Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

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

MarkBernstein (2)

Request concerning MarkBernstein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Starke Hathaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

MarkBernstein (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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate (discretionary sanctions):

Dreadstar: [1] "Due to your continued comments about other editors [2], I'm imposing upon you a 90-day ban on all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate."

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

1. 15 March MarkBernstein links to an article on his personal blog. The article contains discussion of gamergate. His comment regarding "Sea Lions of Wikipedia" also refers to the gamergate controversy.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 3 Jan Block for prior violation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It seems clear by now that this editor has no intention of abiding by this topic ban. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me why MarkBernstein expects to be given latitude to violate his topic ban on a talk page when DungeonSiegeAddict510 (who is subject to the same topic ban as MarkBernstein) was blocked for a month for little more than writing the letters "kia" on a talk page. It's not as though MarkBernstein would be unaware of this as he commented in support of that very enforcement action. I would also respectfully suggest to MarkBernstein that the "hounding" will stop when he stops violating his topic ban.

I am very aware that I face the possibility of retaliatory sanctions for bringing this action, especially in light of the difference in the level of scrutiny applied to editors who bring actions here depending on whether they seem to fall on one side or the other of a particular controversy-- compare the treatment of EncyclopediaBob, who was indefinitely blocked for being a sock after bringing an enforcement action against NorthBySouthBaranof despite no one at any point adducing evidence of such, with the absolute lack of any scrutiny of PetertheFourth, a self-admitted SPA, when he brought the aforementioned enforcement action against DungeonSiegeAddict510. It is becoming increasingly evident that the rules are not being applied evenly to those who are perceived to be pro- or anti-gamergate, but I'll risk not being able to edit any longer on the possibility that this isn't in fact true. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:@Masem: Has it not occurred to you that the words "Masem's talk" in fact refer to Masem's talk page, rather than some shadowy lecture he's given to people you call Gamergaters? Indeed, if you look "below the reply" linked by TheRealVordox, you find... links to discussions on Masem's talk page about sourcing. I suggest you redact, and an apology would not go amiss. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein

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 MarkBernstein

An editor left a pointer on my talk page to a satirical piece he had written read, concerning this very page.I complimented him and pointed him to something I'd written on the same topic. It’s an essentially social interactionm and considerable latitude is allowed and necessary on talk pages.

The topic of my piece, incidentally, is not Gamergate, but Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee and it's recent ruling on my own Arbitration Committee Request for Clarification. I think it not unreasonable that PeterTheFourth, who has been editing Wikipedia since December, would assume that he might mention my own ARCA request on my talk page. Why not, if it's a topic of mutual interest, and where else shall he mention it? Of course, Starke Hathaway knows better from his vast experience of editing Wikipedia since...December. But Starke has one advantage: his first Wikipedia edit outside his own talk page was a statement for ArbCom.

Ought I to have replied to PeterTheFourth by email? Perhaps. But Wikipedia policy encourages discussion of Wikipedia editing on wiki, and generally discourages such discussion off-wiki. Besides, we don’t all have 4chan, 8chan, KotakuInAction, and WikiInAction to use for our discussions!

Wikipedians might also give some thought to how this unremittingly vindictive hounding looks out there, out in the real world. So, please take your time with the WP:BOOMerang here, because it'll reinforce my argument so effectively.

Have I been critical of ArbCom and of Wikipedia? Yes, I surely have. Have I laughed at Wikipedia's follies? Sure: someone has to! And once you see how funny this is, Starke is quite correct: it’s hard to stop. Still, WP:MOMHESLOOKINGATMEFUNNY is not a thing.@PeterTheFourth: MarkBernstein (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I believe Wikipedia links are nofollow to deter spamming, so they're hard to see in my logs. And, if traffic statistics for my Wikipedia talk page itself is available to me, I have no idea how to find it. But, seriously, Wikipedia traffic is inconsequential at this point. This little satire has already been retweeted by 34 writers; they have among them 209,000 followers. We've had plenty of people dropping by from Facebook. I've got my little regular audience, which has its own sort of influence. And this is for a little light Sunday satire. I don't care about Wikipedia traffic. It's called making a point. There’s another name for what it’s called: “winning.” Give it a rest. I have explained why I link: unlike Gamergate, I don’t whisper about my opponents behind their back, I don’t pretend to believe they're gay or practitioners of strange sex rituals, I don't call them prostitutes or send them pictures of dead dogs or of their dead sisters. If I have something to say about you, I'll say it to your face and I'll show you the link, and I'll accept your rebukes. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I’m sorry to disagree with you here, but you're mistaken in calling the calling the decision “insipid.” Give ArbCom credit: the clarification was not bland, and adding Lena Dunham was about as spicy as you can ask. You couldn't make this stuff up. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: I agree with the general sentiment, but you're wrong in detail. I cannot be a valuable contributor, in light of an inexplicable and absurd topic ban which extends as far as the eye can see -- to every living woman (except maybe to right-wing extremists), to every gay, lesbian, and gender-queer person, and to every topic the tea party declares to be a controversy and which somehow impinges gender, which is to say the human condition, broadly construed. But, in point of fact, I'd wager that my writing of the past eight weeks will do more to shape the Encyclopedia than my work of the previous two decades, broadly construed -- and that work arguably includes those tabs at the top of this page and the breadcrumbs that guide you to its antecedents. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Wise, prudent, and judicious. I do think, though, that encouraging off-site coordination is still disparaged by policy, that in theory (if not in the real world into which I am accused of having injected myself upstream on the page) we're encouraged to discuss Wikipedia here and openly, not elsewhere and in secret. Correct me if I'm mistaken -- and also correct the guidance we give to new editors, some of whom might (on rare occasions like this) actually be genuine new editors. Grizzled experts like NBSF and myself find these matters puzzling, while outsiders look on aghast and wonder what Wikipedia can possibly be thinking. In fact, I'm pretty sure the banned veteran editors who don’t find the margins of discretionary sanctions puzzling fall into two categories: (a) those who are now editing through new accounts, borrowed accounts, or sock puppets, and (b) those who have retired completely. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: I’m not willing today to ask for the favor of having what should be mine by right, or to beg this audience to do what they ought to do despite unreasonable and unreasoning malice. But do feel free to ask on my behalf if you like. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coldacid: et al: The satire to which PeterTheFourth directed my attention is, of course, an allegorical parable of sea lions with a beachball. My mother told me that when someone gives you something to read, it's polite to thank them and to remark on its content, showing that you read it and appreciated it. Your mother may have disagreed, but Wikipedia welcomes people from different cultures and backgrounds. Or it used to. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Ah yes, topic bans. That would be

• The indefensible topic ban for Gamergate imposed by that witty fellow who, in doing so, so far forgot himself as to call me a motherfucker?
• Or would that be its new extension to Campus Rape, Lena Dunham, and points East?
• Or perhaps the bankshot extension newly proposed here, which topic-bans reference to off-wiki satires of Wikipedia decisions on gender that were inspired by Wikipedia's foolish handling of Gamergate?
• Or perhaps the topic ban should apply to my referring to anyone who writes about my writing that ridicules Wikipedia decisions on gender which were inspired (and I use the term loosely) by Wikipedia’s craven appeasement of Gamergate?

Perhaps I should not use links? Does the topic ban also include semi-colons? One of my better-known soundbites holds that “The link is the most significant new form of punctuation since the invention of the comma,” after all. I know it's unfair, my having a place to write and an audience and a modest facility with words other than motherfucker and brony; perhaps I should be required to write especially badly to even the playing field? Or to pretend never to have heard of Donna Haraway or Michel Foucault or Judith Butler.

Now if you want to take some pictures of the fascinating witches who put the scintilating stiches in the britches of the boys who put the powder on the noses on the faces of the ladies of the harem of the court of King Caractacus (or Wikipedia’s credibility)...

... You're too late! Because they've just... Passed... By!

The complaint seeks simply to wield the topic ban in an unending quest to reclaim a failed plan to use Wikipedia as part of another failed PR offensive. No harm or disruption could have been caused by briefly alluding to this satire on my talk page, and in any case no one can possibly know where the ban ends. This complaint lacks the semblance of good faith.

Or perhaps we're talking about a different topic ban entirely? I seem to recall a very recent topic ban on this very subject. I myself have not brought a complaint since then against either Xxxxx Batman or Xxxx Xxxx Robin. But here we are already, back again in our old familiar haunts, brought not by Batman nor by Robin (because that would be wrong!), but – what a coincidence! – by one of The Merry Men, with the usual crew alongside to tell us everything we need to know about sea lions. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Squiggleslash: You are welcome to file one on my behalf. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@HJMitchell: I did not refer to any editor; I was topic-banned, apparently, for alluding indirectly to the well-known fact of collusive editing, which was the topic of the article under discussion. Here, I only violated my topic ban if the broad construction of GamerGate extends to mentioning my own satirical jeremiads against Wikipedia's recent turn to embrace anti-intellectualism and sexism. Unlike some of your correspondents, I am indeed engaged with the real world, and my interest here is to (a) save the project from mistakes which are -- correctly in my opinion -- bringing it into widespread contempt, or (b) if that is impossible, to warn scholars and writers of systemic biases and distortions in order to minimize the harm it does, especially when used as a weapon by wrong-doers. Yes, I could be (and have been) of great service to Wikipedia: when you look back on this, you will find that my contribution to Gamergate may in fact have been crucial to preventing irremediable harm to the project. I think there is no question that the real world, having examined the question, shares my opinion. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: I’m responsible for what I write on my weblog, and for what I publish in journals and magazines. I’m not responsible for satire that someone else writes on their weblog, even if PeterTheFourth tells me about it. I'm not disparaging you at the moment; it appears that some other people are, but like the flowers that bloom in the spring (tra-la!) that has nothing to do with the case. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ched: is simply mistaken in thinking that links from pages like this page have any meaningful impact at all on Google search results or on web traffic. This page, for example, has opted out entirely from the Google index, and also instructs search engines and other automata not to follow outbound links. You can verify this yourself by inspecting the HTML -- something anyone competent in the area would have checked first. In any case, even if every reader of this page followed every link to my weblog, it would not benefit me particularly -- save that people who are interested in knowing more of my work in this area might do so. That’s the point of links. My weblog has no advertising and I’m perfectly happy with my organic audience, the fruit of a decade of writing. In any case, if I were seeking traffic from Wikipedians, I have signally failed: at no time in recent months have wikipedia servers figured meaningfully in my server logs. The Guardian? Yes. Think Progress? Sure. Der Standard? Check. Social Text? Surprisingly so! Facebook and Twitter* have been prominent in referrer logs, which is unusual and interesting. But Wikipedia? Meh. MarkBernstein (talk)

@Callanecc: Wikipedia's policy forbids insertion of irrelevant links. To witness that my links are pertinent we might adduce the witness of the editors of newspapers, magazines, and journals throughout the world. But this is hardly necessary, as both the Wikimedia Foundation and Arbcom itself responded to them in their separate press statements. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Starke Hathaway: @TheRedPenOfDoom: : In my (real) world, a "talk," as in "Bernstein’s talk on Patterns of Hypertext," is a lecture, typically at a conference or seminar. Moreover, I don’t believe I have ever heard anyone refer to their Wikipedia talk page as their “talk.” The natural meaning of the statement was that Masem had delivered a lesson or lecture to a group of Gamergaters, providing tips for editing like those frequently discussed at 8chan and KiA. I understand that some of the parties come to English as a second language and my own German is feeble and technical, but this doesn’t strike me as a likely mistake in German, either. In any case, no apology is required for this interpretation of the clear meaning of a written statement. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: isn't happy with my using links in a manner consistent with policy, required by good manners, and considerate of busy administrators, arbitrators, and other readers. I have written replies to this complaint, but out of respect for my colleague’s delicate sensibilities, will provide no links here.

