Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Tornheim (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 5 March 2016 (→Request concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: response to Shock Brigade Harvester Boris). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:12, 5 March 2016 by David Tornheim (talk | contribs) (→Request concerning I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: response to Shock Brigade Harvester Boris)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For for the policy regarding the letters æ or ae, see WP:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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

Important informationShortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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 archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

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)

Irrelevancy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Related discussion: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threats by Malik Shabazz --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Irrelevancy

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

Can we talk about the elephant in the room? Guy Macon is a troll whose disruptive editing started this conflict—when he removed Senator Sanders's religion from the infobox—and he has edit-warred to keep it out, violating 3RR in the process. I don't know who appointed Guy Macon King of the Jews, but it's time for somebody to step up and put an end to his original research that he, and only he, is qualified to determine who is sufficiently Jewish to be be identified as a Jew in their infobox.

I'm sorry that it's come to this, but WP:OR/N is horribly broken:

PUT AN END TO THIS BULLSHIT OR I WILL NOTIFY THE PRESS THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS ONE STANDARD FOR BIOGRAPHIES OF CHRISTIANS AND ANOTHER FOR BIOGRAPHIES OF JEWS. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Curly Turkey

side dispute

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

Someone might want to look into Malik's behaviour as well—he whips out that "King of the Jews" thing at anyone who disagrees with him with alarming frequency, and his "I WILL NOTIFY THE PRESS" is in violation of the spirit if not strictly the letter of Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Nishidani: your statement would make sense if this were simply a blowup on Malik's part, but rather it's been his whole persistent approach to the Sanders kerfuffle since day one, both there and in other fora. And he's not known from backing down from his statements, no matter how plainly and undeniably wrong he's proven to be. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  - Jesus, Nishidani, if Malik's behaviour—melodramatically accusing everyone he meets of antisemitism, threatening to take Misplaced Pages to "the press" is magnificent, and refusing to retract statements he himself know are empirically wrong—is "magnificent", then I have to wonder what behaviour you would object to. He's crossed any number of lines. Well, whatever you think of him, his threat will have to be dealt with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@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

distraction

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

Did Malik Shabazz really just issue a threat to damage Misplaced Pages and the Wikimedia Foundation with a statement to the press that would essentially state Misplaced Pages condones and engages in anti-Semitism? That has to fall under WP:NLT. Admins who have commented here need to be made aware of this. Pinging Laser brain, Bishonen, Spartaz, Number 57. I think it's also worth mentioning that Malik is a here as a result of canvassing by SirJoseph. It also should be noted that Sir Joseph has actually violated his topic ban by continuing to discuss the article here, relentlessly, for over a day since the topic ban was imposed. Admins below are endorsing a six month topic ban. I would suggest that this would be not just reasonable but appropriate since SJ continues to violate the topic ban based on discussing the topic/article here and using this forum as a soapbox for discussion, abusing the purpose of this forum. Enough is enough. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Distraction

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

Could we lay off Malik Shabazz. That's not a legal threat. He's quite correct that there is something odd in the way, as distinct from other ethnicities, issues regarding Jews lead to humongous, ill-informed threads. I believe he is wrong to identify this as coming from only one side: Sir Joseph and others have relentlessly tried to pull Sanders into a conventional Jewish religious identity on the basis of his Jewish identity, confusing ethnicity with religion, birth with metaphysics. That Identity issues are extremely sensitive matters, particular in this regard, and upset people is only to be expected and we should not make a mountain out of a molehill. Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Curly Turkey. If Malik, whose editing I've observed for nearly a decade, happens to perceive something I've missed, or can't see, I think about it. If he is pissed off, I'm not going to grizzle. His record has been, aside from one slip caused by having to edit with a fucking idiot, magnificent. So don't niggle away. There were lots of stupid remarks said on both sides, and it is pointless fussing. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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.

Side discussion

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

Malik Shabazz's comments about different standards for Christians and Jews is utterly absurd: does he really not know that the word "Christian" is used only to mean people of a particular religion, whereas "Jewish" is used to refer both to religion and to ethnicity, so that the two are not comparable? I would counsel him to be cautious about carrying out his threat (childishly shouted at us in capital letters) to "expose" us to the press for treating the two as different cases, because the two are different cases.

