Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189

I was topic-banned from RT News for 6 months for "disruptive edits" and I challenge this assertion

Advice given by Ricky is good. I have reviewed the content of the appeal and see no basis for overturning it. NW (Talk) 04:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was banned from both RT News and its talk page because I was supposedly creating "disruptive edits" by asking for scientific, verifiable proof that RT is a propaganda station, asking for studies or some sort of quantifiable data. Instead, I was topic-banned for "disruptive editing"; yet as anyone can see at the RT Talk page I was being very polite until one editor begun accusing me of having a fake account and of editing in poor faith. I think my topic-ban is extremely unjust, and I also call about admins to review the sources behind RT's page, as 'Daily Beast' and Tumblr have never been valid sources, and yet the admin who is attempting to lock debate on the issue of valid sources (he says that RT is "undeniably propaganda"--but that's merely opinion!) has nonetheless attempted to railroad the debate one way, in a way that makes RT look like some sort of propaganda channel, when there is no proof to this scientifically or in quantification. I ask that my 6-month topic ban be reviewed; It's truly unfair, and I received it all in an attempt to better Wikipedia and find good sources, (which reminds me another reason why Wikipedia is dying), which makes me not want to contribute very much here anymore (And I've been contributing, mostly to history-related articles, since 2012) if I'm going to be topic-banned every time I try and make a valid improvement, only to get railroaded by influential editors with admin friends. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC) This is the proper place for that but (a) please consider following the instructions above and using Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal and (b) you'd do a lot better convincing people if you didn't try to argue based on attacking the admin and arguing about how Wikipedia will collapse without you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack

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 Canada Jack

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Canada Jack (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/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 :

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

1. Editing to restore the "original edit" which I point out is wrong.
2. The discussions at Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people are largely self-explanatory. The issue is whether reliable sources should determine who should be listed on the page or some other terminology: the phrasing now is "international body that specifically deals in longevity research" but without identifying the GRG as the only actual source in play.
3. The "no one has 'verified' the age" versus newspapers alleging "reporting" the age (I don't even know anymore) arguing continues here
4. To determine which bodies are said international longevity researching specific-whatever, "We observe what news sources use" so arguing newspapers are unreliable as a source other than to parrot the GRG as a source.
5. "Nice try, Ricky. NONE of the sources outside of GRG / Guinness claim that these birthdates are "verified"... unless GRG/Guinness has verified them!" which is false.
6. "I never said they were the sole authorities, but media around the world use those two almost exclusively, so we should as well, that's all"
7. It's the oldest living people, yet Canada Jack derails the discussion by repeating arguing about the insertion of Methusalah's age knowing full well that's irrelevant, but calling it the logical consequence and the can of worms opened by the lede saying "reliable sources" alone. The section needs an outside admin to just collapse it.
8. Canada Jack has been derailing the discussion by pointing to this article in the Canada Star.[1] While never advocating for her inclusion, (a WP:NOTFORUM problem), he's repeatedly referencing it including just to make snipes on other discussions going on.
9. " This page is for verified claims. The fact a claim was published doesn't establish its veracity."
10. As noted above, there is an argument about the birthdate for Zhou Youguang (not a claim, just that little fact). The only way Canada Jack sees this is "His claim is accepted on its face by the media. But... there is no mention of Guinness and/or GRG as having verified the claim" in regards to his birthdate. As discussed before, no one cares a cent about this until Zhou turned 110 and then there's arguments everywhere that his birthdate must be removed until it's verified by the GRG or else there exists the possibility that Wikipedia is claiming that a supercentenarian exists that the GRG hasn't identified which I don't know why that matters.
11. Finally, to summarize this mentality, "Are you seriously trying to claim that it is the Toronto Star which has determined that the proof is "not solid enough" instead of Guinness? That the Toronto Star, not Guinness, bestows the crown of "world's oldest person"? C'mon, Ricky, surely you can do better than that!"

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

• The talk pages each notify the editor of the discretionary sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is the typical parade of horribles and chaos caused whenever there is an ounce of push-back to even debating the language that doesn't explicitly or implicitly treat the GRG as the last word on the birth date of very old people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In response, I first note that if Canada Jack knew he was wrong, the proper thing is to restore the correct version, not to ignore it until called out here but it's been changed again which doesn't matter with the RFC ongoing. I note that this is again a single issue: is List of oldest living people going to continue to be a walled garden that expresses a particular WP:POV about who is allegedly the world's oldest people or not? Our sourcing policy is clear: we are to have a single WP:NPOV everywhere and a single standard for WP:RS. The analogous WP:MEDRS either believes a fact or strips it away entirely; it does not create separate articles with different sourcing standards. Canada Jack's refusal to accept that is precisely the type of antics that brought about the original longevity ARBCOM case. There is literally nothing in his arguments that hasn't been argued for over a decade. Either we should report on Zhou's birthdate as a fact on his biography, put him in the relevant category, and put him in the (all the) relevant articles (which admittedly the oldest living people is not) or we treat that fact as a WP:FRINGE theory and ignore it entirely. The amount of inane arguing over an article that literally no one supports or has even thought to include longevity claims shows the level of hysteria over any pushback that does nothing but drive away all but the most hardened of editors here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz, is it really robust debate to keep bringing up hypotheticals that you have no interest in actually putting down as a fact? I'm for debate but WP:BLUDGEON and WP:NOTFORUM are also relevant; we wouldn't want a page like "List of the best NBA players" or whatever filled up with navel gazing arguments about what "best" is and someone just throwing out argument after argument, none of which they actually want in the article. Is filling the talk page with comments like this about random alleged oldest people (facts that you yourself aren't arguing to be treated as true) in every single section (Canada Jack is arguing about the oldest guy in Israel in a section about the oldest Japanese man) disruptive itself? I don't see any indication that any of Canada Jack's questioning is actually in response to the RFC issue; rather it's repeated discussion after discussion with example after example (the same ones on oldest living people and at oldest people and elsewhere) regardless of relevancy of just "hi I found a single blog or a newspaper somewhere that said something so STUUUUPID, can't you see how there's some wrong newspapers out there". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Diff

Discussion concerning Canada Jack

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 Canada Jack

My reading of the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" is that it was determined that verified super-centenarian lists from the GRG were considered a "reliable source," and that the non-yet verified lists (Table EE from GRG) were not a "reliable source." However, what we are talking about here is not whether GRG or Table EE is or isn't a RS, it's whether news media reports on longevity claims of those over 110 years old can be used on the "oldest living people" page, if these "reliable sources" suffice to be being included with claims which have been verified by GRG etc., the particular discussion on what the lede should say. The contention here from me and others is the only a recognized authority on verifying these claims should be used in considering these claims "verified," and that news organizations, while "reliable sources," are not able to properly assess these claims, no more than a newspaper, even the New York Times, would publish, say, the latest cancer claims without consulting oncology experts who could better assess and put into context such claims. As Guinness World Records oft stated: "No single subject is more obscured by vanity, deceit, falsehood, and deliberate fraud than the extremes of human longevity," hence the need for a rigorous, more scientific approach in assessing claims. Many news organizations recognize the expertise Guinness and the GRG have on this subject as they are cited, from publications around the world, as having "verified" particular claims. I could supply literally hundreds of examples from around the world of them being cited as authorities.

In attempting to change the lede to allow "verification" from news sources, thus removing the need for sole GRG/Guinness verification, a can of worms is opened, which is what the thrust of the discussion here was. I pointed out that by their own criteria of "reliable sources," dubious claims like that of a woman in Canada who will soon turn 120, would warrant inclusion on this page, thus destroying the credibility of Wikipedia. She would be the oldest person in the world. (News sources, citing Guinness/GRG, routinely identify a woman in New York, at 116, as the world's oldest.) I was never seriously proposing to include her on the page, I was using their own criteria to point out that a highly dubious claim would be admissible, and therefore their changes would be detrimental. This approach from Ricky and others are nakedly anti-GRG, those who argue as I do are routinely painted as shills for GRG, a tone I personally find perplexing - it's as if the approach here is to "get back" at GRG, for some undefined reason.

In sum: There should be no sanction/remedy as I have not engaged in discussion on the subjects for which a sanction/remedy is warranted. And, therefore, discussions on whether non-GRG sources should be considered for inclusion is a topic for which there are no restrictions.