As for email policy, WP:EMAILABUSE says that it is chiefly concerned with copyright. It is doubtful that these emotional outburst can be copyrighted at all, but as they were sent by a Wikipedia official in the course of his responsibilities, the copyright (if any there be) rests with Wikipedia, and that is unchanged by my posting them here, giving the copyright to Wikipedia. None of these emails were sent through the Wikipedia email system, so WP:EMAILABUSE doesn’t apply to them anyway. I reproduced short, critical excerpts, so they're textbook fair use. They play a useful, probative, and necessary role in these proceedings.

And -- let’s get this straight: I ought to be sitebanned as punishment for having the temerity to petition the appropriate forum in the most temperate terms for redress of a grievance -- to wit, being called a “motherfucker” after asking a reasonable and necessary question? You guys think I’m inclined to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? Good grief! (Fermat, Kafka, and Orwell walk into a bar...) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

My suggestion would be that Starke Hathaway (150 edits; half on Gamergate) focus on improving the encyclopedia rather than examining every comment at MarkBernstein's talk. Such activity is not healthy for the project. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth

I do not at all understand how the reply to my (unsolicited, entirely spontaneous) comment is a violation of anything, especially given that he hasn't even mentioned Gamergate in his reply. This is honestly just more evidence of the ongoing harassment of MarkBernstein. I feel atrocious in my unintentional involvement in the ongoing campaign to drive away a well-spoken, prolific editor whose contributions have greatly enriched Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

As a completely unrelated aside: I did not author the piece I linked, although I do endorse it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Hello! I appreciate that there's much consternation over MarkBernstein's actions, but he's fairly blameless in this particular correspondence- he replies to my (trout-worthy?) link with another, a brief, silly interlude in his regular editing to link to his own feelings on ArbCom's decisions. You might accuse me of baiting him into something, or similar, and I'd accept anything coming my way re:my flouting of policy- please don't punish him for being polite enough to reply to my comment with anything other than 'I CAN'T TALK ABOUT THAT GO AWAY'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bosstopher

Agree with Gamaliel that minor borderline banvios like this one, YellowSandal's and DSA's, are not worth banning anyone over. All this request will do is cause more drama. Is there some way we can set a 1RResque limit to things of one AE request against Mark a week? There are approximately 10 billion admins watching his talk page, so if he does anything too horrific after the week's AE request is done, one of them can just sort it out without an enforcement request. Currently a huge proportion of this enforcement page is Mark-related, and all it's done is create layer upon layer of pointless drama. Bosstopher (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Upon thinking about things in a much less sleep deprived state, I have come up with an ingenious solution that will satisfy everyone (although it probably wont). Per User:EvergreenFir's comments, Mark should be topic banned from linking to his blog/external links. @MarkBernstein: While Dreadstar's not going to remove your topic ban, have you considered asking him to change it so that it's just a straight up Gamergate topic ban like the ones they used in the good old days? That would solve a lot of the issues you're facing with being confused over what you're actually allowed to edit. Bosstopher (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark

I think it would be great if MB would go back to being the valuable contributor of a few years ago instead of a SPA in the area of grousing about ARBCOM, but this filing is a waste of everyone's time. Rhoark (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: @Masem: It's easy to jump to conclusions when operating from a baseline assumption that other people are operating with nefarious intent. I think everyone should just call a truce, assume good faith, and edit by policy instead of politics - if people could just do that there'd be no need for anything on this page, and I'd be the first to say so. Does anyone want anything else out of the situation? Rhoark (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

I am getting a bit weary of seeing Mark's name here. This isn't a huge violation, but Mark knows full well the terms of his tban and continues to link to his blog anyway. If this doesn't result in a block, this should be a final warning. Mark needs to stop linking his blog (generating traffic and views) and needs to stop all references to GG. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

MarkBerstein says, "I don't care about Wikipedia traffic. It's called making a point. There’s another name for what it’s called: “winning.” Give it a rest. I have explained why I link..." This is exactly what I'm talking about. Mark knows exactly what he's doing, that it violates his topic ban, that he's making a WP:POINT, and doesn't care. There is no good faith to assume here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 11:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that handling this case is about as appealing as picking up dog poop with a napkin, but it's been left to linger. Would someone kindly address it before it turns that awful white color? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Callanecc and DHeyward: I guess discretionary sanctions could be placed on the talk page itself (just like 1RR was placed on Gamergate controversy), but that seems odd for user space pages. Is the concern that talk page stalkers will bring up the article or that people will bait him into discussing GG? Personally I'd learn more toward a less formal version of that where a few admins watch his talk page and remove anyone trying to bait him or anyone being WP:MEAT and posting his website on his behalf. Just my 2 cents. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

Simply more evidence of the ArbCom's disastrous miscalculation that their insipid decision was something that would in any way limit disruption of Wikipedia rather than provide a blueprint for sustained organized disruption.

Gamergate Ahoy! Keep them socks coming! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we need to open another ARCA to see if by "broadly construed" ArbCom merely meant all Pinnipeds, or if they are inclined to include all ocean bound mammals? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: ", I do not side with GG " is complete and utter bullocks. You cannot go a week without making another 10000 word push on why we cannot follow the absolutely highest quality reliable sources because they "are not fair to gamergate." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Masem, you have given talks to the gamergaters on how to edit wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

Can we speedily close this and just get on with working on the encyclopedia? The linked to diff isn't worth this much drama. Starke Hathaway is simply mistaken in their believe that DSA510 was held to a higher standard. He obliquely violated his topic ban here, more directly here, and I think by accident here. None of that was deemed disruptive enough and nobody bothered to file an AE request. If Starke Hathaway thinks MarkBernstein is being held to a lower standard they are simply mistaken. Strongjam (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: With regards to DHeyward this is what you're looking for. — Strongjam (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: To be clear, are you talking about the link that MarkBernstein posted, or the link that was posted on his talk page? — Strongjam (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Thanks for the clarification. In that case I think PeterTheFourth should be trouted. Links that contain personal attacks on editors are not appropriate for linking to on WP. — Strongjam (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: To jog your memory

• You blocked DHeyward for BLP violations and FORUMing previously.

And recently:

• Cutting up a quote to put words in an authors mouth.

I considered filing an AE request about the last two, but decided to leave it considering how much drama we've had here.

— Strongjam (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: turning

• "Far from women and people of color serving as a shield for white men, it’s white male journalists who — slowly, imperfectly, all too infrequently — often act as a sadly necessary shield for women and people of color who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it."

Into

• white male journalists ... who take the risk of speaking out....

Is not OK. It changes the meaning of the quote.

— Strongjam (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Starship.paint

Is anyone reading what @EvergreenFir: has written?

There are two scenarios here. Either posting a link to his personal blog about GamerGate violates the topic ban, or it does not. Could we make it explicitly clear? If it violates the topic ban, at the very minimum MarkBernstein should be given a final warning, if not harsher punishment. There is another AE request up above, now closed, regarding MarkBernstein posting a link to his blog. He should clearly know better. If it does not violate the topic ban, let's just inform MarkBernstein so he can continue posting such links as and when or wherever he likes.

And has MarkBernstein's Sea Lions of Wikipedia comment escaped scrutiny as well, even if linking his blog post is permissible? Sea Lions are clearly a reference to GamerGate. MarkBernstein has already said he's winning. That's because we are letting him get away with it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: And a remark about sea lions is off-wikipedia? Umm, it was posted on his talk page ... and he chose to reference pretty much the most prominent (19 March EDIT: one single?) animal associated with GamerGate. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: - as for other animals associated with GamerGate, honestly I don't know of any. I only know GamerGate sponsored a sea lion, nothing about other animals. Their other mascot is a girl, I believe - but I'm not a GamerGate expert, yeah. My language (the most prominent) was slightly imprecise as well, sorry. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by coldacid

@Starship.paint: I think without further clarification, Mark Bernstein should be free to link his own blog on his user or user talk pages, but without reference to areas for which he is under an active topic ban. Simply linking his posts, fine. Commentary like "sea lions of Wikipedia" (a clear reference to GamerGate), not fine.

In addition, as EvergreenFir points out, this behaviour from Bernstein is getting needlessly WP:POINTy by now. Yes, there are other editors gunning for him, but the disruption wouldn't be nearly as bad if he didn't keep tiptoeing the line in front of them, and pouring fuel on the flames of this drama. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

Noting that the link put on Mark's page by Peter includes things that call me out as an editor directly (and incorrectly as well, I do not side with GG so calling me a sea lion is flat out wrong), I would have just considered Mark's reply simply needed a trout, a slip of the mind that would have gone through the cracks if people were not hounding him.

But the replies to this complaint show something more. I highlight this part of Gamaleil's statement below: If your aim is to edit an encyclopedia, you are welcome here. If your aim to be the Gamergate police cracking down on the SJWs, you are not. This needs to also work in the other direction - If one's aim here is to criticize and condemn GG, and fight to protect victims of GG (beyond what BLP requires us to do), that's the same problem that should not be welcomed on WP. And Mark's attitude here falls right into line with this. We're back at the neutrality issue that started the ArbCom case, that editors are too involved ideologically or emotionally that they are not editing in the expected behavior for a neutral, impartial encyclopedia, creating the battleground mentality that started the case. This idea works both ways (pro and anti-GG) - it's just easier to deal with the side that comes from pro-GG because they are the new/SPA accounts that have easier behavior to call out.

Again, I don't think this specific instance needs anything more than a warning to Mark (as well as others). But we need ArbCom to be clear that Wikipedia should not be considered a part of the larger GG battleground for either side, and that editors using WP to engage in that should be considered disruptive. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: One post at the site is titled "Sea Lion Emeritus Masem is Not Animatronic. We Swear!" and goes to mock my discussion contributions. Now, being fully aware that Poe's law could be in play and we could be talking about a parody site, I'm also fully aware of the language that proponents on both sides of the issue write, and this is far from just being parody. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: That's from the link Peter posted to Mark's page. Not sure if that's the link Gamaliel was specifically talking about in that request. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: I don't doubt that that you have no hand involved in the link Peter gave, I read it that Gamaliel was looking for disparaging comments from that site (and if not, then we should be aware what type of commentary is at that cite). It was not my intention to claim that you wrote on that specific site, if that's how it came out which I apologize if that did. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: As I noted, I thought you might have been talking about what that link is, which is not the case that I can see now. While the site directly does not involve Mark's actions, it's important to note his reply on Wikipedia that uses the language of site , which itself it mocking in tone, is part of his continued behavior problems. And we do sometimes redact links that are known to be sites that only engage in BLP violations as we would gross copyright violating sites. I would argue this one falls into that. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: The language of the standard sanction for GG (which I don't think Mark is under but I think should be considered the scope of that topic ban) includes not making any edit about Gamergate (doesn't make distinction about where on WP save for ArbCom). The language "Sea lions" in the context of Mark's reply to Peter is definitely about Gamergate. As I note, I see this as a troutable slip for the instance, but part of a larger behavior issue to consider. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The above addition by tRPoD about my participation ([4]) demonstrates the battleground attitude that still persists in the GG situation on WP today. I do not support any of the claimed GG goals or their approach, but I also don't support taking the tone that the press has taken in reporting GG when we are supposed to be neutral and impartial as an encyclopedia. That in no way makes me proGG, but this is unfortunately what (outside WP) the situation has become - if you don't side to speak up against GG, you must be supporting them. (and vice versa when talking about supporting GG). There are many many more sides to this (including a number of editors on WP that simply want a neutral article that recognizes the bias that the press has here and acknowledged in the previous RFC) There are editors like Mark that, based on their conversations, appear to only be here to condemn GG which will never get us to a neutral article. The attitude of a "us vs them" is a poisonious battleground mentality that needs to be stopped. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Please show the diff of my contributions that are directing gamergaters how to edit WP. All my contributions on WP are in the open, and I've mentioned before the only interaction directly I've had with anyone proGG was a reddit message to briefly explain the issue with reliable sources. This is otherwise a personal attack, asserting that I'm leading GG to edit here, and a continuation of the battleground mentality to assume that I'm not "with" the side against GG. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