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

Distraction
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was summoned to the RfC on the Sanders religion issue, and SMcCandlish hit the nail on the head describing that discussion. Masem's proposal is also reasonable. But Malik's comment on Guy Macon is way off - certainly insulting at the least - and unfortunate given their otherwise positive contributions. -Darouet (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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 5 7 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)

Markus2685

No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Markus2685

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Markus2685 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

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

Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Markus2685

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Something weird is going on at AFDs Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khojaly massacre memorials and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khojaly Massacre recognition. 6 new accounts popped up in a quick succession to make similar comments and votes. Looks like an attempt at votestacking by using sock accounts. I have a reason to suspect that it is the nominator himself, and checkuser results seem to indicate that it could be so. But an admin needs to make the judgment call, and since it is an arbitration covered area, the discretionary sanctions may apply. Grandmaster 19:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Markus2685

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 Markus2685

As far as I know there is the possibility of checking IPs of users on Misplaced Pages. If done so, you would have seen that my account is not the same. So this is a false assumption on behalf of user Grandmaster. Basically anyone endorsing my arguments that I stated could have opened accounts copying my statements and that's it. For example anyone can create accounts, copying user Grandmasters arguments, and then I could accuse Grandmaster of creating sockpuppets. As I already mentioned these accounts (at least some of them) also seem weird to me, so just block them and problem solved. Markus2685 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Markus2685

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

Waiting for comment by Markus2685 Spartaz 23:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Since there are AfDs involved, the closing admin should be able to make appropriate judgments on the weight to give to the delete opinions from brand-new accounts. The evidence from the sock case will also be helpful to that admin. There is certainly a chance that the articles themselves are promoting one side of the dispute. The Khojaly massacre was real, but consideration might be given to merging the content of these two articles into Khojaly massacre#Commemoration. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This does not seem to need AE action, let the SPI take it's course and the AFDs as well. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree. I'm closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Konullu

Not action taken. Spartaz

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

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

Request concerning Konullu

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Yerevantsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:AA2

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

Konullu is violating his topic ban. He has done this twice already, and has been blocked for it.

27 February 2016 at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Khojaly massacre memorials
27 February 2016 at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khojaly Massacre recognition
There's also topic ban violations that went unnoticed for awhile:

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

26 February 2013 topic banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise
28 February 2013 blocked for violating the topic ban by Shirik
16 March 2013 blocked for violating the topic ban by Sandstein

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 26 February 2013 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

{{ping}} what about all the other topic ban violations? Should we go ahead and revert those too? --Երևանցի 12:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Konullu

Statement by Konullu

I thought that my topic ban did not apply to AFDs. Sincerely, Konullu (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Someone else has already done it on both AfD pages. Best, Konullu (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Grandmaster

It's been 3 years since the topic ban, with no misconduct. Konullu should probably appeal his ban, and his vote in AFD, while formally a ban violation, is not in my opinion a severe disruption. Grandmaster 22:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Konullu

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

Noting that this is the second edit in yonks - out of nowhere. I'm suspecting off wiki collusion. Spartaz 11:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Konullu: You are saying you didn't know the topic ban applied to AfDs. I propose that you strike out the comments you made in the two AfDs. This might be enough for admins to close this complaint without action. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The AfD votes by Konullu have now been struck out by others. I propose we close this complaint with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Yerevantsi: You could undo the other four edits if you want but they are in a gray area. I recommend leaving them in place. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

No enforcement action is necessary at this time. Coffee

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

Request concerning Malik_Shabazz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Only in death (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Malik_Shabazz (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/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

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

1st March 2016 Indicates a battleground mentality, as well as making chilling threats in order to gain an upper hand in a content dispute, as well as personal attacks against another user editing in good faith.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

August 2015 Link is by necessity fuzzy. Essentially previous actions by Malik_Shabazz which led to his de-sysop.

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

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

Notified in February

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As Spartaz has now hatted all the comments above, I have copied all the hatted comments here in order to save time. (If the above request gets archived before this one is done, it will be a pain moving back and forth to track comments)

As Nishidani has struck out my copy of his previous comments I assume he is retracting them in full.

Essentially as with his desysop previously, Malik has shown no remorse and no intention to abide by wikipedia's editing and collegiality policies. While there may have been some mitigating circumstances previously, there is absolutely no excuse for threatening to go to the press if you dont get your own way. As Malik on his talkpage and ANI has refused to withdraw his comments, it must be taken that his threat is genuine. So while a ban under discretionary sanctions from American Politics might solve the immediate problem, unless he retracts his threat how is any editor supposed to edit in the same area as him with that sort of threat hanging over them? That if you dont agree with them, they are going to go to the press and smear you.