As for his DIFFs...

1 was a good-faith edit, I reverted an edit to what I thought was the original edit as a discussion (the one I refer to) was on-going. He pointed out the error, and I made no further edit. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

2 discussions are on the subject Ricky (I believe it was him) initiated. If I am violating something for engaging in discussion, then surely Ricky, who initiated it, is too. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

3 Debating verification is not prohibited - the original decision was the one mentioned above - I'm not challenging GRG as a reliable source; I'm not arguing that GRG's Table EE is a reliable source.

4 He has made a what I consider to be an invalid line of reasoning, making a strawman argument by dismissing an argument I never made. Specifically, that if newspapers are "unreliable" as he claims I am suggesting, then how we can rely on them when they cite GRG/Guinness? But I've never argued the newspapers are "unreliable," just that they are not experts on the subject. Using his logic, if the New York Times cites a cancer expert, we can't say that that person, no matter his/her credentials, is an "expert" as the New York Times is not expert in the subject. I don't buy that line of reasoning, and that was not what I was saying. And, I never suggested we can only verify if cited by a paper, just that newspapers routinely cite GRG/Guinness, therefore they are considered (by media outlets around the world) to be experts on the subject. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

5 He says it is "false" that media outlets don't say a claim is "verified" without quoting GRG/Guinness. But he's never supplied an example of a claim being called "verified" without a mention of GRG/Guinness. I don't think he understood the point I was making. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

6 The quote simply states the obvious - they are considered by media world-wide as experts, so should we. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

7 As I pointed out repeatedly to Ricky, the section in question asked "Who is the world's oldest ever person?" I simply applied the "reliable source" argument - which is at the heart of the discussion here - to that case. It was a Reductio ad absurdum argument directly related to the "verification" and "reliable sources" issues. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

8 Again, as I earlier pointed out that, given the very criteria Ricky and others are proposing, this woman - Canadian Emma Laurent - would appear on this page even though she is three years older than who Guinness recognizes as the world's oldest. The point was to underline the consequences of the actions proposed - destroying the credibility of the page. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

9 Again, this is not debating what was resolved and for which there is sanction for discussing - that GRG is a reliable source; that GRG's Table EE is not a reliable source.

10 Ricky misrepresents the discussion at hand. The point was not whether Zhou was verified or not by GRG, the point was the only difference between the Laurent case and the Zhou case in terms of "verified" by "reliable sources" is that Zhou's article doesn't mention GRG/Guinness while Laurent's does - in saying Guinness doesn't accept the claim. He insists that this mere mention disqualifies Laurent for inclusion on the page and that the "non-mention" of GRG/Guinness in Zhou means it warrants inclusion. That makes no sense, as if Zhou doesn't appear on the Guinness/GRG lists, then they've not verified him either - so Ricky and others are employing a double-standard. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source.

11 Ricky made numerous false statements on the Laurent article (that Canada copied Haiti's verification of the case - there is no mention of that in the article; that Canada issued a passport on the strength of Haiti's information - there is nothing in the article which says that, indeed the word "passport" doesn't even appear; that the Toronto Star believes the claims is "not proven" when that was the description of Guinness's evaluation of the claim). The final claim is what the quote discusses - his contention that "not proven" means the Star has determined that and, by implication (given the out-of-context quote he used) The Star awards the crown of "world's oldest person," an obvious absurdity. This neither disputes that GRG is a "reliable source," nor argues for GRG's Table EE to be considered a reliable source. Canada Jack (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Canadian Paul

I'm a little concerned with individuals being brought to Arbitration Enforcement simply because they disagree with the way longevity articles should be handled. As noted below, only one of the diffs is actually an edit to the article and thus I do not see Canada Jack engaging the type of contentious, single-agenda editing that these sanctions were enacted to prevent (and I agree fully that there is so much of it that it easy to get frustrated/be sensitive about it). I understand Canada Jack's reasoning (even if I don't agree with it) and I don't see it as disrupting the project because the article itself is not being affected by it and if he can accept his views as not being the consensus, then that will be all there is to it. Bringing dissenting voices to AE (see also the failed AE request for Lugnuts) only serves to transform an already contentious topic into more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND than it already is. Canadian Paul 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Result concerning Canada Jack

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

• Robustly defending your position on an article talk page is not disruptive unless the user is refusing to be bound by the eventual consensus or disruptively edit warring to advance their position. I'm really not seeing enough disruption in Canada Jack's edits to merit any action unless there is a clear indication that they will behave disruptively in future. @Canada Jack: please can you put these concerns to rest by confirming that you will respect the consensus that emerges on verifiability and that you will not take part in further edit wars? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof

We're not going to block someone for submitting a terrible BLP to AFD. Nobody cares about this except GG partisans on both sides. Please edit the encyclopedia or find another website to use to argue. Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2016 (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 NorthBySouthBaranof User who is submitting this request for enforcement Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#NorthBySouthBaranof topic-banned Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Scope of standard topic ban Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [2] nominating the article for deletion [3] participating in the AfD discussion [4] participating in the AfD discussion [5] removal of inquiry from his own talkpage (i.e. refusal to dicuss the issue) Additional comments by editor filing complaint The remedy states that: "Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." The nomination was about Chanty Binx (Google search results about her), a feminist who has gained Internet-fame after arguing with men's rights activists in Toronto in 2013. It is thus a gender-related dispute or controversy, and even directly Gamergate-related due to the "meme-status" which can be confirmed by combining the full name or nickname as indicated in the "Knowyourmeme.com" article and "Gamergate". I do agree with the outcome of AfD (it's best fit in the forementioned site, not Wikipedia). However, there's no doubt that the person in question is very notable in Internet feminism-related disputes and her video in Youtube, which I will not link for possible BLP reasons, has over 1 million views. NorthBySouthBaranof also removed an inquiry by another user on his talk page (4th diff). This is aggravating in my opinion because raising an issue on someone's talkpage is the first, and these days without RFC/U, pretty much the only way for dispute resolution. Hence posting here. --Pudeo' 01:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC) The discussion whether it's directly related to Gamergate is actually besides the point since the remedy is about "gender-related dispute or controversy -- broadly construed". I just mentioned that "inofficially" it even is related, well obviously, since Gamergate is about people opposing feminism and men's rights activists is about people opposing feminism so it has much of the same audience. And as I just mentioned, it's gender-related disputes broadly construed, I don't think there's any question that a an AfD about a feminist activist wouldn't fit in to the category. Nothing else to add.--Pudeo' 02:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested diff Discussion concerning NorthBySouthBaranof Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof I stumbled on the page in question doing standard new-pages patrol. It was a wholly-negative biography of a living person sourced only to an unacceptable source (Know Your Meme) and utterly failed our basic content standards for biographies. The question of whether it might be a "gender-related controversy" didn't even cross my mind — the fact is, the page wasn't an acceptable biography of a living person. Even with other putative sources added, it appeared to me that there was no possibility of writing an encyclopedic biography of the person, so I nominated it for deletion and briefly engaged in discussion. It was at that point — one week ago — that another long-time user in good standing privately reminded me of the topic ban and that it might be construed as a violation. I recognized the issue, heeded the advice, disengaged from the deletion discussion and took no further part in editing the article, which has since been deleted by a clear and overwhelming consensus that it is unsuitable for the encyclopedia. On the other hand, the "another user" Pudeo refers to is an obvious SPA troll/sock account with a grand total of three 0-byte articlespace contributions 7 months ago who somehow "magically" leaped into discussion of an AfD and a topic-ban. I decline to engage in any conversation with obvious trolls. The record speaks for itself and the chips will fall where they may. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC) I do want to comment that the "Google result" argument is absurd on its face. I don't make a habit of obsessively appending "Gamergate" to all my Google searches, like DHeyward and Pudeo apparently do. A simple Google or Google News search for the article subject reveals absolutely nothing to connect this to "Gamergate," and what a non-notable Canadian feminist has to do with "ethics in video game journalism" escapes me. I did not have not and never will read the "KnowYourMeme" article Pudeo refers to, because nothing in that article can ever have relevance to Wikipedia content. All I needed to see was that the only sourcing was to KYM, and that was enough to know it was unacceptable for Wikipedia. The first person to utter the word "Gamergate" in the context of this article was Pudeo, here. The second person was DHeyward, also here. No other user in any point anywhere on the encyclopedia claimed any connection between this article and "Gamergate." If there is someone here fomenting "GG drama," that person is not me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC) The purported "Google News" hit DHeyward claims is a user comment on an entirely-unrelated article that nowhere mentions Binx. The fact that an anonymous Internet user calls a person "anti-GG" in an anonymous Internet comment thread does not make that person "Gamergate-related" — or else effectively anything in the entire world could be "Gamergate-related." You're seriously reaching here, DHeyward. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC) The IP appears to be mistaken on several levels; for one, the account they purport to link with me is not banned. Their paranoiac ramblings about some secret "mailing list" are similarly nonsensical. I ask that a clerk or administrator strike their comment as an unfounded personal attack. If DHeyward wishes to comment about "drama," he had best look in the mirror. This is the true result of the topic ban — I have a malicious band of anonymous trolls following me around the encyclopedia searching for any excuse to create drama — even an AfD and an article that I haven't edited in a week. None was to be found on this subject until they interjected themselves. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Johnuniq I noticed this at ANI (permalink). That report was opened by an account with a total of 7 edits made six months ago. The same account posted at NorthBySouthBaranof's talk. Asserting that NBSB's removal of that post was a "refusal to dicuss the issue" is very unrealistic. If there is an issue, why didn't an established editor raise it? Why didn't Pudeo or anyone else watching ANI discuss it with NBSB? The answer is that there is nothing to discuss—the article was an WP:ATTACK, should have been deleted, and was deleted. The AfD proceeded smoothly and the community endorsed NBSB's action by deleting the article with a very solid consensus. I examined the article and would have advised NBSB to disengage if I thought the "gender-related dispute or controversy" claim was reasonable. I could not see such a dispute—it looked like a standard attack article where the subject protested during a lecture at a university and was heckled and criticized afterwards. Not a "dispute or controversy", but a flash-in-the-pan incident commemorated with an obviously inappropriate BLP. The article I recall did not phrase the issue as a feminist versus men's rights activists—if the Internet searches mentioned above show that such a connection exists, they should be discounted as it is not reasonable to go beyond how the topic was expressed on-wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by DHeyward This is obviously more GamerGate nonsense as the Google result shows and NBSB should know that GamerGate topics are off-limits. It's exactly what his Topic Ban covers. NPP and BLP are specious reasons for creating the GG drama of an AfD started by a topic banned editor. No different then those GG topic-banned editors proposing deletion of Quinn or any number of other articles related to GG. --DHeyward (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC) For the record, my search is this and doesn't include Gamergate[6]. It returns gamerGate though. I had no idea who she was until I searched and GG nonsense came back. --DHeyward (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhododendrites I don't have any great reason to believe the subject of the AfD has any obvious connection with GamerGate, but it would seem to fit into the category of "gender-related controversy". The article was primarily about a video of the subject's conflict with men's rights advocates. She was engaging them on the subject of feminism and its relationship with men's rights and the interaction became heated. The article was also about the harassment she received afterwards, stemming directly from the video. Even a quick glance at the sources shows the subject to be inextricably linked to both feminism and antifeminism. In fact, she's probably best known for a meme based on the video used broadly to caricature/ridicule feminists. However, there is an exception to such topic bans for "obvious" BLP violations (WP:BANEX). As far as I know that exception applies to GG sanctions, too. The article was about a subject of ridicule and harassment who is currently reported to be in hiding, and even the small amount of text in the article that wasn't a basic description of events included a negative judgment of her representation of feminists. Every one of the sources was unusable per WP:BLPSPS and the topic was a pretty clear WP:BLP1E. As for whether all of this constitutes "obvious" violations, well, to be honest I'm not certain -- and for that reason I feel a little weird making this my first AE post. I don't follow AE much so don't have a great handle on what precedent is for gray area like this. But I did spend some time with this article and the AfD, and know that, at least from my perspective, I saw major red flags that some might consider "obvious". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth I participated in this AfD. I believe there are probably valid WP:BLP based exceptions to the topic ban if it is determined that this article falls under the purview of the topic ban, given that people were raising concerns that it was a attack page at the deletion discussion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by IP If Mark Bernstein shows up then we'll have nearly the entire gang of "usuals" magically showing up to defend each other. May as well get rid of the topic ban since this all seems to be part of the plan. For fuck's sake, he was already site banned under his previous account for his bullshit. Everyone knows who he is, what he is and how he'll continue to behave and give a giant middle finger to anyone not on his mailing list. Statement by MarkBernstein The unsigned comment above, attributed to "IP", is interesting. The phrase, "for fuck’s sake” -- is that perhaps related to the current Case Request, in which an exasperated admin said something like this? If discussing whether or not Chanty Binx merits a Wikipedia biography falls under the ambit of "gender-based controversies", then in fact the biography of any woman who has every expressed an opinion falls under that ambit. If ArbCom had wished the topic ban to encompass "all biographies of women" or "all biographies", they were perfectly capable of doing so. This complaint is not intended to prevent disruption.' It is itself disruptive. In point of fact, it’s being coordinated at the Gamergate boards, originally launched by that charming fellow whose user name recalls the sweet, sweet music of Nazi dive bombers exterminating Spanish civilians. For shame. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Fascinating how Gamaliel’s close was just undone by an editor so new that they followed they unclose at WP:AE by taking a moment to create a user page. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by a procrastinating Brustopher I've been trying to stay away from Wikipedia for the past month or so, but I really must oppose any block here. The article was utter crap, initially largely negative and a blatant case of BLP1E. Perhaps not a "blatant BLP violation" of the sort traditionally meant by WP:BANEX but definitely not a disruptive move that he should be punished for. I'd disagree with User:DHeyward that this is comparable with GGers AfDing Zoe Quinn, as this was a blatant BLP1E case where the article clearly should have been deleted. If NBSB had nominated TFYC or something along those lines at AfD while topic banned, that would have been a completely different story. I'll also note that the GG topic ban is very broad and everyone and their mother seems to (presumably accidentally) breach it at some point or another. I've seen multiple editors that are far more sympathetic to GG than NBSB breach their "broadly construed" topic bans, but none of them ever get dragged to AE for it. I'd ask the peanut gallery to consider this next time they complain about NBSB allegedly being immune to sanctions. NBSB clearly did the right thing according to BLP policy, and drew attention to a crap, obscure, negative BLP article that may likely have avoided attention had he not intervened. To block him for this would be petty, bureaucratic and encourage the persistence of bad BLP articles within the encyclopedia. Bosstopher2 (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning NorthBySouthBaranof This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

AJB43

No action, since the user has agreed not to edit the OETA article until they satisfy the 500/30 rule that has been imposed as an WP:ARBPIA remedy EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning AJB43 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested AJB43 (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:ARBPIA3#500/30 : "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 22:41, 29 January 2016 revert 21:43, 30 January 2016 revert 01:31, 31 January 2016 revert 06:43, 31 January 2016 revert 06:17, 1 February 2016 revert If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) [7] informed by edit summary [8] acknowledges the information and denies it applies [9] informed on talk page [10] acknowledges the information, says "I read the link", again denies it applies. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Although talk pages are included in the ARBPIA3 general prohibition (it says "pages", not "articles", and this interpretation was confirmed at WP:ARCA), I did not list such edits. The only issue here is whether the page Occupied Enemy Territory Administration "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". To clarify, OETA was the military government established by the British government in Palestine when it was conquered from the Ottoman Empire in 1917. It lasted until replaced by a civilian government in 1922. This was a key moment in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. To judge AJB43's denial, we only need to read AJB43's edit summaries and text to see that AJB43 is editing the article precisely out of concern for the Arab-Israeli conflict: "It is not relevant to put the name of something [referring to Palestine] that is not a country here, it distorts the on the ground realities of today." "The "State of Palestine" is a partially recognized non-entity that has no effective control of anything on the ground. Thus, it is not a country" "Palestine is an only semi-recognized non-entity that doesn't claim what its borders are." [11] The 30/500 rule was introduced to keep PIA articles from being disrupted by SPA editors like this. Unfortunately, there are not yet (correct me if I'm wrong) the technical means to enforce it. Please enforce this case by a long block. Zerotalk 07:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notified Zerotalk 07:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning AJB43 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 AJB43 I submitted the dispute for a third opinion earlier, and prior to this reporting. User Zero0000 is the biased one here, reverting my non-partisan edits for personal, partisan goals. My edits are not out of concern for the Arab-Israeli Conflict, and could not reasonably be construed that way. My edits are made out of pedantry- the successor area to the OETA that Zero0000 wants to refer to as Palestine is in fact the Palestinian National Authority. This is about precise terms for an online encyclopedia, not a vested interest on my part. If you look at Zero0000's user page, it explicitly states the term "Palestine," and displays numerous other examples of the user's interest in the Arab-Israel Conflict, including stating that Zero0000 has been to "Palestine (West Bank and Gaza). That is clear conflict of interest right there. I edit the article to show "Palestinian National Authority," but Zero0000 doesn't like this because personal opinions hold that it must be "Palestine." This is spin at its finest. The user is the one who is reverting my edits and trying to have me banned because the user wants to interject politics into a Wikipedia article, in which POV has no place. I appeal against any ban. AJB43 (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)AJB43 Statement by (username) Result concerning AJB43 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I've just added the template {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} at Talk:Occupied Enemy Territory Administration. Our article on the Arab–Israeli conflict goes back to the 19th century to explain the conflict, and has three paragraphs on the time period beginning in 1917 which is when the OETA was active. It is clear that the OETA article is part of the broadly-construed topic area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We should give the editor AJB43 the opportunity to back away from the dispute to avoid a block for violating the 500-30 rule. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Per AJB43's agreement to stop editing the article until he reaches 500 edits and 30 days tenure, I think this report can be closed without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