With permission from uninvolved adminstrator, I only note that MarkBernstein uses a term of disparagement that was used with respect to Orlando Thargor and me. MarkBernstein has falsely accused me of offsite collusion and refuses to disclose his link (because it's false, I presume) but freely links and makes on-wiki comments on external sites that disparage other editors in violation of both his 90 day GamerGate topic ban and his indefinite interaction ban. My only request has been that he stop. Nothing tried so far seems to work. --DHeyward (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel Starship.paint addressed it above. I don't know exactly what a "sea lions of wikipedia" is but I've read the link, read how I was mentioned and I've read MarkBernstein's comment and that term is disparaging. Why he thinks it would be appropriate to use that term on Wikipedia to refer to editors is beyond me[5]. And yes, it's a silly talk page comment. I'm sure everyone has made worse. But not by someone with same reputation, block, tban, iban, warnings and board discussions as MarkBernstein. And I'd prefer that if you are going to sanction or not, that you leave it as a recommendation. --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam You are incorrect about Chu. You seem to have misunderstood Arthur Chu's whole point. You didn't even read the source before reverting and it was quite disheartening when you actually posted that you didn't read the article before you reverted and argued about it. The exact quote after telling us what you thought he said: "Self-reply.. I hate the slate website. Turns out you have to scroll down before it loads the rest of the article." -Strongjam Imagining what he said and reading what he said is not the same. --DHeyward (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam As for Chu, his whole article is about how #NotYourShield was established to silence white, male defenders (journalists) from speaking out against GamerGate. He made the case that they are necessary voices. He also said they take great risk in speaking out against women and minorities (aka the #NotYourShield people) and too often stay silent. Your quote highlights it quite nicely. Yes, women and minorities take risks but that's not Chu's point in that article. It's all about his assessment that #NotYourShield was trying to silence white, male journalists that fear speaking out against #NotYourShield because of the potential backlash against them for speaking out against women and minorities. Your vision of what you want him to say is not what he said. In any case, there is nothing that I said that is a BLP or any other infraction though you may wish to rethink the prism you are viewing this through. --DHeyward (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc Making a "no link" rule that only applies to user MarkBernstein making links is simply ignoring the topic ban he is under.

Gamaliel a better solution is to also put his talk page under discretionary sanctions regarding gamerGate related material so it's not a focal point for disruption. It can expire when his topic ban expires. There is no reason for any editor to bring offsite/onsite/anysite, gamergate links to his talkpage while he is topic banned and editors, not limited to just MarkBernstein should be sanctioned for encouraging him to violate his topic ban by doing so. --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc, EvergreenFir, and Gamaliel: If PtF's post to MB's talk page is not a violation, MB's talkpage will become an aggregator site for such links - only without comment by MB (or deletion if he chooses). That will become a problem just like it's a problem now. It's not hard to put a notice. It's better to discourage it, then allow it. Articles aren't policed more when they have warnings, they are policed less. That's the point of the sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: as was noted, "under normal circumstances..." but that isn't where we are. This isn't a blanket ban on links anywhere, just his talk page. That is what started this, not links by MB. Why would you want to allow editors to drop GamerGate links on his talk page? There is no project benefit, only downside (like being here the next time). --DHeyward (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: The problem was PtF posted a link and a comment. MB replied with a comment. MB's link was less of a problem than his comment. Do we really need baiting links on his talk page attracting the bus of GG editors? If he replies without a link, is that okay? The answer, of course, is no. Therefore nip it in the bud. "Don't post GamerGate stuff to MBs talk page." It only causes disruption and has no value to building the encyclopedia. Editors can ping him to their page if they want him to see stuff but his talk page shouldn't be the aggregate site. It will only bring us back here eventually. --DHeyward (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by squiggleslash

You're going to keep getting these reports about every minor infraction MB may have committed as long as you make it clear there's a chance you'll act against him, and little chance those promoting the conflict will get sanctioned. And I say "You're going to keep getting" because you already are. The current gender controversies topic ban is itself an example.

• Repeal topic ban. It was never justified. (MB, maybe it'd help if you filed a formal appeal against it, or did you and I missed it?)
• Add Starke Hathaway to the TIBAN (is that a term?) that already applies between MB, Thargor Orlando, and DHeywood.

You can continue to do what you're doing, but it isn't working. You can do what the hoards of offsite trolls are trying to get you to do, but that's happened once already, Arbcom did what they wanted them to do, and, well, here we are. Not that anyone that's part of the Wikipedia establishment will ever admit it might, possibly, have been just a slight possible misjudgment, to sanction people trying to protect Wikipedia from trolls for edit warring. --Squiggleslash (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz

Just so we are absolutely clear, this is about a link on MB's talk page to his website he offered in response to a comment by another editor. That's all, there was no discussion of GamerGate on a GG-related article or talk page? I'll admit that MB can be provocative but this "it can't go a week without an editor filing a complaint about Bernstein" routine is getting ridiculous. It borders on stalking behavior by the filing parties. The worst part is that it seems like this behavior will continue and they'll keep throwing metaphorical spaghetti at the wall until something sticks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a link to a website. And a remark about sea lions is off-wikipedia and ARBCOM didn't seem to care about off-wiki content when they came to their case FOFs and decisions. If they had included consideration of off-site harassment, the results of the case would have been quite different. And considering that DHeyward can't stop talking about Bernstein on multiple user talk pages, that seems like a much clearer violation of a tban/iban than posting a link to ones website on ones own user talk page.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ched, I can't see exactly what you are objecting to. That Bernstein shared a link to his website to another editor on his own talk page? Do you seriously think this is about website traffic or publicity? Bernstein has been quoted in some national publications, I don't think sharing a link on a Wikipedia talk page has anything to do with notoriety. Does this mean anyone sharing a link to an off-site website or blog they are involved in in the context of a discussion is self-promoting? If so, I see a lot of user pages, including some admins, who share a link to their off-site websites.

I get that admins are tired of seeing GamerGate related incidents come to AN/I and AE. I think we all are. But can't you also see at this point that this is a war of attrition? If Bernstein receives a longer block, it won't be an end to these proceedings, those on one side of the dispute will just go on to the next active, outspoken editor who involves themselves in editing these articles. After all of the numerous topic bans and blocks, can't you see that it isn't a matter of a few bad apples? There will always be new editors coming to these article pages who see it as a battleground. Discretionary sanctions help but you can expect these problems to continue given the way the GamerGate case ended. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

starship.paint, first, the most prominent animal associated with GamerGate? Before I saw a link of the blog referred to which was posted by another editor on Bernstein's user talk page, I didn't know that there were any animals associated with this consumer revolt. What are the others? Secondly, I've seen the original cartoon about sea lions and it is about individuals who incessantly interrupt conversations with faux concerns, a behavior that doesn't seem specific to GamerGate but is about fruitless debates on the internet with people who are not listening to what you are saying and who continually raise objections. It applies as much to Wikipedia as an editing environment as it does to GamerGate. Finally, I see that I was incorrect, Bernstein did mention the term "sea lions" on his user talk page but the comment was primarily a link pointing to an off-Wikipedia blog post and, again, he was responding to another editor's use of the term. But my language was imprecise for which I apologize. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

Please impose the maximum duration siteban allowed by discretionary sanctions.

Apparently MarkBernstein is some kind of journalist / blogger / activist out there. Don't know, don't care. Here he's not here to build the encyclopedia; he here's for WP:SELFPROMOTION, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and make a WP:POINT, as evidenced by his talk page statement A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive.

Now, I generally don't worry about user / user talk pages unless it's disrupting the project.

ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#Dreadstar, in which he reports Dreadstar called him a motherfucker; it's fair to say that fall short of the standards of WP:ADMINACCT, and as another editor once remarked NE Ent may be a lot of things, but an apologist for admin is not one of them. I'm also a veteran with 1K WQA and 2K ANI contributions and I've learned to look at what proceeded an event, and found Berstein suckered Dreadstar with I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter. blah blah doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, and Dreadstar unfortunately fell for it, interpreting the comment as saying he supported rape. Of course, there's enough blah blah so Bernstein can act all innocent 'I never said you supported rape.' Note also how the portion of his comment his posted on ANI omits the "I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter." beginning of the comment.

Notice also the statement "The topic ban itself is, in my view, neither just nor expedient. I do not raise that question here; I may raise it elsewhere." which begs the question why is it in the ANI thread if he's not raising it? The Mark Antony "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." shtick was clever when Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar (play) but its transparently lame in 2015. After I close the turkey of a thread with Bernstein's suggested wording he then absurdly asks "If the intent was not to lift the ban, why adopt my proposed phrasing of rolling back to Sunday morning -- before the ban?". Therefore his proposed wording was to lift the ban which was not the subject of the ANI.

ARCA

Next came the "clarification request" which asked an obvious question, and served as a topic ban breaching WP:COATRACK 10 March Statement WP:SPAMLINKing Bernstein's own blog "benefit our pals," and more fodder for his off-wiki activities [6].

Emailabuse

Policy on email is WP:EMAILABUSE. NE Ent 02:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

Controversy and MarkBernstein seem to go hand and hand when it comes to this topic space. The goal of the ArbCom case was to reduce disruption, not make it worse. Letting them back in will only increase the disruption. Therefore, I recommend declining this appeal and putting a limit on how often this editor can make such appeals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

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

• Topic bans are supposed to prevent disruption, not create drama through hyperscrutiny and a resulting flood of complaints. Let me give you an example: Two days ago, YellowSandals violated his topic ban here. None of you editors constantly complaining about MarkBernstein made a peep about it, and obviously some of you saw it. I ignored it just like you did, and that's what you should also do here. (For the record, I felt the same about DungeonSiegeAddict510 and advised only a trouting in that case.) If your aim is to edit an encyclopedia, you are welcome here. If your aim to be the Gamergate police cracking down on the SJWs, you are not. Mark Bernstein is officially trouted - if there is such a thing - and advised to keep such chats off wiki whenever possible. Gamaliel (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: "Policy says, discuss Wikipedia on Wikipedia unless there's a pressing, exceptional situation that makes discussion impossible." That exceptional situation would be your topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: If you object to the topic ban, you are welcome to appeal it in the appropriate forum. This is not the appropriate forum, but you are welcome to open another request challenging the topic ban on this page. Regardless of whatever grievance you may have, you are not free to violate the topic ban. I hope that is clear. Gamaliel (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, since the comment left by YellowSandals appeared to be a direct personal attack aimed at me - I chose to ignore it. Yes I saw it, but if I had blocked for that it would have given the perception of being retaliatory in nature. I'm not able to review the other things properly to add any more beyond that. — Ched :  ?  15:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I thought he was talking about me and didn't block for the same reason. That's almost hilarious. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Could you identify the admin? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Strongjam addressed the above question. I've read the link. Can you identify the disparaging comments? I feel like I'm missing something here. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• At some point, this all has to end. How many enforcement requests are we up to against Mark? How many warnings has he had? How many times has he been asked nicely to stop commenting on his opponents and comment on content instead? Probably more than any other editor in this topic area. This is the second time he's been topic-banned, and not the first time he's violated a topic ban. Yes, he is probably under more scrutiny than most editors in the topic area (though, while I don't condone one group of editors training their sights on another editor, it is MB's own actions that have led to that scrutiny), but at some point the question has to be: does the problem lie with a small army of editors filing enforcement requests (and even with admins issuing warnings and sanctions), or with a single editor who doesn't seem to want to heed advice, warnings, sanctions, or anything else? At this point, I think Mark has been extended all the rope that is reasonable and more, but has carried on regardless. I can't see how this is any different to the situation with the last topic ban (which was later lifted, although Mark was twice blocked and repeatedly warned for violating it), or to DSA510 (who similarly showed no inclination to separate himself from the topic area). What irks me most is that these editors aren't making good edits in the mainspace that are being met with frivolous enforcement requests, but politicking on talk pages and in the projectspace. I think Mark has the potential to be an incredibly valuable contributor (I think the same of DSA and several other 'problem editors' in the topic area), but his continued participation with regards to gamergate is not conducive to progress, and he has shown no inclination to change the way he participates. Given all of that, I recommend a one-month block, as with DSA510. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• If there actually are disparaging comments at this link I support this action. As for the rest, there is plenty of blame to go around here, which is what makes this conflict so intractable. Both sides are holding themselves blameless while incessantly complaining about the other side. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• DHeyward obviously takes offence at the "Sea Lions of Wikipedia unite!" comment, which he seems to believe is directed at him; regardless of its intended recipient, it's not a constructive comment. It does nothing to make the project a better place and it does nothing to improve the encyclopaedia.