Guy Macon
Related discussion: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threats by Malik Shabazz --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

Can we talk about the elephant in the room? Guy Macon is a troll whose disruptive editing started this conflict—when he removed Senator Sanders's religion from the infobox—and he has edit-warred to keep it out, violating 3RR in the process. I don't know who appointed Guy Macon King of the Jews, but it's time for somebody to step up and put an end to his original research that he, and only he, is qualified to determine who is sufficiently Jewish to be be identified as a Jew in their infobox.

I'm sorry that it's come to this, but WP:OR/N is horribly broken:
PUT AN END TO THIS BULLSHIT OR I WILL NOTIFY THE PRESS THAT WIKIPEDIA HAS ONE STANDARD FOR BIOGRAPHIES OF CHRISTIANS AND ANOTHER FOR BIOGRAPHIES OF JEWS. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Curly Turkey

Someone might want to look into Malik's behaviour as well—he whips out that "King of the Jews" thing at anyone who disagrees with him with alarming frequency, and his "I WILL NOTIFY THE PRESS" is in violation of the spirit if not strictly the letter of Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Nishidani your statement would make sense if this were simply a blowup on Malik's part, but rather it's been his whole persistent approach to the Sanders kerfuffle since day one, both there and in other fora. And he's not known from backing down from his statements, no matter how plainly and undeniably wrong he's proven to be. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Jesus, Nishidani, if Malik's behaviour—melodramatically accusing everyone he meets of antisemitism, threatening to take Misplaced Pages to "the press", and refusing to retract statements he himself knows are empirically wrong—is "magnificent", then I have to wonder what behaviour you would object to. He's crossed any number of lines. Well, whatever you think of him, his threat will have to be dealt with. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi

Did Malik Shabazz really just issue a threat to damage Misplaced Pages and the Wikimedia Foundation with a statement to the press that would essentially state Misplaced Pages condones and engages in anti-Semitism? That has to fall under WP:NLT. Admins who have commented here need to be made aware of this. Pinging Laser brain, Bishonen, Spartaz, Number 57. I think it's also worth mentioning that Malik is a here as a result of canvassing by SirJoseph. It also should be noted that Sir Joseph has actually violated his topic ban by continuing to discuss the article here, relentlessly, for over a day since the topic ban was imposed. Admins below are endorsing a six month topic ban. I would suggest that this would be not just reasonable but appropriate since SJ continues to violate the topic ban based on discussing the topic/article here and using this forum as a soapbox for discussion, abusing the purpose of this forum. Enough is enough. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani Could we lay off Malik Shabazz. That's not a legal threat. He's quite correct that there is something odd in the way, as distinct from other ethnicities, issues regarding Jews lead to humongous, ill-informed threads. I believe he is wrong to identify this as coming from only one side: Sir Joseph and others have relentlessly tried to pull Sanders into a conventional Jewish religious identity on the basis of his Jewish identity, confusing ethnicity with religion, birth with metaphysics. That Identity issues are extremely sensitive matters, particular in this regard, and upset people is only to be expected and we should not make a mountain out of a molehill. Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Curly Turkey. If Malik, whose editing I've observed for nearly a decade, happens to perceive something I've missed, or can't see, I think about it. If he is pissed off, I'm not going to grizzle. His record has been, aside from one slip caused by having to edit with a fucking idiot, magnificent. So don't niggle away. There were lots of stupid remarks said on both sides, and it is pointless fussing. Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

JamesBWatson

Malik Shabazz's comments about different standards for Christians and Jews is utterly absurd: does he really not know that the word "Christian" is used only to mean people of a particular religion, whereas "Jewish" is used to refer both to religion and to ethnicity, so that the two are not comparable? I would counsel him to be cautious about carrying out his threat (childishly shouted at us in capital letters) to "expose" us to the press for treating the two as different cases, because the two are different cases.

