Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive195

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

173.161.39.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Neutrality (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

[[1]], specifically described at Template:2016 US Election AE. I am asking that the editor be barred from current political articles effective immediately due to repeated flaunting of the arbitration remedies, as well as a clear COI and not adhering to NPOV.

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

1. 6 June 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus
2. 19 June 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus
3. 19 June 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus
4. 21 June 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus
5. 24 June 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus
6. 22 July 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus
7. 23 July 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus
8. 23 July 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus

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.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, by User:Doc9871 on 6 June 2016
• Editor is a senior editor and sysop, the measures are clearly listed on the article talk pages

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor is deliberately introducing bias into a number of political articles. In this case, a complete revamp of this article (and this article alone among the then-potential VP candidates) was performed prior to the DNC revelation of their selection. The editor acted on this article alone with clear prior knowledge of very closely held political information. The editor was even noticed, by name, in the media as editing this particular candidate's article prior to the information being released. Given this evidence and their edits themselves, there is an extremely high likelihood that the editor has a significant COI.

User:NeilN has requested additional diffs showing the reverts. The given diffs are the reintroduction of material removed in prior edits. I will add diffs showing the prior removal(s) if needed, please clarify.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

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.

Just a note that only autoconfirmed users can file AE requests. Normally this request would've just been removed, but since NeilN has already commented I'd rather leave that to an admin. — Strongjam (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Where are the diffs showing the reversions of these edits and the discussion/warnings for the edits? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Also in this edit summary you accuse other editors of paid editing. Please provide proof for your accusations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• IP, I would like to see diffs showing Neutrality's edits are seen as problematic by other editors (not part of the normal WP:BRD) and not just you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• On my talk page the IP seems to have retracted the paid editing accusation. [2] And repeating what I said on my talk page about editing on the Kaine article, "This is absurdly flimsy. The same article notes, 'This could mean nothing: Kaine has also seen extensive news coverage this week, and like the betting markets, Wikipedia could be a trailing indicator of media interest.' Note that the first edit Neutrality made during the current spate of editing happened after news orgs started reporting leaks about the VP selection." Right now, I'm not seeing this as anything else but an attempt by the IP to gain the upper hand in content disputes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TH1980 (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/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#TH1980 and Hijiri88 interaction banned :

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

1. 21:40, 19 July 2016 Insinuated (very indirectly) that I might be engaged in IBAN-violating sockpuppetry, and named me in the edit summary
2. 14:57, 21 July 2016 Used my name and directly insinuated that I might be engaged in IBAN-violating sockpuppetry, and named me in the edit summary
3. 17:39, 21 July 2016 Removed my name from the above, but continued to maintain and edit a thread about me on his talk page, including my name in the thread title and therefore in the edit summary

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TH1980 said to User:Spacecowboy420 "I would not be surprised if you are Hijiri88 in disguise". This was two days after User:Jagello claimed on TH1980's talk page that Spacecowboy420 was me. TH1980 should have removed this bad-faith sockpuppetry accusation from his talk page, but he initially condoned it left it live for several days, and then actively joined in. He then deleted the thread from his talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Edited 13:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)) [reply]

@Lord Roem: Look at the diffs more closely: The "very indirect" accusation was made shortly after the thread was opened, and then two days later he made another, more explicit accusation against me. He had several days to realize the discussion he was hosting and participating in was an IBAN-violation. The fact that he has been monitoring my edits since at least February means it was not a good-faith mistake. Here, he tried to spin this as me following his edits, despite the myriad possible ways I could have noticed this during the several days the thread was live. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Edited 13:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@TenOfAllTrades: I don't have any of TH1980's user pages on my watchlist. I have another page Jagello edited on my watchlist. TH1980 followed me to the page last May and has been manually reverting my edits there ever since, even after our IBAN. I don't think enforcement of the IBAN in relation to these earlier violations is necessary, for the same reason that I felt the fr.wiki table was no longer necessary and removed it, as I pointed out earlier. Like everything in my user space, I kept it for as long as was necessary and then either used it for its intended purpose, forgot about it, or removed it when I received a complaint.

@Everyone: Thank you for recognizing that a violation took place and giving me good advice. I appreciate that I have failed to convince you that enforcement is necessary at this time. I would therefore like to withdraw this request and get back to building an encyclopedia. You should know that I was never sanctioned for "following" TH1980 -- the disruption was one-sided but the sanction was made mutual after much discussion among the Arbs about how one-way IBANs don't work. I will continue ignoring TH1980, anyway, and only return here if similar disruption occurs following your warning.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I do not control the threads that other users post on my talk page, but after I accidentally mentioned Hijiri88's name there, I realized I had made a mistake and quickly deleted first the comment and then the entire thread.[3][4] I only mentioned Hijiri88 in one comment, and I deleted that comment within hours, before anyone was likely to have seen it.