  Mark: You've been repeatedly asked to stop commenting on editors, or to put it another way to focus your energies on the encyclopaedia and not your opponents. Contrary to what you seem to believe, it is possible to believe in good faith that gamergate is not the root of all evil. It's also possible to criticise your conduct in good faith. I've never seen, for example, DHeyward or Thargor Orlando intentionally libel anyone, and I haven't seen you file an enforcement request against either of them for doing so. You didn't stop, and Dreadstar imposed a topic ban—you can disagree with it, but you're bound by it unless and until you successfully appeal it. And even that hasn't prompted you to refocus on the encyclopaedia. I don't want to block you, but everything else has been tried and still you persist; I'm wondering if you're trying to get blocked, quite frankly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with a lot of what you've said here. MarkBernstein obviously feels the topic ban is unjust and it appears to me that such feelings are prompting him to respond in a less than productive manner. I see that he has formally appealed the topic ban below, which I hope is a sign that he is channeling his energies in an appropriate direction that is more compatible with encyclopedia editing. Gamaliel (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• IMO, this isn't about Gamergate, abuse directed at Zoe, TBAN, IBAN, or anything other than using Wikipedia as an SEO bump for markbernstein.org (linked many times in previous threads, often seen as [#] rather than spelled out.) which gets that website a higher slot in google searches. Mark doesn't "attack" individual editors in the WP:NPA sense on wiki. He's cautious of his language, and intelligent in his presentations. He's able to do quality article work here. But riding the coattails of the Gamergate fiasco to promote a website isn't what we should be doing here. Yes, entire websites (ED, Wikipediocracy, and others) have plenty of martyrs (see Harry's link to WP:SBA above) who revel in any divisiveness on wiki. I also see that below. Mark (again) posts excerpts from an email, and I don't recall seeing permission from Dreadstar to do that. (although I did read an apology that Dreadstar offered ON-wiki for something he (Dreadstar) had said OFF-wiki, due to a possible mis-understanding of intent.) I always understood that posting email contents was not allowed, but once again so very close to the "lines" - it is done so without the headers, so I guess he gets a pass on that as well. Perhaps we could lift all restrictions everywhere. Perhaps we could block for WP:NOTHERE. It seems to me that this particular drama-monster has an insatiable appetite, - and me, personally - well I'm done "feeding" it. — Ched :  ?  23:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the current practice here: We delete and forbid links directly to personal attacks, but we don't ban entire websites for such things. For example, if someone posted a link to an attack on me on Wikipediocracy (which happens there daily, it seems like), then I could demand its removal, but I can't demand removal of all links to Wikipediocracy anywhere on Wikipedia. So MB should not link to that particular blog post but is free to link to other entires. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: It's been pointed out to me that the blog post "Sea Lion Emeritus Masem is Not Animatronic. We Swear!" is not on Mark Bernstein's blog, but on a different blog not linked to or written by him. So what does this have to do with Mark Bernstein? Gamaliel (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Let's focus only on actions taken by Mark Bernstein here. There's enough drama to keep track of. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: That is an excellent solution, so of course no one will be satisfied. If we imposed such a ban, we should make it clear that it only applies to MB himself, so no one comes here demanding sanctions on MB if someone else drops a link on his user talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Do we think just a ban from linking to the website or a topic ban from it (hence including, linking to, mentioning and discussing) would work best? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

At this time, I oppose placing any ban other than one restricting him from posting a link to his own blog. Anything broader than that I fear would prompt attempts to goad him into violating the ban or a flurry of complaints about "violations" that were nothing more than him making remarks here that were vaguely similar to ones on his blog. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, HJ Mitchell do you have a preference regarding this ban or the block you recommended? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• While we're here DHeyward suggested on my talk page that I prohibit anyone discussing GamerGate on MB's talk page. I'm not sure whether we're able to do that (how far that option in the page-level sanctions section of the DS page extended) and whether it would be effective (given the difficulty in advertising and being reasonable while also enforcing it). What are other's thoughts on this? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have no idea what problem this solution is supposed to address. He's already topic banned. How would we enforce this? We'd have to constantly monitor the page and warn lots of users. And why? Gamaliel (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• @DHeyward: So? It's one thing to say that an editor with a history of disruption cannot act disruptively in a particular way, it is quite another to blanket ban everyone from doing so regardless of whether or not they are acting appropriately, which is essentially what this would do. Unless the links contain personal attacks or information that constitutes outing, then posting them should not be banned. Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• @DHeyward: I am willing to try unorthodox sanctions, but a sanction requires the identification of a problem and an explanation of how the sanction would address that problem. I see neither. Gamaliel (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Callanecc: I think it's beyond the scope of this request to say what others can and cannot say on MB's talk page; (beyond the normal WP policies) - and - MB should be allowed to respond ON .. HIS .. TALK - IFF he is allowed to remain editing after the various violations he's gone through. Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Dr Bernstein has not only shown no intent to cease his disruptive comments, but has referred to his opponents as "the armies of Mordor" in a post below. If he's not even going to tone it down at AE, where his conduct is under scrutiny, he's certainly not going to do so on talk pages in the topic area. For me, this is the rather large straw that broke the already overloaded camel's back. We wouldn't tolerate this of any other editor who had been repeatedly warned and sanctioned, especially not at AE itself, so I fail to see why Dr Bernstein should be any different. Imagine, for a moment, if this was Israel-Palestine and we had an editor making inflammatory comments like this and referring to the other side as the "armies of Mordor"—I can't imagine they'd last very long. At the end of the day, this is a project to create an encyclopaedia, not a battleground. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by MarkBernstein

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

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

Appealing user

MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Due to your continued comments about other editors [7], I'm imposing upon you a 90-day ban on all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. [8]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[[9]]

Statement by MarkBernstein

On Friday, March 6, Think Progress published an article by Lauren C. Williams describing how The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims.

For months, [Talk:Gamergate_controversy] has offered a boxed section of articles in the media that discuss the Gamergate page. As this was a long investigative report on that very page, I proposed adding the new article that list. As I anticipated, GamerGate supporters teamed up to revert the change. Discussion followed on the talk page, as discussions do.

Two days later, I was topic-banned by @Dreadstar: under the standard AE sanctions. [10]

The pertinent passage appears to be the following:

“It is fascinating that the particular group of editors who recently were so eager to cite Gamergate wikis, weblogs, and Breitbart are reluctant to inform newcomers to this article of this important new essay. Why would that be? There is no question that Lauren Williams’ study is the best examination of the Wikipedia scandal to appear to date. It is also very widely read. The Twitter stream for "Gamergate Wikipedia" is filled with references, it’s got 1700 Facebook shares, it’s generated secondary coverage in Slate [11].”

I had been asked not to criticize other editors on talk pages, but here I do not criticize or mention any editor: I allude to a pattern of collusive editing. Collusive editing is the subject of the article under discussion; it is natural and necesssary to discuss it in this context. The italicized question might be taken to allude to the insistent, relentless, perfervid POV pushing practiced by a coterie of editors on this page, abetted by a constantly-refreshed stream of socks and zombies working with expert admin assistance and supervision, in blatant and unchecked violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FLAT. Discussion of the application of policy to article and front-matter changes is not uncommon on talk pages.

Moreover, my assertion above is inarguably true, it is reliably sourced, and it reflects the overwhelming consensus of opinion of outside observers of Wikipedia’s Gamergate article: [11].

---

I responded to the topic ban with wry astonishment, and with a query regarding its intended extent.

Shortly afterward, Dreadstar responded by email:

[redacted]

I do not recall that I made any reply. A few minutes later, he wrote again:

[redacted]

A few minutes later:

[redacted]

The topic ban is neither expedient nor appropriate; it is the reverse. It does not improve the encyclopedia; it makes it worse. It does not advance the project; it invites additional derision and ridicule at a moment when -- let’s face it -- Wikipedia needs all the friends it can find, and among whom I might perhaps, once again, number myself. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

---

I submit this very reluctantly, with scant hope of a sympathetic reception or a fair hearing, after others urged me to do so. It’s doubtless in the wrong form or the wrong template; I can’t for the life of me figure that out; feel free to apply necessary mops to make it right. I may monitor the discussion that follows but do not promise to do so; if you wish any information or comment from me, please feel free to contact me at my office or by email. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

---

And the first of the troupe arrives. Does Starke Hathway comment on what I wrote? They do not. Do they comment on content? Nope. Instead, they disparage me personally, impugn my motives, and claim that I speculate about the motives of other editors when, in point of fact, I did not: I speculated that motives might exist. How much of this garbage do the admins intend to tolerate? (My guess: as much as can be mustered from every slop pail they can find, but we’ll see.) MarkBernstein (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If the topic ban has a basis in sense (which I doubt), it is in the Kafka-esque Catch-22 that holds it completely against policy to use zombies, socks, and brigades in a flying circus seeking to employ Wikipedia to harass one’s enemies, but that it is even more against policy to allude to the phenomenon even elliptically on a talk page, on this page, or at Arbcom. But since we're here -- and in the context of this appeal I may presumably discuss the situation -- let me allude to the discussion above.

What we’re discussing above is my heinous talk-page acknowledgment of having read a rather funny satire of this very page. I had written my own discourse about the evident foolishness, and it seemed gracious to acknowledge the craftsmanship of the satire’s unknown author by pointing to my own modest attempt. (He’s getting better: if you haven’t read “Of Mops and Sticks” yet, it’s a real hoot. No link for you, though, because it upsets the armies of Mordor when I use links.)

Neither element of this short and trivial interaction could much disrupt the encyclopedia, and in point of fact they did not -- beyond the disruption this frivolous filing has caused.

Starke Hathaway, who filed this complaint, is now deeply concerned that "MarkBernstein is making the problems in the topic area worse by inflaming drama both on- and off-wiki." DHeyward is eager to place my own talk page under Gamergate discretionary sanctions lest I spread more links of offsite derision.

These reactions are revealing: the real reason we’re here, of course, has nothing to do with my talk page. Barring me will not reduce the drama of Gamergate: I'm not the fellow who used Wikipedia to libel Brianna Wu yesterday, nor the other fellow who did the same to Zoe Quinn two days before. I’m not the “new” editor who showed up March 17 to debate the use of the adjective “misogynistic” on the Gamergate and who has proceeded to do so with vigor and 6,200 words (so far), despite the fact that this specific topic has been discussed on the same page, at similar length, on Feb 24, Feb 11, Jan 27, Jan 25, Jan 22, Jan 9-11, Dec 22, Nov 24, Nov 13, Nov 2, Oct 27, Oct 12, Sep 19, Sep 16, Sep 11, and Sep 6 by my very hasty survey. Those are sources of drama; I’m just the messenger bringing the news to Thebes.

The real world is watching now; you cannot reach an accommodation with the armies of Mordor even if you thought that would bring peace and quiet. I’m sorry to have embarrassed you all, but the best way to avoid further embarrassment is to stop doing embarrassing things.

Placing my talk page under sanctions is silly. It wouldn’t be effective: if I want an aggregation page, I can have one in minutes on my own server. Topic-ban me from mentioning my own writing? Does that contribute to the encyclopedia? I don’t believe you can topic-ban the real world from laughing at such stuff.

The fact that there seems to be so much ridicule to aggregate is simply not my fault. This topic area has been under attack by a flying circus for months. We must not mention the fact, apparently, or I must not, but the question could not be more clear, and what few steps Wikipedia has taken to address this have often made things worse, not better.