Darouet

I was summoned to the RfC on the Sanders religion issue, and SMcCandlish hit the nail on the head describing that discussion. Masem's proposal is also reasonable. But Malik's comment on Guy Macon is way off - certainly insulting at the least - and unfortunate given their otherwise positive contributions. -Darouet (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Malik_Shabazz

Statement by Malik_Shabazz

Since the flavor of the day is quoting walls of text, here's my post from yesterday at WP:AN/I:

If you think you all are following common sense and WP:No original research, you should be proud of the fact that you accept on its face every Christian profession of faith—no matter how preposterous—and put "Presbyterianism" in the infobox as the religion of a man universally agreed to be lying about his faith, but require a litmus test of your own making for self-identified Jews. How can outside scrutiny have a chilling effect? I asked editors at No original research/Noticeboard why they thought it was okay for editors to subject Jews to a scrutiny not required of other biographical subjects, and I was basically told to shut up and go away. Well, I may go away but I will not shut up. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Torven, if you think editors are engaging in behavior that casts aspersions on the project, stop them. I've tried, but nobody seems to give a fuck.

Misplaced Pages's moronic and self-important double standard concerning Jews is perfectly embodied by this edit, which changed the phrase "celebrated his bar mitzvah in 1954" to "became a bar mitzvah in 1954" with the edit summary "we don't know if he celebrated it". I look forward to editors changing the word "celebrate" to "commemorate" or "mark" throughout Misplaced Pages unless there are reliable sources indicating that the individuals involved were, in fact, celebrating. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this is going to further inflame some of you, but are your heads really that far up your asses?!? You are posting on a publicly visible website, both when you engage in original research concerning Bernie Sanders's Jewishness and when you cry crocodile tears about my "threats"—a single threat I made to ask the public to pay attention to what you're doing. If you don't think your behavior will stand up to public scrutiny, if you think my threat will cast aspersions on you or the project or bring you or it into disrepute, ask yourself what you're doing that you're so embarrassed for the public to see. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 04:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

Saying one will notify the press of one's personal view Misplaced Pages discriminates in its treatment of Jewish as opposed to Christian (politicians) is not a threat. One Jewish editor has already been banned in this context. Highly respected editors and admins who self-identify as Jewish such as Cullen ~~and Gamaliel~~ disagree with perceptions, shared by most, myself included, on this, and therefore we are troubled by an authentic cultural/cognitive clash precisely re 'Jews' here. Editors asking for action against Malik Shabazz for his exasperation fast on the heels of the Sir Joseph case (which was serious). will not go the extra yard to try and see where his disgruntlement is coming from, caused him to be desysopped in the earlier conflict with a tactically provocative editor. I must register my sense of extreme discomfort that, in this context, legal pettifoggery is getting out of hand. Take the larger view, be tolerant in the light of the overwhelming evidence of the whole record, and let this die on its feet, please.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway

Given that the previous instance of intemperance from Shabazz (which I can't link here because it has been revdeled but which is detailed in Ceradon's statement here) also involved inappropriate comments about another editor in relation to being Jewish, I wonder if it might be appropriate for him to step back from Jewish topics generally. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, following your link I see an admonishment that ArbCom passed for MONGO (and a topic ban for a different editor), but I don't see any action relating to Malik Shabazz. Have I misunderstood what you meant to say, or did you perhaps mean to link something else? Additionally, I have concerns about Shabazz's statement above linking the phrase a man universally agreed to be lying about his faith to a biography of a living person in light of WP:BLP and WP:BLPTALK. Maybe it would be best to redact/revdel? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

Should I withdraw the ANI report to avoid a duplicate discussion? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. It was already closed by "The other Guy" :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Torven

It may not be a legal threat, but the "or else" of any ultimatum is always a threat of some kind. In this case, it's a threat to cast aspersions about the project and, by extension, several involved users in the press. Even if No Legal Threats doesn't apply, it should qualify as a threat of off-wiki harassment. Torven (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

The idea that "going to the press" is a threat to "smear" somebody or is a threat of "off-wiki harassment" is preposterous. Somebody wants to write something here they can take responsibility for their actions. If somebody would be embarrassed by their own actions if they were reported, well then perhaps they should have considered their actions more carefully prior to committing them. Maybe Malik should have just gone to the press without telling anybody here that he would, but that seems a bit underhanded and underhandedness doesnt seem to be Malik's strong suit. If yall so confident in your actions why exactly are you concerned about them being reported?

Statement by James J. Lambden

It's clear this is an effort by some editors to brand Sanders with a digital star of David. This kind of attack is extremely upsetting. I'll be forwarding my summary along with the usernames of editors who continue to pursue this to the ADL who no doubt WILL take action. This is perfectly acceptable and not a threat. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Malik's problematic edits

18 February 2016 "reply to ignorant comment", "FFS, can you not read what you wrote?", "anybody who can read English can see that isn't the fucking question"
18 February 2016 "that was not the "stable" version; it was the deletion of his religion by OR-pushing busy-bodies that required the RfC"
20 February 2016 "Oh, I forgot. Misplaced Pages only has a double standard when it comes to Jews."
22 February 2016 "Yes, Winkelvi, so WHERE ARE THE SOURCES THAT SAY GOLDWATER WAS THE FIRST JEW TO WIN A PRIMARY or that SANDERS WAS NOT THE FIRST JEW TO DO SO? Put up or shut up already"

@Drmies If I end up banned for pointing out antisemitism I will notify the press. This is not a threat. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

I'm personally concerned on a couple of accounts: (1) That a user who until August 2015 was one of the most remarkably civil and patient of editors, not to mention admins, is repeating nearly the sort of hostility that got him desysopped and caused him to retire. (2) That I can't figure out what has caused this personality change, and because of my admiration and love for him, I hope is not something serious off-wiki. (3) That the "battleground" at issue is something rather COI-ish, in that Malik is Jewish, which COI does not reflect well on him considering his behavior and his level of hostility on this subject matter re: the Sanders issue. (4) That he has repeatedly (in edit summaries and in posts) called Guy Macon a troll. Guy Macon is a lot of things, and can often be very frustrating (especially if one does not agree with him), but he is not a troll and should never be called one. (Misplaced Pages discussion should proceed on logic and policy, not on insults and ad hominem attacks.) I find all these developments very worrying. I want my old Malik Shabazz back. I want peace and civility to reign, regardless of whether Misplaced Pages consensus agrees with my/someone's/anyone's personal viewpoint or preference. I recommend an admonishment here but no action. Softlavender (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC); edited 07:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Curly Turkey

@Laser brain: I provided a link. Did you follow it? These aren't "losing his cool" when he digs in his heels like that. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: You've seen his behaviour here and how he refuses to back down from it; you've seen the same dig-in-his-heels behaviour in the link I provided, where despite being unambiguously wrong, he only upped the ante with accusations of antisemitism; and you've seen his behaviour at Talk:Bernie Sanders. How many diffs more do you need until I've met the quota? ("since day one" refers to "day one" of the Sanders dispute). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I second Masem's suggestion, which I'm surprised isn't already policy or something—Misplaced Pages can't seriously tolerate threats of this nature. What's doubly disturbing is that so many seem to want this slide "because it's Malik". Obviously not too many Wikipedians would have gotten away with this behaviour. If I made such a threat, which I have remained unblocked? How many commenters here would believe an admin who answered "yes" to that question? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: As if you're here because people are "afraid" of you. So put out and go to the fucking press already. I know I have nothing to hide—but you sure as fuck have. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

For me, this is not really about Malik Shabazz. I have nothing bad to say about Malik as an editor, I always thought he was a good admin, and his de-sysopping was an aberration, but if this incident is allowed to go by without something being done about it – not a sanction, not a block or topic ban, but at the very least a formal warning – then it opens the door for every Wikipedian who feels as strongly about their religion/ethnicity/nationality/gender/sexuality/neural state/fraternal organization/whatever as Malik does about being Jewish to say "DO X ABOUT Y OR I"M GOING TO THE PRESS", and that is simply an untenable situation. It creates a terrible precedent that has the potential of crippling certain controversial subject areas even more so then they are already.In my best Cassandra manner let me say: if you don't deal with it now, you're going to be dealing with much worse instances in the future - and, let's face it, if it wasn't Malik, you would be dealing with it – and that's understandable, but very, very unfortunate.At least that's how I see it, but I know I'm swimming upstream. BMK (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Although I appreciate MrX's agreement with my points, I would ask him to strike-through his comments concerning Drmies, a respected editor and one of the saner people amongst us; he certainly did nothing to deserve that. BMK (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: It would be a pleasure to allow Malik to "recover his equilibrium", but his statements since the original one have only reinforced his original statement; I have not seen any signs of regret or apology on his part - I think that he honestly believes what he is saying, which is fine, but his words do not speak towards reaching a "personal equilibrium," rather they indicate that he intends to pursue his original tack. Which is why some response from Misplaced Pages's admins is warranted. (And, incidentally, if anyone was wondering, if Malik was to calm down, I'd be in favor of a re-RfA, must he must get past this to the extent that he can be civil once again.) BMK (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

The statements by James J. Lambden, Beyond My Ken, and few others capture my thoughts perfectly. Drmies, your comments are so nonsensical it leaves me wondering whether you were drunk when you wrote them, or if you're just trolling. @Malik Shabazz: I used to have lot of respect for you, before you decided to co-opt Misplaced Pages to right great wrongs.- Mr X 21:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Drmies knows I love him, in spite of his faults.- Mr X 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

Agreeing with Beyond My Ken that this isn't presently an issue ArbCom should handle. Instead, I would think that the community should develop a companion to No Legal Threats based on "No Third-Party Threats" that are intended to prevent claims of going to an external entity to try to enact change on WP. Whether that is going to the press, claiming to engage an external forum, meatpuppets, etc., all have the intent of chilling speech, typically the same intent that a legal threat has. These aren't as actionable as legal threats (eg there's nothing legally wrong going to the press), hence must be handled differently, but there behavior issues that should be strongly discouraged and captured in some policy. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Irondome

I can only thoroughly concur with Nish's statement upthread. This is a complex issue which is being addressed by consensual discussion amongst colleagues who identify as Jewish and have differing views on cultural and cognitive concepts of that definition. I have my own views on this, but I am seeing a hugely respected and wise human being being again harassed, I believe unwittingly, on the heels of a deeply problematic dysopping, which has had significant emotional impact on Malik. He was trolled and goaded, and yet he had the courage to return and continue to support the project despite his evident distress. It would be wise and kind to back off and leave a fine editor to regain his equilibrium. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Malik_Shabazz

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

I do not see this at all as a kind of off-wiki threat; we typically reserve that terminology for harassment aimed at specific editors. Yes, I see all-caps and someone losing their cool, and I think understandably so: for a self-professed Jewish editor like Malik this is a Big Deal. That almost interminable discussion on Sanders is tricky, but we typically apply sanctions when editors create an unworkable environment, start edit-warring, harass people, and--besides the use of the word "troll", which I don't condone--engage in personal harassment to a blockable extent. The discussion about Sanders, I am sad to say I was there at its inception, and it may well be unsolvable, but applying a sanction on Malik is too much, at least for me. If you follow you can see an admonishment, and that is as far as I am willing to go at this time. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Softlavender, I don't see a personality change, and your statement "that Malik is Jewish, which again does not reflect well on him and his behavior", I can parse that in three of four different ways, none of which reflect well on you--I hope you didn't mean it that way. If "Jewishness" is a COI, so is non-Jewishness. @James J. Lambden, your remarks (about "branding" etc) are blockable already, if I read your somewhat confusing remarks correctly. If you want to compare "Jewish" in an infobox to "branding with a Star of David", you have nicely rephrased Godwin, and I am waiting for some other admin to determine what it is, given your edit history, that you are here for, besides trolling. Drmies (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Concur with Drmies that applying a sanction is overkill. The outburst by Malik is certainly poor form and a breach of decorum, though. @Curly Turkey:, you assert that this is part of a pattern of behavior but don't provide any diffs. Claims like "melodramatically accusing everyone he meets of antisemitism" certainly need to be substantiated for us to consider such behavior. In fact, I'd argue that you shouldn't make claims like that unless you're going to provide evidence. --Laser brain (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Yes, I read your one link. What I'm saying is that you've alleged a "persistent approach ... since day one" which obviously requires more than one diff to support. --Laser brain (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

While Malik certainly went over the lines of civility, I don't think this meets the criteria for an AE action at this time. If there is indeed the long term pattern of abuse that Curly Turkey claims, then I would recommend taking this to an actual Arbitration Committee case. Until then, I think it would be a misrepresentation of the AP case for us to take action on Malik at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
If you read the motion about Malik at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Motion: Malik Shabazz case, it appears that many of the arbs wanted to find a way to return the tools to Malik, but he wasn't interested. It's regrettable that we are in a new dust-up here. I hope it doesn't continue, and for now, the request should be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not Jewish (I'm Catholic, for what it's worth.) and I'm not sure why I'm bring brought up here by name. I think the editing dispute at the heart of this really needs more community input and perhaps the some of the editors (NOTE the plural) most heavily involved need to step aside and let other editors solve this. I'm not going to say anything more in case this comes before the Committee. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I can attest to the fact that Drmies regularly edits and even arbitrates while extremely drunk. In all seriousness, that's quite enough of talk like that from anyone. This dispute is heated enough as it is. Everyone please stop with statements involving other editors drinking, trolling, or just existing, and limit our comments to edits. Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

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 .

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

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 Peter 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. I 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?). Peter 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

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)

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)