HistoryWrite

Banninated by user:Bishonen for egregious gaming of the system.
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 HistoryWrite User who is submitting this request for enforcement Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested HistoryWrite (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:ARBPIA3 : 30 day, 500 edit general prohibition. Details of charges This editor has made hundreds of junk edits to "satisfy" the 500-edit rule for editing in the Arab-Israel area. I can't list them all here, please see its contributions, its user page, and read its comment "Malik, now that I have amassed 500+ nonsense edits, how will you justify your unilateral deletions of my contributions, and your rewriting of history with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict?" [12]. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Almost certainly a sock, but I'm no good at identifications. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Edit quoted above proves both awareness and intention to subvert. Also got ARBPIA notice on talk page. Additional comments by editor filing complaint This is intolerable. Less than a permablock would be too little. Zerotalk 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notified Zerotalk 09:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning HistoryWrite 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 HistoryWrite In Wikipedia’s Arab-Israeli topics, I have made very important and cited contributions, among them: “the Palestine Liberation Organization had been an internationally recognized terrorist organization” “Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital” “Jordan had occupied then annexed the West Bank and then attacked Israel in the Six Day War” My contributions were based on historical facts, germane to the topics, and gave historical context to what have become pro-Palestinian propaganda Wikipedia pages. Yet, people taking decidedly anti-Israel points of views, deleted all of my contributions. Ultimately, Malik Shabazz, to his credit, did not send me to arbitration, he gave me a warning, not about content, but technicality: Wikipedia:ARBPIA3. Therefore, I wrote the following in my Userpage: I am HistoryWrite. Unlike many who suppress their agendas, mine is clear and open. I am on Wikipedia to combat the Arab/Muslim-led political warfare campaigns and efforts to distort and falsely rewrite history in regard to Israel and the Middle East in general, and the Arab-Palestinian agenda in particular. Many efforts have been made to block my historical additions and a recent warning was given to me that I must have 30 days and 500 edits in Wikipedia in order to edit “controversial” pages such as the State of Palestine or the Palestine Liberation Organization. As such, I now have more than 30 days, and here are my 500 edits that once and for all make me legitimate to write factual historical information, specifically regarding the most prominent contributions of the PLO (and many Palestinians): violence and terrorism. My 1…500 edits. Subsequently, I left a note for Malik informing him that I now have the required number of edits. However, to correct the context and meaning, the “500+ nonsense edits” refer ONLY to the numerical edits in my own Userpage, and DO NOT refer to ANY of my edits/contributions in Wikipedia in general, or the Arab-Israeli topic in particular. The Wikipedia:ARBPIA3 would curtail Gore Vidal if he were to join Wikipedia today, although I’m sure the intent is rather to stop drive by attacks. My contributions have been substantial. Interestingly, if a person writes a 30,000 word article and hits save, that is one edit. Correcting a comma is one edit. Where’s the logic, but I digress. Contributors are weighing in on many issues: WP:POVPUSH; User:FDJK001; “hundreds of junk edits”; “aggressive statement”; “POV-warrior gaming the system,” I’m “not a serious editor.” Those statements are either wrong or irrelevant to why I am here. [Note, Torven actually wrote that someone was banned for the same thing, when in fact, the operator was banned for abusively using multiple accounts.] What is most difficult to understand are why people like Guy and EdJohnston would okay a site ban prior first reading any statement of explanation from me. I have been published in major newspapers and I have a relevant voice that will be heard. At the end of the day, I was warned, and now I have 500 edits. I would rather this arbitration deal with the propaganda that is allowed by the pro-Palestinian perspective, rather than banishing me on a technicality. Speaking of technicality, I was actually sent to arbitration after I had the 500 edits. HistoryWrite Statement by Nomoskedasticity Surely the aggressive statement of intent on the user page is enough to demonstrate that this editor is not here to contribute to an encyclopaedia but instead to WP:POVPUSH. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Torven I had to go digging for it, but this isn't the first time someone has tried to sneak into the circus this way. About six months ago, User:FDJK001 was banned for doing almost the exact same thing. Considering the user's talk page, I don't see much reason to view this situation any differently.Torven (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC) User:FDJK001 was not banned for "almost the same thing." The user's page states: This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operator has abusively used multiple accounts. HistoryWrite @HistoryWrite: Check his block log. Before the Checkuser results were posted to his page, he was blocked for, among other things, gaming sanctions. The intent of the 500/30 restriction isn't to make you crank out 500 edits as quickly as you can. It's to give new users time to learn how Wikipedia works, both technically and in policy, before they dive into an area that frequent disruption has turned into a minefield. For instance, I've been browsing the site for several years and actively following the notice boards for just over a year. I know some policies well enough, since it is impossible to follow some notice board discussions without them. At the same time, I had no clue how to ping a user until last week when DHeyward pinged me (which, by the way, if you are reading this, thank you for that). Seeing how more experienced editors post and interacting with them is one of the best ways to learn, and by trying to circumvent the sanctions, you have shown you have no interest in learning how to work with the community and are here simply to push your point of view. That won't get you very far, and may have already sabotaged your stated agenda. Also, this board does not use threaded discussions; everyone responds in their own section. Torven (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Darkfrog24 Non-involved non-admin here. To answer your question HistoryWrite, the logic behind the 500 edits rule is to force new editors to practice on non-controversial parts of Wikipedia before jumping into the deep end (and also to make it harder to use fake accounts). The rules here are byzantine and even experienced users can run afoul of regulations that they didn't know were there. If you'd spent your thirty days doing real editing you might have found out that the place to deal with the problems you see in the articles on Palestine is at parts of the site dedicated to a neutral point of view or run across a productive request for comment or found out what is meant when we say that Wikipedia focuses on verifiability rather than truth. Even if, let's say, you spent the past thirty days conscientiously reading Wikipedia talk page discussions (I'm doing something called assuming good faith), you didn't learn what you needed to learn. For example, you added this text about the PLO attacking civilians [13] but you didn't cite a reliable source backing it up; it's an important step and you didn't know you weren't supposed to skip it. Five hundred edits on regular articles would have gone a long way toward proving that you were at least trying; they were meant to establish your reputation. People here find your edits disturbing because it makes it look like you care more about technicalities than about cooperating with other Wikieditors. It's a little like someone cheating on their driving test. Even if your edits didn't involve running over anyone's grandmother, we're still not confident that you know what the blinking yellow light means. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph The ruling of ARBCOM says 500 edits. That's what this guy did. Just like all other stupid ARBCOM ruling that comes back to bite them such as 1RR or we can revert for no reason. Maybe next time ARBCOM will clarify and issue a ruling with clarify and think it through. But as the ruling stands, this person did nothing wrong. And of course, since he's pro-Israel, he automatically gets labeled a sock. I'm surprised I wasn't yet labeled a sock at some point. That is of course how it works in this area. Regardless, what Wikipedia doesn't need is yet another pro-Israel editor kicked away merely to prove to the world the bias of Wiki. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC) @Nomoskedasticity, Have you looked at Nableezy or Nishidany or a million other of editor's statements? Why are only pro-Israeli statements fair game? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC) @Darkfrog24 adding that the PLO targeted civilians is WP:COMMON and should not need a reference and while you state you are AGF, I fail to see it. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC) maybe if you guys wouldn't be so militant about reporting every third pro Israel editor he wouldn't be so vocal?? Just a thought? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Serialjoepsycho I'd classify this as WP:GAMING the system. If someone can just type 1 letter on their own talk page 500 separate times then there's no point behind this rule. Wikipedia we put emphasis behind the spirit of the rules more than the letter of the rules. The question is if he spirit of this is clear? If it is clear you should ban them outright and if it's not you should simply require that they get 500 more edits before editing in this topic area, and 500 that aren't the nonsense that took place here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Reviewing everything, that this gaming was in response to the reversion of this edit [14]today and all the wikilawyering above, I can't see any call for any actual leniency here. This SPA and their behavior is exactly what ARBCOM drafted this rule to stop. It would seem apt to drop a indef ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning HistoryWrite This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This is an unambiguous case of a POV-warrior gaming the system. An indefinite topic ban is the obvious solution. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC) It's hard to imagine a better way to prove you are not a serious editor than to do stuff like this. I'd be OK with either an indef topic ban or an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Thirded. Support an indefinite topic ban as well. The userpage itself lends itself to an indefinite NOTHERE block but I'm willing to WP:AGF that there is a chance at an edit that isn't going to confirm an indefinite block but basically one more edit is sufficient to make that case. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry, I can't bear the idea of piddling around with topic bans for this kind of crude gaming of the system. I expected such cases might happen when the 500/30 rule was first instituted (on Gamergate) — though I didn't expect it to be quite this open and unembarrassed — and I always assumed they would mean a WP:NOTHERE block. I have blocked the user indefinitely. I hope nobody minds. (I'll have to do the formalities, logging etc, tomorrow, my computer is about to shut down.) Bishonen | talk 23:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC). Late to the discussion, but for the record I blocked FDJK01 (talk · contribs) for transparent gaming of the 500/30 rule. This is even more blatant, and the bad-faith contempt for the restriction indicates that they have no business on Wikipedia. I endorse Bishonen's indef. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC) As do I, as an individual. The rule was intended as a screen to keep out the newest disputants, but perhaps it might work also as a way of identifying the troublemakers. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Darkfrog24