One reliable way to appear less ridiculous in the eyes of the world might be: stop being ridiculous.

Another good way to appear less ridiculous would be to end this preposterous hounding and put the kibbosh firmly on the pointless crusade to find a way to sanction me. Find a way instead to restore my faith in wikis. Address the core problem, which is the relentless POV-pushing travelling circus, and stop focusing so tightly on isolated purported gotchas. A really good idea, incidentally, would be to find a way for Wikipedia to apologize and to acknowledge the contributions that people like NorthBySouthBaranof, Tarc, TaraInDC, and TheRedPenOfDoom have made to finding you a way out of this mess.

I remain eager to join a good-faith effort to actually fix the problem. This discussion is not a step in that direction.

Statements by other editors

Statement by Starke Hathaway

I don't see any issue here that should invalidate the TBAN. When an editor has been warned at least four times not to make comments about other editors on article talk pages, that editor shouldn't anticipate good things coming from the decision to post a comment speculating about the motives of a "particular group of editors" on an article talk page. Frankly anyone other than MarkBernstein would have been TBANNed and blocked (likely indefinitely) long before reaching this point, if admin action in this topic area is any indication.

For what it's worth, MarkBernstein, I'm sorry Dreadstar called you a motherfucker. He shouldn't have done that, and I hope he apologized (did he?) -Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: @HJ Mitchell: I don't believe that anyone has argued that removing MarkBernstein will fix all problems in the topic area. What people are concerned about is the fact that MarkBernstein is making the problems in the topic area worse by inflaming drama both on- and off-wiki, and seems to be given unlimited latitude to do so despite a raft of mealy-mouthed "warnings" while other editors are being sanctioned without the presentation of as much as a single diff of wrongdoing. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark

MarkBernstein seems to have gained some understanding of why his statements tend to stir controversy. I think Gamaliel's suggestion of a ban on MB linking to his blog is the best tool in the admin toolbox for this case, and should replace MB's topic ban. It's not so much the act of linking that's the problem, rather it's the conviction that someone needs to be held responsible for something that distracts from accurate identification of whom and for what. That's the story behind every excess in the name of Gamergate or against it. Seems to be going on at ARfC as well. There's no tool in the toolbox for that particular problem, though. Rhoark (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: I've made an effort to read as many policies, guidelines, and essays as possible as research for a planned series of essays on content dispute resolution. The first, on reliable sourcing, isn't done yet, but it's close[12]. Constructive comments from anyone are appreciated. Rhoark Rhoark (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: @Thryduulf: It's absolutely correct that I had some experience with Wikipedia before registering an account - experience that I gained as an IP editor. I have never edited under any other account. If the matter requires further discussion, I'd prefer it be centralized here or another dedicated space. Rhoark (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: You miss the mark, in that I did not register to engage in a contentious area, but in all the contentious areas. I watch noticeboards and try to redirect conversations from conduct and irrelevant content policy to relevant content policy. So far that's included Gamergate, other gender-related disputes, Ukraine, Palestine, Tibet, biblical scholarship, and (head-scratchingly) the governance structure of the University of Texas in the 19th century. The experience has motivated my current essay project, to address frequent fallacies. Rhoark (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that incredulity about my overwhelming competence as an editor is now even being discussed off-site. Rhoark (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by squiggleslash

The topic ban was an over-reaction to something that if it was a violation of any rule, was clearly an ultra minor one. What purpose is it supposed to serve beyond intimidating someone with views unpopular amongst those pushing the ban (and the two subsequent follow-on attempts to sanction him)? What editor read a reference to a self defining group, in the context of a discussion about the principles behind accepting or rejecting sources, and said "Why, that fellow is obviously attacking me! I shall immediately post an angry unwikipedian response even if this means the once polite, friendly, and constructive discussions of Gamergate here are forever tainted!"

It's absurd. It's even more absurd this has gone on for a week and nobody with power has fixed it. --Squiggleslash (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by coldacid

Just because nobody was mentioned by name doesn't mean it's not criticism of other editors. And the collusion accusations, insinuated or explicitly made, are certainly no sign of good faith. Wording the accusations the way they were on the GG talk page violates at the very least the spirit of the "no criticism" restriction. The insinuations made above in this very appeal regarding admins tolerating filings against Mark Bernstein from every slop pail they can find just leaves even more of a bad taste in the mouth.

I'm sorry, but honestly this behaviour really needs to come to a stop. All we get now is needless drama over admin actions, not even content, whenever Mark Bernstein is mentioned. If he truly wants to continue considering himself a friend and valued editor of Wikipedia, he needs to learn to contribute without the snark, attitude, and insinuations that keep leading him here. I'd suggest the tban stand, and that Mark Bernstein ask himself if he really wants to keep being dramatically WP:POINTy or if we wants to be a positive contributor. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 5:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

@Rhoark: Hear hear. However, I don't agree with reducing the scope of the GG topic bans, because it's fairly obvious that both sides of the battle are rife with troublemakers just itching to make points or become glorious martyrs for their cause. Relaxing the ban of the scope will more likely allow the flames to be fanned further, rather than reducing the heat of the whole situation. coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky and PeterTheFourth: Perhaps it was a little too personal of a reaction to not question Dreadstar enacting the ban, but that doesn't change the fact that Mark Bernstein's conduct both before and after has been highly questionable and warranting of admin action. I think it's fairly likely that his ongoing posts of aspersions, accusations, and antagonistic insinuations would have gotten him or any other editor an indefinite block on grounds of incivility, were it not for the sanctions available through the GamerGate case, and all the attention paid to the actors and drama involved. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Starship.paint

MarkBernstein in this very appeal: The italicized question might be taken to allude to the insistent, relentless, perfervid POV pushing practiced by a coterie of editors on this page, abetted by a constantly-refreshed stream of socks and zombies working with expert admin assistance and supervision, in blatant and unchecked violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FLAT.

Coldacid above: And the collusion accusations, insinuated or explicitly made, are certainly no sign of good faith [...] If he truly wants to continue considering himself a friend and valued editor of Wikipedia, he needs to learn to contribute without the snark, attitude, and insinuations that keep leading him here. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• What ForbiddenRocky and PeterTheFourth fail to mention is that the 'rape' comment, and subsequent reaction, came after the topic ban, not before, after Dreadstar read a response of MarkBernstein to the topic ban. The topic ban should not be overturned just because Dreadstar over-reacted later; as for the cause of Dreadstar's over-reaction, I am of the opinion, and NE Ent seems to agree from his statement further up the page, that Dreadstar reacted is because of a provocative message from MarkBernstein. Dreadstar was definitely within his latitude to sanction MarkBernstein before the 'rape' comment was ever made, because the sanction had nothing to do with "rape", and everything to do with MarkBernstein refusing to stop commenting or posting insinuations regarding other editors. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite

Why is Rhoark, an obvious sockpuppet being used in administrative spaces unblocked? Rhoark created his account in late 2014. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark, you are required to use your primary account to edit project space. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ForbiddenRocky

As I read User:Dreadstar's comment on my talk page, User:MarkBernstein comes to Dreadstar's attention because people bring Mark to Dreadstar's attention.

1. There is the implication that tattling is how to punish people you don't agree with. I can think of more than a few 1RR violations on GGC that were settled without admin involvement; but this raises the question why some violations wind up in AE and others do not. There are several edits that perhaps are sanctionable that have been ignore by many, some ignoring because it suits an agenda, or some ignoring the problematic edits (except to fix them) in an effort to limit the drama. Should every editor report every other editor for every minor problem? From what I can see some of editors would not survive the same intense scrutiny being applied to Mark. And some of editors conveniently ignore the provoking or bad behavior of editors they side with. Mark is being hounded.

1. Also, I do question the equanimity of Dreadstar when he sanctioned Mark. Dreadstar brought his strange "rape" accusation thing to my talk page. He brought that point up in response to my asking about sanctioning Mark, the implication being that it was relevant to Dreadstar WRT sanctioning Mark for talking about other editors. If his reading of Mark contributed to his decision to sanction Mark, then that sanction should be reversed. I note Dreadstar has withdrawn the accusation he made WRT what Mark was saying.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth

The motivation for the topic ban comes from a very questionable place, given how emotionally Dreadstar has reacted in regards MarkBernstein and Dreadstar's statements during and after. It's preeminently clear that Dreadstar's response was not reasonable- he's acknowledged culpability and apologised for what's been said, but done nothing to fix the actions he's taken. If nothing else, uninvolved admins should look at the topic ban, the diffs that supposedly support it, and either instate it themselves in their position as uninvolved admins or repeal it wholesale as the farce it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by MarkBernstein

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

I have removed all references to the Reichstag, including my own. The appropriateness of this reference is not the subject of this request and it should not be used as an excuse to flog your opponents in a pre-existing dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• @MarkBernstein: I have formatted your appeal correctly (with a couple minor changes since it's been here for a bit). Please provide a diff of the notification you left Dreadstar. In the future (if applicable) please ensure you follow the formatting guidelines for this page. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I am disappointed that no other uninvolved admins have yet commented on this matter. Some fresh involvement and solutions are definitely needed here.

So I've finally read the original discussion which prompted the topic ban. There is little discussion of it here. Parties appear to have assumed that it was or was not a violation based on whatever side of the battle they are on, or if they have come to their opinion independently, they do not justify those opinions with substantial direct references to the discussion.

I fail to see how this is a such a relatively innocuous discussion has prompted such violent reactions amongst the involved parties. There is a bit of snark and some off-topic discussion about new editors and throwaway accounts, and I would discourage both of those from him. But there he also raises relevant and significant points and his comment contains more substance than most of the others in that discussion. He has posted relevant information from the website in question. Much has been made on this page of his posting links to his own blog, but I see no promotional or disruptive use of that link here. He has linked to a list of press stories on his website, directly relevant to the discussion at hand, namely which press stories to include on the talk page.

I would not say he has conducted himself perfectly in this discussion, but I would also say that about other parties, and that is not a required standard on Wikipedia, otherwise most of us would be unable to edit here. But I don't see anything here to justify either the lengthy topic ban or the extreme reactions of involved parties in this matter.

What I do see is a systemic problem with battleground mentalities amongst most involved parties. Those, both involved and uninvolved, who insist that the problems will go away with the departure of Mark Bernstein are fooling themselves. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree partly with your last sentence—removing Dr Bernstein will not solve the problems in the topic area. Nonetheless, the heat to light ratio was improving, and I think Dr Bernstein has had a significant role in its deterioration (as have his detractors, who seem to be both noisy and numerous). I probably wouldn't have imposed the topic ban, or if I had I might have construed it more narrowly, but it was within the bounds of reason and I'm certainly not inclined to lift a topic ban that isn't being abided by. Dr Bernstein has been asked on numerous occasions to direct his comments towards article content and not editors (including groups of editors), has given the requisite platitude on each occasion, and gone on to completely disregard all the advice, the suggestions, the warnings, the topic bans, and the blocks he's been given. Had this all occurred a few months ago, Dr Bernstein likely would have been site-banned or at least severely sanctioned in the arbitration case, and certainly editors have been on the receiving end of discretionary sanctions for less egregious and less persistent misconduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If we're discussing his past behavior in toto, sure, maybe you can make a case for that. But I think many are overreacting to current behavior based on his past behavior. Not only is that is proving incredibly disruptive, it also provides a disincentive for people to actually improve their behavior. Without an avenue to become a productive contributor, we might as well site ban on the first offense. Gamaliel (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not normally as unsympathetic as I am here, but I thought we were moving towards a point where the standards of conduct had been established and people were generally abiding by them or had been removed. Then all hell broke lose with Dr Bernstein at the centre of it and—even being extremely charitable—at least partly because of his own conduct. I might be sympathetic to loosening the scope of the topic ban, but I'd like to see Dr Bernstein actually abide by it for a few weeks to show us that he can edit without attacking anyone with whom he has the misfortune to disagree. I'd also like to see the angry mob disperse and get on with something useful, which hopefully it will once Dr Bernstein shifts his focus away from the topic that have got him onto trouble thus far. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We are mostly in agreement. Hell did indeed break loose. The sticking point for me is whether Mark Bernstein is blame for it breaking loose, or reaction to him is to blame. In this particular case, I see little in that discussion to justify that reaction. Gamaliel (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• re: "I am disappointed that no other uninvolved admins have yet commented on this matter. "

1. I think this appeal should be declined. I also think that MB should be prohibited from any further appeals on this sanction. In fact, given the clear violation of WP:EMAILABUSE, I would not be opposed to further sanctions.
2. I think both DHeyward and TO should be allowed to appeal their current IBAN restrictions after 60 days of the original posting, provided that there are no further problems originating from them.

