretty much have an unambiguous case for even more severe action against David Tornheim with kettle in mind, especially if admins want to get into more detail than what I've briefly presented. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Responding to Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I don't think we're in such dire straits that we'd need such a nuclear option. We've been making slow progress in this topic with a decent handful of disruptive editors already topic banned. We basically have two core editors left that really frequent the topic (right now at least) with advocacy/battleground issues. David is one of those with their behavior being the more problematic of the two. My hope is that pruning back David's behavior should finally get us to a relative die-down on drama or at least to the point where action might only needed for one or two more editors to really settle things down. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Alexbrn

I see I have been accused of edit-warring on an article where I have only made two (unrelated) edits ever.

That says it all. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

This nonsense has gone on too long. The editing atmosphere is much too toxic for any newcomers to try to contribute, as User:Alexbrn's statement above demonstrate. Suggested remedy:

1. Compile a list of everyone who has edited the topic in the past month. (I would like to exclude User:Alexbrn but this has to be absolute or there will be endless wrangling. Sorry Alex.)

2. Topic ban them for the next six months.

3. If any of these editors violates the topic ban even once, or if they file a complaint about any other editor on the list in any venue on any Wikimedia project, the remaining period of the topic ban is automatically and without discussion converted as a site ban.

No, I am not trying to be funny. Nothing else is going to work. We need to make this topic safe for new contributors if anything is to change. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn

A few babies will go down the drain if SBHB's remedy is used. I don't think we are at this stage though. The major problem revolves around our presentation of the safety of GMO food. The divide between the science and public opinion is large and that is reflected on Misplaced Pages. Correspondingly most of the problems stem from disagreements over this issue. Good progress had been made on this front (for example Talk:Genetically modified crops#First proposal revised) and before we resort to kicking everyone a better first step would be to get a well run rfc to decide this question for an enforceable period of time. AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

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

• I think the lack of admin response to this request is due to fatigue regarding disputes in the GMO area which show up at AE on a regular basis. It seems like the GMO arbitration case didn't settle things down one bit. You all have presented dozens and dozens of diffs so it will take a while for me (and others) to weigh the merits of your arguments. Liz 22:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• It is indeed very fatiguing. But before I faint from the oxygen-deprivation of tunnelling into the diff collections above and other background material, I will with my last breath oppose any sanction of jps in this matter. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC).