Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Is not a (talk | contribs) at 21:07, 31 January 2015 (→Statement by is not a: three 2014 summertime edits about violated his topic ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user

Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

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

Administrator imposing the sanction

Deskana (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 Ubikwit

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

• I think that the comments added by Is not a (talk · contribs) below are illustrative of editing in a contentious area.

First, it should be pointed out that the editor is a new account with a fairly high degree of familiarity with WP policy.

Second, Is not a (talk · contribs) casts aspersions on the Talk page and here, where he refers to anti-semitism, apparently linking that to his accusation that I "restored a citation of an attack site". A search of RS/N appears to reveal that the site is not an attack site, but a reliable source falling under news organizations, as I've commented on the relevant Talk page thread of the Kagan article. Is not a (talk · contribs) has attempted to dismiss RS documenting connections to the Project for the New American Century and the The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), reference to which has been completely removed from the article, despite numerous RS readily accessible, online, such as this. In fact, this series of edits sees a plurality of passages that appear to be adequately sourced being removed.

I spoke about being trolled, and the conduct of User Is a would seem to typify aspects of that type of behavior. It is not pleasant, but I have learned to respond in a more cool, calm, and collected manner.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 01:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The plot thickens, it turns out that there was a subplot to the subterfuge at the Kagan Talk page regarding the editor with the tricky Wikiname Is not a (talk · contribs) "is a", with this source being purported "attack site", which is on a website hosted by Institute for Policy Studies, to which he was indirectly referring to using the acronym "IPS" (there is no actual mention of that organization or its acronym in the multiple passages he deleted), while also deleting the text sourced to an article from the news organization "IPS" (the only direct reference to "IPS" on the page). The so-called "attack site" piece is a profile that would probably be categorized as a tertiary source, with 24 citations, including many to pieces in the NYT and WP. I don't have time to read the piece itself but would assume it has a liberal POV. I've inquired whether the editor might have a COI regarding the Kagan and Nuland articles. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:34, 05:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this trolling? Harassment? It's certainly not engaging in the discussion at hand in that thread, rather, trying to prevent the discussion from progressing in a manner such as to evaluate the sourcing questions at issue. The editor also linked to their post here in that post on BLP/N.

Note that the edit summary is to the IP rant in which that diff occurs, which has been hatted as trolling.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Deskana

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

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ubikwit

Statement by is not a

Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit (talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to violate WP:BLP and other guidelines:

• Ubikwit reinserted a meandering discussion of (Jewish philosopher) Leo Strauss, despite Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)'s warnings about WP:BLP (, again despite , despite ) although finally he did respect the BLP-based consensus I am happy to report.
• Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan despite RayAYang (talk · contribs)'s warnings and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling . Related edits on the talk page of Kagan follow:
• On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" and linking to this anti-semitic website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek . A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang (talk · contribs) , who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."
• Today Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site, calling Kagan a rightwing militarist .

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

Second, Robert Kagan has had severe violations of WP:BLP since at least 2008. For example, the 128.95.217.149 (talk · contribs) with only vandalism edits targetting Kagan has never been blocked. The history of this article horrifies me. Somehow Kagan's article needs to be protected from further WP:BLP violations, particularly edits that may appear to have anti-semitism.

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

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

@Deskana: Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban (and linked to an anti-semitic site), among other policies. is a 21:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Ubikwit

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

Note for the sake of completeness: The topic ban (and interaction ban) were imposed 3 January 2013 in this edit by Deskana. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• No blocks within 2014 is promising. Would you say that you got into any editorial disputes since your last block? If so, could you please link to and describe them? Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• The required notification of the sanctioning admin is still lacking.  Sandstein  22:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's okay. I figured it out. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• Given the other user with whom Ubikwit was clashing has stopped editing I'd be inclined to hear this appeal further. It is disappointing (as Deskana) points out that their statement focuses on blaming other people rather than taking responsibility however I can see past that. It like HJ's idea, something like giving us some articles they wish to edit and after a few months coming back here to decide whether to lift it outright or not. Given edit warring was a concern another possibility would be to replace the TBAN with 1RR and see how that goes. I'm not convinced which of these options I prefer at the moment, going to consider it for a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Israel-Palestine articles are under a blanket 1RR, so an editor-specific 1RR would be redundant. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I got the I and the P round the wrong way.

    Having thought about this some more I'm moving towards thinking that we should just lift the TBAN completely (especially given it's been 2 years with no major issues) but make it clear that there will likely be a fairly low bar to placing it again if need be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Loganmac

67.163.88.57

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by DarknessSavior

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Protonk

Inthefastlane

Rhoark

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

Request concerning Rhoark

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rhoark (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/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

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

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

• General Sanction notification was upgraded for 1 year to DS notification per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions part iii.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Rhoark is a single puropose account focused on GamerGate, with a minor amount of near-vandalistic, but certainly pointy editing regarding feminist topics (, ), along with some very minor general edits.

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Rhoark

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

Statement by Rhoark

General statements

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

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

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

Regarding the first contested diff

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

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

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

Regarding the second and miscellaneous diffs

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

However, consensus is not a numerical matter, but must look to arguments. The arguments deployed in favor of "rambling" or the status quo more generally were:

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

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

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

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

Addendum

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

Response to comments by user AtomsOrSystems

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

Response to comments by 192.249.47.186

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

Going dark

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

Statement by involved editor AtomsOrSystems

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

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

Regarding the two edits, I think the diffs of the edits and discussion on the talk page speak for themselves. In my opinion, they were at the very least non-constructive and done in a combative manner, with no attempts (and overt refusal) to wait for or be guided by consensus. As stated above, the edits seem to go some way beyond "bold," make no offer to revert on request, and indeed, he neglected when a request that he revert was made. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

After some thought, I think it's pertinent for me to add that, in my opinion and based on my admittedly limited interaction with the editor, I am persuaded that they have the encyclopedia's best interest in mind; they simply seem to be going about it in what I consider the wrong way. I think they, and the project, might benefit most by them taking a temporary step back, from the topic area or the encyclopedia in general. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 192.249.47.186

I second Atoms' description, and would like to add that i have several times recommended that rhoark petition the or noticeboard for verification if he feels my arguments are incorrectly applying the or policy. I am appalled that rhoark decided it was appropriate to ignore talk page consensus or any other avenues for mediation before pushing through his desired version of the page.

Also, I don't (or rather, am very afraid I do) see rhoark's goal in stating that he is a feminist as part of his statement. Identity should not be part of this discussion, I think.66.87.77.218 (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to Ries42

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

Statement by Ries42

Statement by starship.paint

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

Statement by Kaciemonster

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rhoark

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

• The two diffs on the Gamergate controversy article and talk page do indicate a failure to follow community norms (ie, waiting for and following a consensus) and the pointy and disruptive edits to Microaggression theory do indicate a problem (however those occurred before the general sanctions notification so the long term consensus/precedent is that we consider it inadmissible). The edits regarding Gamergate indicate that this is a single purpose account and is editing disruptively so I'd advocate a 3 month topic ban from 'Gamergate controversy, broadly construed' and a final warning that any further disruptive edits will result in a broader, longer TBAN or a block. I'm also considering a page ban from Gamergate controversy instead of the topic ban only as I'm not totally convinced that their edits to the talk page have been disruptive in and of themselves, but it's not waiting for and having a supporting consensus which is the problem. Having said that I'm open to changing my mind based on further comments, including Rhoark's statement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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.