And in preemptive form regarding the "but it's not fair, we didn't do anything" comments. Life isn't fair; (and I apologize if I appear to be cold and a grumpy curmudgeon in this matter, but ...) If you continue to walk through a yard with a "Beware of the Dog" sign, then few folks are willing to listen to complaints about being bitten. And the "signs" on GG have been posted quite clearly. (now, can I leave please?) — Ched :  ?  20:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Especially in light of MarkBernstein's behavior in the recent AE threads, I'm not convinced that lifting the topic ban would be beneficial, and therefore would decline the appeal. T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

HistoryofIran

Indef TBAN from all AA2 related pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning HistoryofIran User who is submitting this request for enforcement Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested HistoryofIran (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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it User:HistoryofIran for a long time has been displaying an aggressive belligerent approach to editing Wikipedia articles dealing with the history of Iran and the Caucasus which has also prompted him on several occasions to edit-war, as well as resort to incivility in relation to other users. Despite being placed on 1RR and civility supervision back in October 2013, this user continues to edit in the exact same manner that has earned him this restriction. 1RR restriction violated at Paykar Khan Igirmi Durt: [13], [14] (he claimed reverting vandalism, but later admitted on the talkpage that it was not vandalism), Atropatene: [15], [16]. Typical examples of violating WP:CIVILITY include him defining good-faith edits that he disagrees with as 'vandalism' and the contributors as 'vandals' who are out to 'annoy hard-working contributors such as [himself]': [17], [18], [19], addressing users in a disrespectfully informal manner ('dude') [20], getting extremely personal instead of addressing issues raised due to his edit-warring [21], and making other kinds of patronising, condescending and offensive remarks in edit summaries: [22], [23], [24], [25]. Interestingly, even the information supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Iranica is not only removed, but referred to as 'vandalism' [26], accompanied with an inappropriate comment in the edit summary. After being warned for incivility once [27], he persisted in making sarcastic references to the user's 'poor feelings' in every message he addressed to them for the duration of the discussion (even if the incilivity issue was not further addressed), to the point of turning it into the focal point of the entire discussion: [28], [29]. I would like admins to pay attention to the aggressive confrontational language that the user permits himself in a discussion: [30], [31], [32]. One can see that the other user did a very good job remaining civil until the end, hence HistoryofIran's reaction along the lines of phrases such as 'facepalm', 'your broken English' and 'understood?' was completely unprovoked. In violation of WP:OWN, he refers to articles as 'his own' and uses his experience editing Wikipedia as an argument in favour of his version: [33]. I also suggest that admins take note of the manner in which this user refers to fellow contributors and to his own role in bringing about Wikipedia at the very top of his talk page: [34]. While I appreciate the efforts of those who genuinely try to contribute to improving the content of articles on Wikipedia, I do not believe that they should be blinded by glory at the site of many barnstars that other users award them and use their active participation in the project as an excuse to bring others down. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) The user was previously placed on 1RR restriction, supervised editing and civility supervision [35] and is aware of that [36]. Keeping in mind that this user has been blocked eight times in the past two years (including three times in the past year after being placed on the aforementioned restrictions, most recently a few weeks ago) for a period between 24 and 72 hours, mainly for edit-warring, and vows to continue to 'revert a lot of stuff' [37] in the future, I suggest an indefinite ban, as I consider this user's attitude unacceptable and unconstructive in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, especially if he fails at the very first thing which makes a discussion productive: simple polite communication. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I would like to ask admins to formally close the report. Parishan (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [38] Discussion concerning HistoryofIran 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 HistoryofIran I find it funny, you researched so much about me, yet you didn't research the results of what i said in articles such as the Malik-Shah page. That is called lying and which shows that you're really trying hard to have me blocked for no reason - me, a user who has contributed so much to this site (374 articles created, 35 templates created, 168 categories created, 35 portals created and manyyyyyyyy articles expanded. Not trying to use this as an excuse, but just letting you guys know), just because of.. well who knows? personal revenge/hatred? I don't know, I just find this kind of random that you're suddenly reporting me and not even doing it the right way. Anyway, about the whole Malik-Shah issue (and constantly accusing me of being heavily rude when it comes to discussing), here is what it resulted to: [39] [40]. With that "problem" hopefully fixed, let's move to the next one. "One can see that the other user did a very good job remaining civil until the end, hence HistoryofIran's reaction along the lines of phrases such as 'facepalm', 'your broken English' and 'understood?' was completely unprovoked." Seriously? if a admin is reading this, please take a look on the links and a look on the Malik-Shah article, because what I am reading is not true and I'm sure you will understand. He is making me look like the villain, which he is doing this whole report, which I will get to. By the way, If you are going to report about such things, then show all of it instead of half of it. About the Paykar Khan Igirmi Durt article: I find it funny, he mentioned that I claimed vandalism (which I apologized for - because I am (well, I was) constantly reverting vandalism I wrongly accused him of being one, which was completely stupid by me) yet he accused me of "bad-faith editing" and still haven't apologized for it. Isn't that double standards? Anyway, I don't get why he mentioned that, since that issue ended when he showed me sources which proved that he was right (which he didn't first time but just randomly slammed some information on it, or else I would never have reverted it in the first place). Furthermore, how is "dude" a negative word? It is a normal word used every day? (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dude) I find it funny that he is trying to make a deal out every word I use. It seems like "dude" is bad a word, but accusing one of "bad-faith editing" and abusing old issues without showing what really happened is normal. Furthermore, while we were discussing in the talk page of the article, I kept telling you to stop turning this into, well, a "personal discussion" (if that makes sense), yet you continued, which I don't know why, what have I done? I apologized (while you didn't) and agreed with what you said when you finally showed me sources in the end (which you should have done in the start). "Interestingly, even the information supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Iranica is not only removed, but referred to as 'vandalism' [41], accompanied with an inappropriate comment in the edit summary." Great, once again you're not showing everything. Yes, the source states that the Safavids were Azeris, but does not mention their ancestors were Azeris, which the user wrote on the article (which means that he was falsifying information), which was the reason I reverted it. As I said, you're not using this kind of information right and are trying to use it against my favor by doing so. I don't get what you're trying to gain: you're trying to block a user who is barely active (and may be quitting because he is busy) and has done so much on this site by falsifying (not really falsifying (or maybe it is?), but I can't really think of a better word that fits better, I should go to bed) information about him? "Keeping in mind that this user has been blocked eight times in the past two years (including three times in the past year after being placed on the aforementioned restrictions, most recently a few weeks ago) for a period between 24 and 72 hours, mainly for edit-warring, and vows to continue to 'revert a lot of stuff' [42] in the future, I suggest an indefinite ban, as I consider this user's attitude unacceptable and unconstructive in improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, especially if he fails at the very first thing which makes a discussion productive: simple polite communication." Yes, and you have been blocked 4 times? so what? so you should get blocked for not telling everything about the stuff which you brought up? "Simple polite communication"?, as I said before, you were the one who wanted to create a big and unnecessary issue in the Paykar Khan article, while I kept telling that we should focus on the subject, which you kept getting away from. "After being warned for incivility once [123], he persisted in making sarcastic references to the user's 'poor feelings' in every message he addressed to them for the duration of the discussion (even if the incivility issue was not further addressed), to the point of turning it into the focal point of the entire discussion: [124], [125]." Not really, as I said, I was trying to the discuss with you about the subject, yet you kept targeting words such as "dude" and kept trying to change the subject by trying to turn it into a hostile discussion, which I kept telling you that you shouldn't do and that you should focus on the subject instead. You aren't using this information neutrally, but using it all against my favor by changing what happened to make me look like the villain. About the "poor feelings" thing, as I said, you kept targeting my words and acting oversensitive yet you yourself accused me of something too, but unlike me you didn't apologize. This is what annoys me the most: "and vows to continue to 'revert a lot of stuff"'. I didn't really say that - you're missing the details once again and are trying to change information to use it against my favor. What I said was "When I get back I will probably have to revert a lot of stuff since these annoying vandals appear on the articles i have created/expanded literally every day." What problem is there with that? It's not like i will go, in your own words, on a "bad faith editing" campaign, but remove edits such as this one removed by a well known user [43]. There are actually many respected users who agrees with me in these cases, take a look here for example [44]. Many people know that I help/expand (well, actually "helped" since I am not really active anymore) many Wikipedia articles, and not one who does "bad faith editing". Anyway, even if it said that i wanted to go on a "bad faith editing" campaign (which I would never do, of course), that wouldn't mean anything either since words means nothing compared to real action. "and making other kinds of patronising, condescending and offensive remarks in edit summaries: [45], [46], [47],". Once again, you're not posting all of it. The first in the first link is a person who usually copies information from various places and then copies it to a article, making much of the information having broken English. The second one was just one of the 100th random users who put unsourced information, which is constantly reverted by me and other users, which annoyed me, but I guess saying "omg" (oh my god) when a article is constantly the target of vandalism is wrong, just like using the word "dude" was in your opinion somehow wrong. About the third one: He is the same person mentioned in the first link, where I said that he usually copies information from various places and then copies it to a article, making much of the information having broken English. Which is against the rules, which means I didn't do anything wrong.--HistoryofIran (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC) [@The Blade of the Northern Lights:] I'm sorry but I really think you're missing something then, in case you didn't see it, I have answered everything he has written about and pretty much proved him wrong. "Who's of much use to the encyclopedia regardless of topic."? I have done so much for this site (which I posted above) yet I am not to any use? Can a admin properly investigate this please? --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC) moved here from wrong section by Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC) [@User:Rhoark:] I don't really have the energy/will to discuss about this anymore, I have written what I could, a topic ban is fine (although not the cleverest idea either when I have done so much in that kind of topic), I am not going to be editing for some months/years anyway because I have kind of lost interest in this site, but I enjoyed my time here and if I will ever return, it would be in a long time (where I would expand Football articles instead). To an admin reading (or who have read) all the information which have been written here: Although I am most likely not going to return, at least topic ban me then, but not infinitive ban, it would be sad leaving Wikipedia like that. Right now, it seems like Parishan managed to fool everyone and I feel like no one have properly investigated what I have written, but oh well. If you did what I asked, that would be great (or you could also don't do anything, but it seems like my words mean nothing compared to Parishan who is immaturely abusing information against my favor, which makes absolutely no since, oh well. Consider this the last message from me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved) My gestalt impression of HistoryOfIran is someone unable to deal with content disputes in a constructive manner. Two elements of their statement however have merit. Firstly, the word "dude" is innocuous. Secondly, @Ahendra: is indeed introducing large amounts of grammatical gobbledygook to article space. An administrator should probably evaluate whether there is a competence problem. It's possible HistoryOfIran could learn better dispute resolution in an area they are less passionate about, so I endorse a topic ban. Rhoark (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning HistoryofIran This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any reason not to indef HistoryofIran and be done with it. I'd be all right with an indefinite topic ban from the AA topic area on top of that, but it seems like this isn't an editor who's of much use to the encyclopedia regardless of topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks for bring this back from the archive. I'll impose a TBAN from the AA topic in around 12 hours if there aren't other comments to to contrary. I'd suggest trying to take steps to avoid indef blocking them as they are helpful. Having said that I have no major objection to an indef block but I'd probably impose the TBAN in addition if someone else feels the indef block is necessary. Having said that I think a TBAN and a warning that if they keep going they'll be blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Seems reasonable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness

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 Supreme Deliciousness

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA - specifically the neutral point of view reminder (4)

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

SupremeDeliciousness has a history of highlighting the occupation throughout Wikipedia while doing little else for the project. I understand that we need to assume good faith and that being a single purpose account is not inherently a bad thing. However, he has shown that his bias negatively affects the topic area.