Hijiri88's quickness to report me over a comment I deleted so quickly shows that he is following my edits far too closely. Hjiri88 also has an IBAN with Catflap, and during a recent arbitration enforcement, Hijiri88 was "instructed to stop following Catflap's edits".[5] Hijiri88 has no reason to be checking every edit that I delete so quickly and reporting me for them, in the same way that he was told not to follow Catflap's edits.

At any rate, following this report I took a look at Hijiri88's edits and noticed that he has mentioned my name on Wikipedia as well, like here for instance.[6] If my promptly deleted comment is sanctionable, Hijiri88 should also be sanctioned for commenting on me.TH1980 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The section header naming Hijiri88 wasn't made by TH1980. The only mention was in that second edit, which TH1980 removed a few hours later. It makes more sense to me that TH1980 realized a mistake and removed the thread quickly rather than an attempt to--in the filer's own words--"very indirectly" accuse Hijiri of being a sockpuppet. I'd close this with a reminder to cool your jets and stop following TH1980's talk page this closely. I don't think any sanction would make sense here based on the information presented thus far. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, a warning to both parties would be the best course of action. While there were technically violations, they were minor and don't come across as intentional. I don't see anything that deserves a block to enforce the existing sanction. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed regarding warnings. I would strongly encourage both editors to remove the other's userpages from their watchlists.
As an aside, I would also mention to Hijiri88 that storing material related to his disputes with other editors on other-language Wikipedias isn't a good idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Felsic2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Herr Gruber (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/Gun control#Discretionary sanctions :

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

Herr Gruber has repeatedly posted personal attacks, cast aspersions, and failed to assume good faith. Prior to warning about DS:

1. 04:56, 10 July 2016 "Your constant POV-pushing might be a little more convincing if you started with weapons legendary for use in crimes (Thompson SMG) or used in a list of massacres, terrorist acts and war crimes as numerous as stars in the sky (AK series), but you're blatantly pushing for the "black rifles are evil crime guns" angle."
2. 07:36, 22 July 2016 "Felsic, you are one editor trying to force your POV through against I believe about half a dozen by now. ... As I also said, all your edits are to do with US gun politics and your edits are blatantly pushing an anti-AR15 POV, pretending you're striving for balance isn't going to fool anyone. ... Trying to cheat your way around the WP:GUN policy ... is similarly not going to work."
3. 07:26, 22 July 2016 "Go away, Felsic"
4. 07:39, 22 July 2016 "I'm sorry nobody's shot anyone with it so you can find it interesting."
5. 07:47, 22 July 2016 labels good faith edits as vandalism
6. 09:31, 22 July 2016 "Your hatred for all things AR is fairly obvious, maybe you should try editing articles about things you like instead?"

These diffs are from after I'd asked him to stop attacking me personally and after I'd alerted him to the DS.

1. 17:20, 22 July 2016 "Stop vandalising articles and I'll stop accusing you of it"
2. 17:48, 22 July 2016 Despite many page notices that DRN exists to discuss content, not contributors, he posts a long complaint about my editing and ignores the underlying content dispute.
3. 17:24, 22 July 2016 "Your wounded angel act is as fake as your claims of wanting balance."
4. 17:28, 22 July 2016 "Stop pretending you're some wounded angel here, claiming you're not doing what you are doing is accusing me of lacking the pattern recognition skills of a small child."
5. 22:49, 22 July 2016 "Frankly, the fact that you believe there even is such a thing as a "generic weapon" proves you have no place editing these articles."
6. 19:57, 23 July 2016 Follows me to an article he'd never edited to revert me. "gosh you don't like an AR15 manufacturer how about that"
7. 20:01, 23 July 2016 "So, ignoring the reply and repeating the same claims yet again, I see. ... Give it a rest, "we" have already rejected your idea and posting it over and over isn't going to get you a new answer. "
8. 7:49, 24 July 2016 Accuses me of forum shopping, even though I was following DR procedures.

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

• 15:36, 22 July 2016‎

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Herr Gruber has tried to get me to stop editing gun articles over and over, making a variety of accusations of POV-pushing and incompetence. His contributions to Talk:SIG MCX were described by @RunnyAmiga: as part of a "pile-on" that was "fucking gross". His personal comments at DRN contributed to derailing that attempt at dispute resolution,[7][8] despite efforts by @Robert McClenon: Herr Gruber is well aware that making repeated insults to an editor's ability is obnoxious, as he's said so himself.[9] So he's engaged in behavior that he knows is obnoxious and has explictly tried to get me to stop editing a topic. Furthermore, he has labelled mainstream sources like "Newsweek" as unreliable[10] and uses sources that are obviously inappropriate,[11] all while complaining about my contention that we should use the best available sources.[12] It is very difficult to work in this environment.