Darkfrog24's existing topic ban is replaced with a topic ban from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including your and other's user talk pages. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016). Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2016 (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 Darkfrog24 User who is submitting this request for enforcement SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Darkfrog24 (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/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#Dicklyon and Darkfrog24 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 23 January 2016 Despite many admin warnings to move on, in previous AE and after ([15], etc.), Darkfrog24 instead attempts harassment by tagteam proxy, trying to recruit a fellow frequent MOS/AT editor (who didn't take the bait and is not a party here) to go after me vexatiously while DF24 cheerleads: "I'm going to be speaking very carefully because I'm the one under topic ban right now. (I.e., is aware[16][17] they're crossing the ban's edge.) "If you want to ... just talk about frustration with SmC, that's one thing. If you have something concrete enough for a formal complaint, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Some of this [material provided by DF24 on the banned-topic] may be corroborating." 23 January 2016 Darkfrog24 posts (in same discussion) material about me and the (temporary) result of my WP:ANEW request about DF24's logical-quotation (LQ) editwarring at MOS and mainspace – the very topic of DF24's ban. 28 January 2016 Further pursuit of same dispute, in user talk, projecting implications that I'm the one harassing, and I'm posting on their talk page (I haven't, since DF24 asked me a question by name there [18], days ago. 22 January 2016 Canvassing admins, after the ban [more diffed in comments section, re: aspersions], to advise DF24 how "to oppose a longstanding Wikimedia MoS rule" and "do [something] about it", i.e. how resume the fight against consensus they were banned for. Editor even changed thread name to refer to their ban in posting this violation of it. A nearly identical message was posted on talk pages of several other admins (JzG, Laser brain, EdJohnston, Thryduulf, etc.), but I have diff limits, and can't insert them all here. It's a whole series of ban violations, showing irreconcilable WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:GREATWRONGS. JzG sums it very clearly. There are other examples, but this should be enough, and I think admins here are already aware of them. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 22 January 2016 Topic ban, from aforementioned AE request, delivered by Thryduulf If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: DF24 received a {{Ds/alert}} for WP:ARBATC and warning (not overturned) 6 September 2015, resulting from the aforementioned ANEW request. Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months: The one that resulted in their ban. Additional comments by editor filing complaint DF24 is transgressing their ban and WP:ARBATC, perpetuating and more intensely personalizing the AT/MOS dispute central to the ban, seemingly for revenge. Was specifically warned against such behavior (diffs of other warnings also available). Just before the ban, DF24 wrote: "The way I see it, I've done nothing wrong" [19]. AE already made the problems clear. DF24 blames me for their ban, disputing everywhere the evidence I provided, as if AE admins were unable to assess it correctly. When I raised these matters with Thryduulf (who said take it to AE), DF24 didn't take the hint (third diff), pursuing it on my own talk page while professing to not want interaction; this defies reason on several levels. Admins suggested that, DF24 being a professional proofreader, that this an obvious productive area [20], [21]. But DF24 says they mostly can't stand to do it, because WP's punctuation choices are not "correct English". [22]. This fundamentalist, anti-linguistics view is central to the matter – MoS must be changed, no matter what and how long it takes, because it is wrong. This will not be cured by a block of any length. Over six years of tendentious, disruptive campaigning, yet DF24 admits our users don't care about this punctuation trivia anyway [23] Keeping this up is WP:NOTHERE (at least regarding ARBATC). Third party in the first two diffs (we're interacting well now) isn't involved in the LQ debate, and found the circular rehash of it at WT:MOS tiresome in September. He's just a not-random AT/MOS editor – one to whom DF24 (noting an earlier argument between me and that editor about MOS) has repeatedly cast WP:ASPERSIONS about my mental health, after the ban [24], and after Ds/alert: [25], [26]. Also, a long string of dishonesty allegations (increasing after ban) without evidence, only links to DF24's previous claims and denials [27], [28], [29], [30], etc. Can prove this habit of incivility and gaslighting is much broader, but would need length-limit extension. Remedy proposed Given the personalized nature of DF24's continuance of the dispute, the attempts to recruit a previously uninvolved AT/MOS editor to tagteam (see also last AE's evidence of attempt to recruit a new editor to file anti-MOS:LQ RfC on DF24's behalf), and the fact that DF24 has been quite productive in unrelated mainspace and other things since the TB, I suggest the best response isn't the promised block (could make grudgematching worse), but: Extended topic ban, from the scope of WP:ARBATC (i.e. WP:MOS, WP:AT, and related pages, which involve mostly overlapping issues and editing circles), with a longer time before appeal. "Walling-off" would remove DF's ability to involve more AT/MOS editors in style-warrior crusading, permits ongoing good editing, and obviates further admin action. DF24 needs to start up a new conversation with other guests in some different room at the Wikipedia party. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 20:14, 28 January 2016 by SMcCandlish Later responses as needed Re: Darkfrog24's "defense", I don't think I need to respond to much of anything in it in detail. It's all obvious deflect-and-misdirect handwaving, and a return to the claim that AE admins didn't already look at the evidence presented last time and determine what it meant. The editor clearly refuses to accept that pursuing the same take-down-MoS-editors-who-cross-me battlegrounding pattern that multiple admins warned them to stop pursuing is not okay just because they craftily avoid including the words "quotation marks". Using WP:CIVILPOV techniques to veil emotional-instability and dishonesty insinuations behind wording one can play "CYA" games with when called on it is WP:SANCTIONGAMING (the very "Are you okay?" post DF24 cites as exonerating, is actually just another example of the same "something must be wrong with you" insinuation pattern). A sensible answer would have been "sorry, I just hadn't fully dropped it yet, I have now, and it won't happen again." Instead it's just more attempts to turn AE attention to someone else so the gaming can continue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC) @Thryduulf: I can certainly voluntarily avoid interacting with Darkfrog24 (was already doing so since Jan. 26). I don't think a mutual interaction ban is justified, and dropped my own suggestion of a one-way IBAN because it would be redundant with the wider TBAN proposed. No problem (much less two-way, or one-way from me) is occurring when I run into DF24 outside ARBATC-scope discussions, e.g. when mutually participating in some random WP:NPOVN thread (Jan. 26). Even in ARBATC discussions that do not touch on the quotation marks thing, I've often bolstered DF24's views, e.g. [31] & [32]; [33] & [34] (anon was me accidentally logged out [35]); [36]; [37] & [38]; [39]; etc., etc. – some of those during then-ongoing quotation marks disputation elsewhere; I was careful to not let my irritation with the editor's behavior in that topic affect my responses to them otherwise. The problem isn't that DF24 and SMcC can't get along (even in ARBATC matters in particular), it's that DF24 just will not drop one ARBATC issue, and it's affecting their ability to be constructive in that sector, including now trying to get other ARBATC editors to manufacture WP:DRAMA with whoever DF24 is angry at over this pet issue (the target is incidentally me this time, but could just as easily have been Dicklyon or someone else). DF24's counter-suggestion of harassment by me, to deflect attention from their own, has no merit. I've twice suggested (in both these AE threads) that DF24 should not be blocked, just separated from the conflict area and left to keep editing, and also defended them against an earlier accusation of TBAN violation [40], as well as omitted evidence from this filing of an additional violation on the basis that it was unintentional. Not exactly hounding, is it?