The editor's clear agenda and tendency to edit war are more nuanced than usually seen at AE. I had a hard time thinking of how to "prove" this and decided to look at every 50th edit (just selected next page in the history screen) the other day. It was surprising how many were reverts. Many edits are factually accurate but I hope this shows that there might be an attempt to put undue focus on the occupation:

• Reverting (an IP) to highlight the occupation[48]
• Reverting (an IP) regarding the terminology of occupied land[49]
• Reverting to highlight the disputed status[50]
• Reverting (an IP) to highlight the disputed status [51]
• Highlighting the occupation[52]
• Reverting to highlight the disputed land[53]
• Reverting (a IP) about Israel[54]
• Highlighting the occupation. It doesn't neccasarily smack of POV pushing but it is part of the sample size[55]
• Reverting to limit the visibility of Hebrew on a food article (a surprisingly common form of POV pushing in the topic area)[56]

The above is not indicative of a problematic editor on its own. Below I attempt to show that SupremeDeliciousess has an over reliance on the revert function. It takes two to tango, of course. I also understand that it can be hard to not revert IPs in the topic area and how easy it is to assume every red named editor is a sock.

• 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, 4 reverts since March 1 inserting "occupied". No talk page use.[57][58][59][60]

• Open University of Israel, 5 reverts since February 24 regarding a conviction. Other party later turned out to be a sock but hindsight isn't an excuse.[61][62][63][64][65]

• Northern District (Israel), 7 reverts since January 29 regarding legality of Israel's control. Again, what would eventually turn out to be a sock, but there is still a ridiculous amount of reverts with little initial conversation besides edit summaries.[66][67][68][69][70][71][72]

• Israeli cuisine, 3 reverts in 9 days in February regarding Israeli adoption of Arab cuisine. Possible sock? Talk page could have still been used more.[73][74][75]

For the sake of transparency and to show more possible POV-pushing the following is a current dispute I am involved in.

• A controversy section that I feel promotes undue weight of a minor incident at Tourism of Israel (not neccasarily a politically based page) was added. His first reaction was to revert removal. It is now tagged and being discussed.[76]

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

• Notified
• Additional notification regarding edit warring
• Multiple blocks for edit warring

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

These issues have been going on for years and this is simply a snapshot of recent behavior. SupremeDeliciousness has always made sure not to cross the line too far, which I suppose is a good thing. My frustration leads me to want to request a topic ban but I don't know if that is even appropriate. I believe the editor needs to be counseled by a level headed admin and that a prohibition on reverts should be considered.

I kind of expected blow back and a lengthy discussion but was really hoping it would just be cool. Yes, I have filthy disgusting hands. Yes, SD refuses to even consider that the editing has been an issue. We don't need multiple editors attacking or defending this like sharks. The gus is pushing a POV. ANI is not the appropriate venue to ask for help. Can we just get some level-headed peeps to point him in a better direction. Basically: don't comment unless you want to discuss making the topic area better.Cptnono (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion here about the temple mount has further illustrated the concerns. Ymblanter brings up a point that many editors and readers consider. Supreme Deliciousness has not only reverted 3 times since December without once using the talk page, his edit summaries here are dismissive of even the suggestion that it can be addressed. As others have noted, it is not internationally recognized as Israel while Ymblanter points out that it is controlled and functions as Israel. That is a content issue but the complete unwillingness to look into different wording while reverting multiple times is a behavioral problem.Cptnono (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [77]

Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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 Supreme Deliciousness

Please take a closer look at the diffs Cptnono has provided above:

• [78], The West bank is occupied so there is nothing wrong with calling it that.
• [79], an IP showed up and claimed that the Ariel University in the West bank is in Israel. I reverted this false edit..... why is this being brought up in an enforcement against me?
• [80], same as above, East Jerusalem is by the entire international community rejected as Israel, so my edit is 100% accurate.
• [81], an IP showed up and changed a sentence to "in the Israeli Golan Heights.", There is no such thing. Israeli claims are rejected by the international community. My edit is 100% accurate.
• [82], the text is about Hezbollah attacking an IDF unit. I believe it is important to point out to the reader that it happened on occupied lands and not in Israel.
• [83]. 100% accurate edit. Temple mount is not in Israel.
• [84]. An IP showed up and reverted me with the edit summary: "Reverted racist vandal Supreme Deliciousness. Supreme Deliciousness wrote anti-Semitic propaganda at User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness/Archives/2014/October#Birthright_Unplugged claiming that Jewish history is fake." This IP was later blocked by admin.[85]. As his revert was illegitimate, I undid his revert. I also discussed at the talkpage:[86].
• [87]. The map is now changed but it used to show the Golan as striped brown. So thats why I did that edit.
• [88]. Arak is an Arabic language name. It is not a Hebrew name. Therefore the Hebrew translation is unrelated and does not belong in the lead, the same why we dont have Chinese or Russian translation for Arak. I have brought this up at the talkpage: [89]

Concerning the reverts I have done. All of them or the vast majority of them are me reverting disruption by the sockupuppet "I invented "it's not you, it's me", who is a sock of NoCal100.: [90], Or me reverting other IPs and newly registered accounts (likely other socks), who show up to revert me without any discussion at all. Its hard to edit in this kind of environment. At Open University of Israel, Northern District (Israel) (both articles where the sock was reverting me) and Israeli cuisine I also participated at the talkpages.[91], [92], [93].

I would also like to point out that Cptnono comes here with unclean hands, take a look at this:[94] Cptnono make a revert with the edit summary: "Since SD did not answer my reasoning and then another editor made m point for me I am reverting. I likely would not have reverted if it didn't turn into an edit war. I want to play too"

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Re:[95] Ymblanter, a warning for what? The Temple Mount is not in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Re:[96], Ymblanter, you are wrong. The Temple Mount like all of East Jerusalem is not in Israel. It is not recognized as Israel by one single country in the entire world. To claim that it is, is a clear npov violation which is a Wikipedia policy. The Temple Mount article also makes it clear that Israel is occupying it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Greyshark09

The problem with Supreme Deliciousness is that it is a single topic account: Supreme's only interest is ARBPIA topics (and to a lesser degree SCWGS) - most notably the status of various borders and territories disputed by Syria and Palestine with Israel. His emotional attachment to the topic forces him to go to extremes in his "righteous" fight against the other opinion... which is the typical danger sign of Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. This might have not been a problem in some cases, but Supreme has repeatedly caused mayhem in English Wikipedia and in Commons, being blocked on Commons and on English wiki and warned every now and then. There might be a serious problem of accepting community consensus and NPOV concepts by Supreme, as I can recall two cases of problematic edit-warring on his behalf - one on Quneitra Governorate article, aiming to enforce an opinion in contrary to the community consensus, and another on Syrian Civil War maps - as well blatantly going against the consensus a number of times (later fixed at this discussion).GreyShark (dibra) 21:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What community consensus and NPOV concepts have I not accepted? I never violated this consensus that was closed by an admin:[97]. And the last link you linked to is not a consensus, it was a heavily involved editor who was editing articles according to the same pov as you who closed the discussion. So his "closure" is not a real closure and his claims of a "consensus" is a joke. Any uninvolved editor who reads the discussion can clearly see that his "closure" comments is not the real outcome of the discussion. I was just made aware of this actually and I have left a new message at the talkpage:[98]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: Just a couple of minutes after I posted at the ISIL talkpage that the discussion closure by heavily involved user:Legacypac was inaccurate, another user agreed with me: [99], (Please read his comment). This is the so called "community consensus" that "I have not accepted" according to Greyshark. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IRISZOOM

There is a big problem when it comes to Israeli-occupied territories as some wants to put it "in Israel", though the world rejects that view (even Israel too when it comes to the West Bank excluding East Jerusalem) and view it as occupied. There is a clear consensus on this, also reflected on Wikipedia, and it's only good to remove such NPOV violations. As the world think the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights are occupied territories, saying they are "Israeli" or "in Israel" is unacceptable. I myself, and many other editors in this area, often have to remove such things, and this can't be seen as something negative.

Regarding Greyshark09's point about the Golan Heights issue, it was actually only the RFC at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 26 (started in December 2014 and closed in January 2015) which solved the issue if the Golan Heights should be mentioned. As can be seen at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel#Adding Israel as belligerent on Syrian Civil War maps, a new discussion was started there in August 2014 because it wasn't clear on how to resolve the issue as it, contrary to the claim, hadn't been solved. I can recall Greyshark09 himself making changes to that same issue on his own, such as changing to "Disputed areas" here (in fact, it takes the Israeli view that the areas are only disputed and not occupied, while there later was a consensus to not mention the area at all), though there were no consensus for that. So I think Greyshark09 should be cautious to criticize Supreme Deliciousness on this issue. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually the discussion closed in January 2015 did not solve anything. Please see my posts above. It was a heavily involved editor (user:Legacypac) who closed the discussion, and he closed it according to a false "consensus" that anyone who reads the discussion can clearly see does not exist. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Old City of Jerusalem is not in Israel and that is how we have treated it Wikipedia too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

(involved administrator) I did not review all of the diffs provided here, but I looked at many of them and it is clear what is going on. The Israel-Palestine part of Wikipedia is under continuous assault by people (usually IPs or SPAs) who just want to insert their political positions. Common themes are to insert "in Israel" into articles about places not in Israel (including places that Israel does not claim to be in Israel), to remove mention of the military occupation, or to gratuitously remove the word "Palestine". Every day there are multiple such edits, and the people who do it obviously know exactly what they are doing. The principles have been discussed countless times in talk pages and project pages and anyone who wants to reopen the discussion is able to do so. Meanwhile, one of the boring daily chores required for article maintenance is to sweep away the dross that appeared overnight. It is certain not beholden on good editors to start a new discussion every time someone comes past and makes the same old unacceptable edits over again. Zero^talk 01:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I urge you to not issue a warning regarding the Temple Mount edit. It would be an unwarranted interference in a normal content dispute. If you want to be involved in the discussion of such content questions, you are welcome to join us, however it would be extremely unfortunate if you used your position on this board to promote one minority POV at the expense of others. Zero^talk 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)

Edits related to the control or status of territories are a recurring theme, but Deliciousness' versions seem to be those with better sourcing or specificity, not reflective of a pattern of POV pushing. Being a SPA is not a problem; someone has to do the work. I'd semiprotect the whole topic area. Rhoark (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AcidSnow

I have yet to see Deliciousness do anything wrong. AcidSnow (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

I'll intrude here. SD's reply to Umblanter's remark about the Temple Mount is absolutely correct, and generally practiced editors on all sides tend to avoid pulling one way or another on this. The waqf administering the site is in Jordan, and Israel always negotiates directly with Jordan on issues regarding that site. Ymblanter's statement is the Israeli POV, of course, not a statement of some unambiguous fact, esp. since a leading authority Ian S. Lustick has shown that Israel, contrary to numerous statements, official and otherwise, has not even used the instrument of formal annexation to assert its control of East Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC) [Moved from #Statement by Supreme Deliciousness // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)]

'Ymblanter points out that it is controlled and functions as Israel.' No. He said it was in Israel. It isn't, and Israel never acts as if it had sovereign control over it. Israelis there, unlike Israelis in Israel proper, are subject to specific restrictions, even halakhic restrictions. A good deal of the Camp David discussions of 2000 spun round the issue of sovereignty, where Israel's position was that it receive powers and standing equal to that of Palestine'. No government exercising sovereignty negotiates to receive it, or share it, unless it thinks the other side has equally good claims.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