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Clarified, 02:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Re: DF24's additional comments: "I want ... to speak at any formal complaint that might be filed against SmC ... to file one myself ... to participate ... with CurlyTurkey [against SMcC]" is a long way of saying DF24 is actively planning to hound me forever, and laying out this plan right in front of AE. The admonitions against this still aren't sinking in, even after a wider topic ban and an interaction ban are contemplated. So, I reinstate my original request [41] for a 1-way IBAN in addition to an expanded TBAN. I took it on good faith that DF24 was just angry at not getting their way, but below they state clearly that now it's an anti-SMcC thing in particular. Good faith assumption is now exhausted, per WP:SPADE/WP:DUCK. The other stuff can be dispensed with quickly: "[SMcC] does not understand how I think or why I do what I do." Oh, I agree. I take pains not to imply any particular motivation for the Great Quotation Marks Crusade. DF24 seems to entirely believe what they're saying and that "opposing ... and doing something about" logical quotation at all costs is of vital importance for Wikipedia, even if DF24 knows the rest of the project doesn't care (see previous diffs). That it was arguably being done in good faith doesn't make the end result okay. This won't-let-go behavior is similar to that which resulted in another whole-topic ban against DF24 in a mainspace area. The "stop presuming to take credit for my work" thing is a non-sequitur, and another evidence-free aspersion. "[T]alk to Tony1, SlimV and Izno" – DF24 already canvassed the other MoS regulars in the last AE request, with no effect on the outcome. The rest of DF24's response is more projection and gaslighting, more "not me" reversal of DF24's own behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Re: "If SmC pulls on someone else what he pulled on me" – i.e. presented evidence that AE accepted. (DF24's new diff is, as usual, just another link to DF24 asserting the same opinion in a previous discussion, not to actual evidence.) WP does not need someone to make it their mission on here to fire up a personalized dispute every time a particular individual and any other editor have an issue to air out between them that doesn't involve DF24. Darkfrog24 is effectively testifying against their own case, really effectively. Enough said. I'm going back to sourcing and other real wiki-work. If I'm needed for anything, please ping me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Re: "in what way do you believe my conversation with Curly_Turkey was not consistent with the letter or spirit of the topic ban? ... it did not concern quotation marks or the MoS in any way" – This is clear in the AE request: Diffing material relating to the previous (ANEW) eruption of the LQ editwarring, in furtherance of generating additional disputation with one of the other editors in the LQ discussion, obviously isn't consistent with either the letter or spirit of the TBAN. Switch topics: Would it be okay for someone TBANned from GMOs or Israel/Palestine to diff old GMO or Israel/Palestine disputes and encourage another editor to launch new disputes against one's opposition on that issue? Obviously not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning Darkfrog24 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 Darkfrog24 The topic ban covers quotation marks and WP:LQ [42]. It does not cover SMcCandlish specifically or talking about other editors or their behavior in general. For all SMC's links, please just look at what I actually said, in its original context. Do not take his summary of matters at face value. Diff #1: Saturday, user @Curly Turkey: pinged me to ask if SMcCandlish had violated a topic ban placed against him in September[43] [44]. I told CT that said topic ban had a two-month expiration date and had been appealed anyway.[45] In other words, CT asked "Did SMC break the rules?" and I answered "No he didn't." Curly also referenced SMC's behavior, which has been inappropriate. We were not talking about WP:LQ or quotation marks the MoS; we were talking about SMcCandlish. 2 is just #1 again. 3 I want SMcCandlish to leave me alone. I've told him so repeatedly, and so have others: It's time for you to stay away from me. [46] [47]. If it is necessary for someone to follow me around, appoint a neutral party. Regarding my "one tenth" comment, I'm referring to things like this: [48] 4 I asked the admins about the specifics of the topic ban as they saw them and for constructive criticism regarding my conduct. The whole reason I am banned is because my understanding of the rules is different from theirs. Asking questions about what is expected of me is the solution. I did not make accusations without evidence. Plenty was provided [49] [50] [51] [52] and there is more. He rearranges words or leaves them out to make my posts look like something they're not. Example, I actually said "The way I see it, I've done nothing wrong, but you clearly don't feel that way. So what do you see as a positive change that I could make here?"[53] And here's why I cut back on gnoming: [54]. Example: SMcCandlish claimed that I removed a dispute tag "without doing anything to resolve the disputes."[55] That's not true. I attempted to resolve the dispute by replacing the source, which I believed he had contested. [56] Here's the two of us talking about it. [57] Not true + He knows it = "Not being honest" is the nice way to put it. I'd need more space to refute every point. SMcCandlish has not been shy about calling me a liar without cause [58] or about making vicious claims about my motives [59] [60]. Here he is saying "I don't want Darkfrog to be allowed to say I'm not honest or speculate about my motives!" SmC is playing the victim. January 2016: "hope that he just improves his manners and figures himself out" is not an aspersion against SmC's mental health. September 2015: "if you [CurlyT] and JG66 want to get back to working out the intro sentence, you don't need to make sure you haven't run out of Valium" is not an aspersion against SmC's mental health. One or the other of them had said the situation was stressful, and I cracked a joke about how they would not need Valium. September 2015: "Please go easy on [SMcCandlish] anyway ... Something might be going on" is not an aspersion against SmC's mental health. I've known him on Wikipedia long enough to tell that, last summer, he'd been acting in a manner that was unusual for him and speculated that something might be wrong IRL. And yes, he does know that's what I meant: [61] Scroll down until you see "Are you okay?" Remedy: Tell SMcCandlish to leave me alone. Response to SMC's further allegations: This editor does not understand how I think or why I do what I do. He wants you to believe that this isn't a response to his actions, that I'm just randomly mad and lashing out at just anyone. That's not true. (And speculating about my motives while saying that I should be banned from speculating about his motives is messed up.) Lots of editors don't agree with me on quotation marks. More than one editor commented on the last AE thread. SmC said and is continuing to say things that he knows aren't true. What do I want here? I've already unwatched the MoS and quotation mark pages. I want to reserve the right to speak at any formal complaint that might be filed against SmC for his behavior or to file one myself and to participate in ordinary conversations—like the one I had with CurlyTurkey—under Wikipedia's ordinary rules. I'm trying to make the best of this topic ban. What I need is for him to stay away from me, cease acting as though I were his business in any way, stop presuming to take credit for my work, stop following me around, stop misrepresenting what I say. What's it going to take from me to get that? The question is not rhetorical. Oh good God. [62]. I can't even say "Are you okay?" without him imagining some ulterior motive. @Thryduulf: Last week, I was not aware that I was not allowed to ask involved admins about the core issue underlying the topic ban. I stopped doing so as soon as EdJ and KillerC told me otherwise. This is what I mean when I say your understanding of the rules is different from mine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC) @EdJohnston: I thought the topic ban already covered the MoS in general. I think you should talk to Tony1, SlimV and Izno. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC) In case my meaning wasn't obvious, the want/need dichotomy is meant to indicate "I am willing to forego what I want to get what I need." As for what I want, I mean I want to reserve the right to do something like this: [63] If SmC pulls on someone else what he pulled on me, I want to talk about it. I've done it before without incident. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC) @EdJohnston: But it does currently cover WP:MOS and WT:MOS themselves, right? So what you're considering is an expansion of the gag order? Question: Do you believe my conversation with Curly Turkey concerned the MoS in some way or is this because of something else? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC) You guys are right that there is a lot that I don't understand a lot about this situation. It seemed like asking questions about what I saw as the core issue underlying the topic ban—challenges to WP:LQ—would solve that problem, and I didn't expect it to be so controversial. (In my defense, the topic ban alert specifically says "ask me if you have any questions.") The way I see it, I just didn't know that asking involved admins about WP:LQ was covered by the ban, and I stopped asking about it as soon as I found out. Answering a question about another editor's behavior also didn't look like it was covered. (It actually still doesn't. If that's not the case, please inform me.) However, the reverse is also true. I didn't guess that non-WP:LQ MoS issues weren't covered (and if they are, now would be the time to say). That being the case... Reasons not to expand the scope or duration of this topic ban When MOS:IDENTITY came up for review, I took the lead, working cooperatively on an eleven-person team. The issue was controversial and many of us held disparate views. The two proposals went through nine drafts: [64] [65] I also did the considerable legwork of publicizing the proposals and posting notifications to the talk pages of all participants in the previous RfC that had inspired the revisitation. But taking the lead on a big multi-person project was relatively new for me. More often, I'm doing things like this: [66] [67] The discussion of animate vs inanimate pronouns for fictional characters eventually covered thirteen sub-threads. I found a way to cut through the moot points to the chase. It's a bit of a tangent, but I also don't think this TB should have covered the article space in the first place (for me or Dicklyon). I'd say Full stop is a good example of my work there. Removal of unsourced material [68] and of a six-year-old typo that flipped the meaning of a relevant sentence [69]. Took a bit of digging through a lot of archived pages, but I found the edit in which the error had been inserted, confirmed