I'm sorry, but Ymblanter (talk · contribs) is flat wrong here. And that is a content matter, not a conduct one. But on the content, the Temple Mount is not located in Israel, it's located in East Jerusalem, part of the occupied Palestinian territories, a place that nearly the entire world agrees is not in Israel. That removal by SD is completely valid, and to sanction, or warn, him for it would be an admin enforcing a view on the content of an article. I thought that was a no-no. nableezy - 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

And further, regarding that edit, that category was added and broke long-standing consensus on leaving country categories out and instead just having the Category:Mountains of Jerusalem and other Jerusalem specific categories. That is the compromise, and Cptnono's post above ignores that. Instead of having an edit-war between those who would label it a hill of Palestine (or Palestinian territories or whatever) vs those who would label it a hill of Israel we had this and any number of other articles include just the city category. Look at the category structure going back to [2011, or 2012, or 2013, or 2014. That's been the consensus, and despite Cptnono's one-sided representation of what occurred, none of the people who have on occasion re-added the Israel category has made any comment on the talk page to justify their attempt to go against a long-standing consensus. nableezy - 21:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness

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

• Unarchived. T. Canens (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• On many of these issues there are plausible arguments on both sides. SD has had no blocks since 2011 (almost four years) and many people are aware how easy it is to get blocked for 1RR on ARBPIA. The log does not show he has even been sanctioned, though he was notified. I would be inclined to close this with no action. Not to say that Supreme Deliciousness is editing wonderfully, but there is no one example here that is especially convincing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• I read this a few days ago but evidently forgot to comment (busy week!). I'm of the same opinion as Ed. There might be an issue here, but it's not a major one. SD would be well-advised to talk more and revert less (or just talk more), but there's nothing that seems to warrant sanctions in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
• I am actually concerned with this edit (and by the fact that SD still defends it), and whereas I do not think SD should be blocked or banned, a warning would be in place here.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  For all practical purposes, Temple Mount is in Israel, and removing the category means deteriorating encyclopedic quality. These issues should be addressed not by guerilla war in the articles, but by creating elsewhere some formulation which would explain in detail the current situation, like it was done with Crimea for example.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  I do not promote a minority POV, I, from what I remember, never edited articles about Israel/Palestine, and I am not planning to start editing them, since I am not interested spending all my life dealing with highly disruptive partisan editors. I just find the edit problematic for the reasons outlined by Cptnono above. If there is consensus (which I still see no evidence for, but I am prepared to assume GF), that only one hill category is allowed in the articles of this type, then the revert should explicitly point to the consensus and not state that East Jerusalem is not in Israel (which no person who has been there would ever believe). This is why I believe the user should be warned. If this is a common practice among editors on the topic, they should be warned as well and instructed to point out to consensus instead of just reverting edits of new users. If there is consensus among uninvolved administrators that the edits were perfect, fine with me, I do not mind to be overruled.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward

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 DHeyward

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

DHeyward (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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log#GamerGate :

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

DHeyward has violated the 1RR discretionary sanction placed on Gamergate controversy, and has been uncompliant in a request for self-revert. He has argued content in defense of his violation of the 1RR restriction instead, and after being shown unequivocally that his reversions were in violation of policy has not self-reverted.

1. 06:04 20th March, 2015 Reversion of my edit- I changed it to be accurate to the source we were using.
2. 07:11 20th March, 2015 Reverting my reversion- inserting blog post as source for claims.
3. 08:21 20th March, 2015 Informed of 1RR restrictions, asked to self-revert. Chooses to respond by mainly arguing the virtue of his edits.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18th January Previously blocked for misconduct in Gamergate topic area.

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 13th March by Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

These reversions are themself small enough that I chose to simply inform DHeyward of the 1RR restrictions in place. However, given his unwillingness to self-revert or acknowledge any sort of misdoing in his violation of the 1RR restrictions, in addition to the fact that he's chosen to focus on arguing the content of the article rather than his actions, I have brought it to arbitration enforcement.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[100]

Discussion concerning DHeyward

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 DHeyward

This wasn't even 1RR. Both of his diff evidence is between edits I made. He apparently made an edit. I changed it, but didn't revert it. He then did an out right reversion of my edit with a comment about sourcing so I made yet a different edit and added a source with his wording. If he did think my first edit was a revert of his bold edit, he chose to revert instead of following WP:BRD. The edit of his that he lists as my first revert was only hours old. I disagree that it was a revert but then tried to appease him and have whatever content he thought was important. I commented about it on the article talk page as well.

@PTF, I know what a reversion is and my edit wasn't close to the version before your edit, whence no revert. Whence why I asked for diffs. You didn't provide them. I'm done answering frivolous and vexatious complaints to obvious alternate account.

HJ_Mitchell More importantly PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email) began his Wikipedia career on 01-Dec-2014 with a number of edits to only ArbCom space. His contributions are almost exclusively related to GamerGate. I request that he cease editing AE/ANI/ARCA and any other administrative areas unless he discloses or uses his main account. It's obvious he is not a new user from his first edits. --DHeyward (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Starship.paint

I can't help but feel PeterTheFourth's filing is a bit disingenuous - in terms of how the diffs of DHeyward are portrayed, as well as not considering (or even mentioning) the latest edits by DHeyward which appear to have solved this issue already.

• PeterTheFourth writes of the second diff: Reverting my reversion- inserting blog post as source for claims. Here is the supposed "blog post". The article is from Forbes (WP:RS), not blogspot or tumblr or whatever. It seems most like an opinion piece by a columnist to me, instead of a blog post by anonymous. It seems similar to http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs -> contentious as a WP:RS but this is by no means a clear-cut situation either way.

• EDIT: To clarify I meant this is more like WP:NEWSBLOG than WP:BLOGS. 02:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• PeterTheFourth writes of the third diff: Informed of 1RR restrictions, asked to self-revert. Chooses to respond by mainly arguing the virtue of his edits. If you read the diff, you'll see that the first thing DHeyward says is What revert? Diff please of 2nd revert (I don't think I've made 1 revert, let alone a second)? I added source. rewrote section to include name, etc. DHeyward is not acting in defiance, he doesn't even realize he supposedly broke 1RR, and is asking for evidence (diffs).
• Additionally, this is the current version of the article as of my post, which was last edited by DHeyward. Note that it is not much different from PeterTheFourth's last edit. Definitely equal in spirit to me. DHeyward seems to have already cleaned up his own mess before this enforcement request was filed, perhaps in a roundabout way. The enforcement request was filed at (:54) while DHeyward's last edit was at (:32). starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

So 13 hours after you filed this enforcement request, PeterTheFourth writes DHeyward has now self-reverted these edits. In actuality, DHeyward self reverted 22 minutes before.

• @PeterTheFourth: attributes this filing due to slow typing. That's rubbish to me. After DHeyward's self-reverts were done by (:32), PeterTheFourth posted twice [101] (:34) and [102] (:46) on DHeyward's talk page, before filing this at [103] (:54). starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• @PeterTheFourth: - I wasn't expecting a response, but neither am I bothered by you making one. I was just notifying you of my edit, since it was mainly addressing your behavior, and not DHeyward's. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by coldacid

I have to agree with what Starship.paint said. On reviewing the changes from [104] by PeterTheFourth to [105] by DHeyward, what I see is the latter addressing the former's complaints regarding the edits on the GG page (see their discussion, which happened on DHeyward's talk instead of the article talk which would probably have been a more appropriate place).

An argument could be made for 1RR violation, but to me it seems that DHeyward's edits were made with good intentions, and that he adjusted them in deference to Peter's complaints. And yet we're still here. If DHeyward did fall foul of the 1RR rule for the article, maybe give him 24-28 hours tban as a warning, but in any case I'd argue that Peter's hounding and lawyering deserve at least a strong trouting. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 13:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: All this when DHeyward "self-reverted" an entire 22 minutes before you filed your enforcement request. But oh, such minor things really shouldn't be the cause of such consternation. Excuse me while I find myself unable to assume good faith, but this seems like nothing more than a calculated drag through the mud. You, sir, should be ashamed of yourself for bringing in this nonsense. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark

Edits towards compromise are not reversions, especially when accompanied by discussion. Rhoark (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth

DHeyward has now self-reverted these edits, so it's not a problem unless it becomes a pattern. I regret that it took me such a great deal of effort to get him to self-revert for such a trivial mistake, and that he only did so once I'd informed him my only avenue was Arbitration Enforcement (and was, I learn, in the process of submitting this request.) Such minor things really shouldn't be the cause of such consternation, and I believe DHeyward's heavy focus on the content of his edits rather than his violation of 1RR was indicative of a less than optimal mentality. Oh well! PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coldacid: Curse my slow typing! PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: This is the problem which requires me to file an AE request- you seem to not understand what is considered a reversion, and it's proven very difficult to help you in understanding what they are. I will again advise that WP:REVERT is an invaluable resource. "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion."- when you change what I've written to more closely reflect the previous version, it is a reversion. For example, changing 'One YouTube commentator had a DMCA takedown request filed against a video' to 'One YouTube video was removed after a DMCA takedown request was filed' was more in line with what the previous (incorrectly sourced) version was, as that version stated 'One YouTube commentator had a video [...] removed following a DMCA takedown request'. That means you were reverting my initial edit. Is this understandable? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I have provided diffs, and I've even gone to the effort of wholesale quoting the sentences in question. I don't understand why you continue to assert that you've made no reversions. When in doubt: deny deny deny? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: (I assume by being pinged, I am being asked for a response. Do let me know if that's not the case.) I had multiple tabs open- one of which was DHeyward's talk page. I don't advocate doing all of your editing within the confines single tab, nor can I imagine how that would even be tolerable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning DHeyward

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

• Assuming there is a 1RR violation, I'm not inclined to take any action here, or at least nothing more stringent than a reminder to DHeyward to be careful. The 1RR is in place to prevent content disputes getting out of hand (and seems to be doing a reasonable, albeit imperfect, job of that at the minute) so I'm not inclined to enforce it robotically and DH seems to have been unaware that he had breached the 1RR. Obviously if this becomes a pattern I'd be less inclined to assume good faith, but for now I'm not convinced that there are any problems with DH's editing that can't be solved with informal advice. Statements showing a pattern of uncollaborative or disruptive editing, or of gaming the system, by DH would be welcome if such a pattern exists; beyond that, it would be appreciated if third parties could comment only if they can shed light on something thus far left in darkness—we don't need the whole gamergate party bus turning up here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sceptre

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 Sceptre

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Iselilja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sceptre (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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 16 March 2015 Personal attack: Says she opposes James Cantor's presence and his friends crackpot theories.
2. 16 March 2015 Personal attack (implicit BLP violation): "you and your child abusing friends can fuck the hell away from it"
3. 20 March 2015 Upholds PA/implicit BLP violations at ANI "didn't say that your colleague was a child molester, I said he was a child abuser
4. 20 March 2015 Upholds accusations at own user talk page after block: "I personally don't think we should extend civility to child abusers and their sycophants"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Has a long block log for incivility, personal attack, breaches of topic ban etc.

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

Sceptre was a party of the original Sexology case, and has also been notified on a clarifying motion 25 September 2014 . She has been sanctioned in the transgender area previously for breaking a topic ban relating to Manning. See block log above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User has in connection with the latest blow-up committed direct libel against Kenneth Zucker, a merited academic. This libel has been oversighted. Sceptre edited Kenneht Zucker's BLP right after she committed libel against him, which she may go back to again unless a topic ban is placed. Editors should not edit articles on BLPs they repeatedly make deragatory and libelous comments about. (In addition to the oversighted direct libels; there are "indirect" libels where Zucker is not mentioned by name; but referred to as " your friend" or similar. I think a topic ban for the full transgender topic is in order.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notification (though user is currently blocked for a month)

Discussion concerning Sceptre

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.

Result concerning Sceptre

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