with the Wikieditor in question that it was probably accidental [70], and corrected it. As for conflicts, discussions of WP:LQ at WT:MOS did occasionally include sources, but more often they dealt with beliefs and qualitative matters. Which editors believe one system is better than the other? Because the article space is subject to WP:V, conflicts stuck more closely to facts. Which sources say what? As such, they tended to end quickly: [71] @Thryduulf: @Liz: @Laser brain: @JzG: @KillerChihuahua: @EdJohnston: Alert acknowledged, but I feel the need to say that my messages on your talk pages were a good-faith effort to make the best of the topic ban period. My questions were meant to assess the differences between my view of this matter and your own and so directly address the underlying cause. My best guess as to what the point of all this is is the threads concerning WP:LQ at WT:MOS. I would feel better about this if any of you would acknowledge that you have read the evidence that I have offered that my accuser is not being honest with you and looked at the diffs in question in their original context rather than relying in his misleading presentation. I'm not saying you necessarily didn't; I'm saying I'd feel better if you affirmatively indicated that you did. Similarly, I'd like to thank you for the acknowledgement that I did not violate the ban as it was presented to me. Since one of the reasons given is the belief that my contribution is a "net negative," I believe that MOS regulars and punctuation article contributors other than SMcCandlish should be consulted. I will ask now: In the interest of avoiding further proceedings, in what way do you believe my conversation with Curly_Turkey (talk · contribs) was not consistent with the letter or spirit of the topic ban? From my perspective, it did not concern quotation marks or the MoS in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfrog24 (talk • contribs) Even though it's probably too late to change anyone's mind, I want the following on record. SMcCandlish is making most of this up, both here and in the original discussion. There are a few outright lies, a ton of exaggerations, and a whole lot of speculation presented as if it were fact. I personally believe that SMcCandlish deliberately spammed this page with a large amount of irrelevant information specifically to confuse and distract and to present me in a falsely bad light. I believe he deliberately posted so much in the hopes that no one would sit down and look at each diff in context, let alone allow me to refute his accusations when I have been told to keep at least my initial response to 500 words. It is not immediately obvious that the accused does not need to wait for permission to break the 500 word rule. It also makes it harder for me to tell which parts of his accusation you are reacting to and therefore which parts I should address. It's taken me a couple of days to think about it, but right now my best assessment of the situation is that you, the admins, are objecting to 1) my conversation with Curly Turkey and 2) the fact that I asked you about the right way to oppose a longstanding rule. If you were actually objecting to something else, please tell me. 1) I think we might be on the same page on this point, but my conversation with Curly did not involve quotation marks or WP:LQ or even the MoS; it concerned SMC's behavior and ban status. Curly asked me if SMC had violated a September topic ban, and I said that SMC hadn't. He also asked about SMC's tendency to accuse people of doing something while doing it himself, so I provided him with links to his posts on my talk page, specifically so that he could also see SMC's rebuttal. 2) WP:LQ is challenged relatively often. It has come up more than 40 times since 2002. Depending on your definition of challenge, it's been challenged 6–10 times since the beginning of 2014, rarely by the same person. Even long and heated debates do not usually result in anyone getting blocked or banned. This was an issue before I joined Wikipedia, it's going to be an issue while I'm not at WT:MoS, and it's almost certainly still going to be an issue afterward. I felt that one of my goals for the next six months should be to find out what I'm doing that's different, which I consider the underlying reason for this topic ban. Since the topic ban alert specifically said I was allowed to ask questions, I asked the admins who participated in the last conversation, including yourselves, for their perspective. It seemed better than to appeal, get unbanned, and then try to figure it out. Please take this as what it is: a good-faith interest in how other people's interpretations of the rules differ from my own and a beginning of an effort to do better. I also believe that you may have seen this for what it was if you hadn't just been exposed to SMC's screeds. Speaking of questions, when someone comes to WT:MOS saying we should change WP:LQ, I say "Yes!" but when they show up asking how to use WP:LQ, I'm the first one there with the "Here's how." [72] I disagree with this rule but I haven't been breaking or undermining it. I also feel this procedure could be benefited by some established guidelines for appropriate notification on the order of WP:CANVASS. You guys may be no more subject to suggestion and bias than anyone else, but that does mean that "accuser is known to exaggerate" and "that's not exactly what happened" are going to have more weight coming from a third party than from the accused. Whether or not such a system is applied to my case, we should probably develop one. Whether it's for six months or twelve, I'm going to need a project and it's one of the ones I'm considering. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Statement by Dicklyon Darkfrog is correct that the topic ban was not quite broad enough to force her to drop the stick. That can be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzG Darkfrog's immediate reaction to the topic ban was to canvass opinion on how he could plan to carry on his campaign when the ban expires: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]. I think that tells us something important about his determination to continue this, despite clear and unambiguous feedback that his efforts are not appreciated and not in line with Wikipedia ethos. I don't see any alternative here but to extend the TBAN and send an unambiguous sign that no means no. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Darkfrog24 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. It's clear that Darkfrog24 has not understood why the topic ban was imposed, and so it needs to be restated and possibly broadened to cover all discussions about the manual of style and manual of style related topics on all pages, including their user talk page. It also needs to be said that, even if the topic ban is not broadened that further speculation, discussion or similar about how to proceed with the same campaign once the ban expires will in future be treated as a topic ban violation. Topic ban violations typically result in being blocked from editing. I'm also tempted by an interaction ban between Darkfrog24 and SMcCandlish, either one way (Darkfrog24 may not interact with SMcCandlish) or two way (neither may interact with the other) as nothing productive is currently occurring when the two engage. I'd prefer a voluntary agreement that both stay completely away from each other, but if that is not forthcoming then an interaction ban could be imposed. The 6-month date for appeals seems too lenient now, so if we add anything new here it should be for 12 months, and if we don't we should extend the date of appeal of the original topic ban to 12 months from when this discussion closes. I want input from other admins on both suggestions before I do anything more here though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC) I agree with User:Thryduulf's proposal to extend DF24's indefinite ban to cover all discussions about the manual of style and MOS-related topics on all pages, including user talk, and to allow appeal of the ban in 12 months. Not sure whether an IBAN from SMcC is worthwhile. Perhaps we could just warn DF24 that they can be blocked if they won't stay away from SMcC. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Darkfrog24, up to this point you are only banned from quotation marks, not from all style discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Concur that the TBAN needs to be extended as proposed by Thryduulf, with an extension of the appeal timeframe to 12 months. I believe Darkfrog24 is capable of contributing constructively to article space but behavior since the limited TBAN has demonstrated that the expanded scope is necessary. I'm not in favor of an IBAN at this time—I believe the inability to discuss MOS issues will have the desired effect. --Laser brain (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC) OK, unless there is further comment I will, in a day or so, change the topic ban to "You are topic banned from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including your and other's user talk pages. You may appeal this topic ban 12 months after [date of implementation]." as there is no appetite for an Iban I'll not place one. @Darkfrog24: your edits since the original topic ban have not been violations of that ban, hence you are not being blocked for violating them, however they demonstrate you have entirely missed the point. Despite repeated advice before and after it was placed, you have not let the subject drop rather you are skirting the edge of the ban and planning how to continue the behaviour that lead to it when the ban expires. This expanded topic ban is thus necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopaedia. That you have made good edits in the topic area is not the point, the point is that the sum of your activity is a net negative. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC) As there has been no objections or other comments from uninvolved users, I'm enacting this as proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Jaqeli

Topic ban restored. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Jaqeli User who is submitting this request for enforcement EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Jaqeli (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, as per AA2 general sanctions public notice all subjects Armenia and Georgia related, broadly defined Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it On 15 March 2015, Jaqeli was given a topic ban exemption to be allowed to edit Georgian scripts, Rhadamistus, Pharnavaz I of Iberia, and Pharasmanes II of Iberia for three months and then reappeal the entire ban which was removed on 29 June 2015. Nonetheless, during this time Jaqeli edited Georgians, Georgian dialects, Iadgari of Mikael Modrekili, Kuji of Colchis, Prince David of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, Nikoloz Baratashvili, Lisa Batiashvili, Anna Chakvetadze, Davit Guramishvili, several Georgian letters[79][80][81][82], Bir el Qutt inscriptions, Doliskana inscriptions, and creating Zenobia, among other edits. Despite being topic banned twice, Jaqeli seemingly exhibits the same behavior he has in the past. 31 July - One month after the topic ban was removed, Jaqeli removes all mention that the Georgian branch is related to the Armenian branch, which is accepted by all reliable scholars and sourced with Cyril Tumanoff 14 October - removed all mention of Ghadana of Armenia being Armenian despite the fact that the sources within the article itself support the claim 16 January - Jaqeli removes Armenia from the article title under the excuse "no Armenia existed back then" despite the article having content about the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and Zakarid Armenia 18 January - Removing the native Armenian name and other native names and leaving only the Georgian native name. This dish popular throughout the Caucasus. 19 January - Jaqeli removes an academic source about the family's Armenian origins and removes all mention of such from the article. Similar to his past edits on Mesrop Mashtots. 17 October and 20 January - Jaqeli twice lists Georgia in the List of medieval great powers. I found this to be exagerrarated since it appears that the sources do not claim that Georgia was a "great power" or anything of that nature. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [83] and [84] - Jaqeli was previously banned twice from Armenian and Georgian articles on 5 January 2014 for edit warring and battleground mentality on Georgian alphabet, and on 15 August 2014 for a wide range of edit warring and incivility, such as removing sourced content for the Armenian role in the Georgian language on Georgian scripts and Mesrop Mashtots. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) As stated above, banned in January 2014 and August 2014 by User:Sandstein Topic banned successfully appealed on 29 July 2015 Additional comments by editor filing complaint The user appears to conduct a concerning WP:TENDENTIOUS editing pattern in Armenian related articles ever since the lifting of his ban. I find that every time he edits an Armenian related article, it is disruptive in one way or another. This disruptive editing pattern is similar to the very same disruption that has gotten him the AA2 ban in the first place. The user has a pretty extensive block log which includes several blocks from edit-warring and topic ban violations. Yet, despite all the blocks, warnings, and bans, the user continues to display a disruptive editing pattern. Therefore, I believe that the user's AA2 topic ban should be reinstated for second and final time. For past inquiries, please see Jaqeli's: AA2 report of 2 January 2014 (verdict: topic-banned): Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive144#Jaqeli AA2 report of 15 August 2014 (verdict: topic ban reinstated): Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154#Jaqeli Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [85] @EdJohnston: I would expect a user who has been warned, blocked, and banned several times throughout their Wikipedia career, would know better not to repeat the disruption again, especially considering that the ban was lifted only a few months ago. Moreover, considering that there's such a bad history for this user, I frankly find it strange to let him off the hook just because he didn't talk about it enough. The way I see it, discussing about the removal of sourced content about the Armenian origins of a Georgian family, for example, is more of an issue of user conduct rather than an issue of content. We must also bear in mind that such disruptive measures are very similar to the types of edits he was banned for in the first place. To just let him off the hook over and over again is not creating a better and more stable environment in the AA2 topic area for these very reasons. Some strictures need to be in place so as to not risk destabilizing the topic area again. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning Jaqeli 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 Jaqeli Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield Regarding the AA2 report of 15th August (which I initiated), I was surprised after it to see Jaqeli continue to edit many articles related to Georgia. When I asked Sandstein about this, I was told that Jaqeli's editing restriction applied only to articles that contained material relating to BOTH Armenia and Georgia [86]. In other words, Jaqeli had no restriction on editing Armenia-related articles and no restriction on editing Georgia-related articles. I do not think that most people would read a "topic ban from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia" in this very restricted way. And given that a lot of the pov editing that Jaqeli has now been accused of is removing evidence of any Armenia/Armenian connections, this very restricted topic ban could be perceived as actually encouraging pov editing. If any editing restrictions are going to be reimposed on Jaqeli, would the closing administrator make the wording of it quite clear as to what the topic ban refers to, and consider whether it should be "everything related to Armenia and everything related to Georgia", or perhaps " "every article that could reasonably be expected to be related to Armenia regardless of whether it currently has content related to Armenia". A lot of the uncontroversial content that Jaqeli has worked on or added and that is only Georgia-related seems quite useful, quite specialized, and nobody else is doing it (so it would be a loss if he is gone). However, there seems to be a fundamentally bad attitude within his editing aims in that he consciously wishes at all times and whenever possible to minimize or remove legitimate content that mentions Armenia from articles that primarily concern Georgian history or culture or that jointly concern Georgian and Armenian history or culture. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Jaqeli This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I suggest restoring Jaqeli's previous topic ban from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia per WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 2. The DS log entry has links to all the past discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC) It appears that the possibilities of normal discussion have not been exhausted. The filer, User:EtienneDolet, has made only one post to Jaqeli's talk page in the last six months. I would close this with no action, assuming that the parties will at least try to discuss. If there is no useful result, the complaint can be refiled. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Now restoring Jaqeli's topic ban from everything to do with both Armenia and Georgia. He has not been active since 24 January and we shouldn't wait longer for a response. If he eventually resumes editing and agrees to stop the behavior described here, then the ban can be reconsidered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

96.57.23.82

blocked for a week and final warning left. This can be handled by dropping a note to my talk page if this resumes. Spartaz Humbug! 17:59, 9 February 2016 (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 96.57.23.82 User who is submitting this request for enforcement RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested 96.57.23.82 (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:ARBPIA3 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 16:44, 3 February 2016 Vandalism of project template 02:54, 4 February 2016 One of numerous examples of abuse and soapboxing in talk pages from which this IP is barred from contributing Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 01:19, 7 November 2015 Blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing on Historicity of Jesus. 01:57, 10 August 2011 Blocked for one week for edit warring on Avraham Schorr If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint This IP has been posting repeated abusive comments and soapboxing at Talk:Hebron. They have removed warnings from their talk page, and continued with the same pattern of editing. Yesterday, they vandalised the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/to do, causing an abusive message to be posted on the talk pages of all members of this project. A study of the IPs contributions suggests that this is a stable IP, allocated to one user, so a lengthy block should not affect other users. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning 96.57.23.82 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 96.57.23.82 Statement by (username) Result concerning 96.57.23.82 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.