Note: @Drmies: and @Bishonen: have enforced this DS on an editor concerning the AR-15 article recently. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016#Gun_control While none of the articles in this filing are directly about Gun control, they would seem to fall within the "broadly construed" umbrella. Felsic2 (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In his reply below, Herr Gruber repeats his approach when I asked him not to accuse me of vandalism - "Stop vandalising articles and I'll stop accusing you of it" (posted above). In other words, it's OK to post personal attacks on me if they're accurate in his opinion. In addition, he seems to believe I should not edit gun articles because I do not have the same POV as other editors who are involved in those topics. I disagree, and believe that gun articles would benefit from the engagement of a wider variety of editors. Felsic2 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 17:28, 25 July 2016‎

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.

The key problem here is that all of these statements are true. This user is a political POV-pusher who makes constant politically slanted edits to firearm articles which often amount to outright vandalism, wikilawyers, ignores consensus, and ignores rebuttals to restate points that have already been addressed. Their edits are a checklist of current US anti-gun political talking points (completely US-centric, associating mass shootings with AR15s, assault weapons, redefining "assault rifle" to include semi-autos even though no authoritative source argues that's appropriate, etc). Their edits are extremely partisan and confrontational in tone (eg repeatedly accusing other editors of "censorship" over failure to include certain information) This editor should stop editing on this topic as they very clearly have a strong POV regarding it along with very little background knowledge on the subject in question, at least until they expand their knowledge of opposing perspectives and general firearms knowledge a little. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I'm actually working on talking this over with Felsic since I don't really see this ending well for either of us and the whole thing seems fundamentally avoidable. Herr Gruber (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think this really helps, it has been requested:

• Removal of famous embarrassing comment by a gun control advocate
• removes a huge section of "Friends of NRA"
• removes the entire section detailing lobbying by pro-gun group GeorgiaCarry ("who cares about this crap?")
• non-notable (happens to be an AR15)
• non-notable (happens to be an AR15)
• non-notable (because Gun & Ammo magazine is only a "slightly independent" of DoubleTap Defense LLC, apparently)
• removes a "non-notable company" (which happens to make AR15s)
• deletes "unsourced" information from Global gun cultures (happens to be Switzerland)
• [13] [14] [15] - copy-pastes "the NRA says this is a cosmetic feature" onto three firearm component articles without actually changing the text he copied from telescoping stock
• AFDs a pro-gun organisation
• removes a pro-gun term from a disambig page with the summary "give me a break"
• places "assault weapon," a page on a political term, in Cat: semi-automatic rifles
• [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] - adds cats for five gun control groups as "civil liberties advocacy groups"

The fact that going through his diffs makes it hard to find any edit which is not somehow related to gun control is also fair evidence of this.

Felsic2 was also the subject of a previous ArbCom request over his own conduct such as charming edit summaries and things like this. He continues in this spirit with things like comments in his "gun use" essay, which directly conflates disagreeing with him with censorship ("Gun articles are skewed when information is censored") insinuations of conspiracy ("something fishy is going on if we include this but can't include notorious uses of the firearm"), suggests nobody can seriously argue with him and technical information about firearms is boring, etc.

I was pinged, but I don't have a dog in this fight. I was asked to try to arrange for moderated discussion. However, moderated discussion is an effort to resolve content disputes, and participants must comment on content, not contributors, and the editors wouldn't stop blaming each other. I haven't researched this long enough to know where the fault lies, but it is now a conduct dispute, and can be sorted out more effectively here than at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edit in the area of American Politics and sometimes stray into gun issues, so I'm recusing myself from this request and will not comment on its merits. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Gruber in recent days has entered into an alliance with a tendentious IP editor at Talk: Gun show loophole, an article clearly covered by discretionary sanctions. To me, those two editors plus a brand new disruptive and recently blocked editor seem to be trying to reshape a Good article to conform to their POV, starting out with an aggressive campaign to delete an image. The IP editor has been blocked for disruptive editing. Herr Gruber's recent editing pattern raises serious concerns, in my opinion. I encourage a closer look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um...replying to someone a couple of times constitutes an "alliance?" I have made one edit to that article, which consisted entirely of removing the image because I'd thought that it was procedure to do so while its inclusion was being discussed. I apologised for that error, and stated I don't believe the inclusion aids the article because it's too far removed from the concept it describes. The same objection was also raised by User:Mudwater and User:Anastrophe, I don't really know where this "two IPs, a banned user and me" thing comes from. I just saw that because I was looking through Felsic's contribs for replies on talk pages and clicked that one accidentally. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully, Herr Gruber. You edited that talk page several times. I did not mention two IP editors but only one. The other recently blocked editor has an account, as is obvious on that talk page. No one has been banned, but the IP editor has been blocked (a very different thing), and the other editor with a three day old account just came off a block only to jump into this matter promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the talk page a few times, sure, but I only edited the main page once and apologised for the error I made. The way I parsed your first comment was referring to three people, the "tendentious IP editor" (208.54.80.248), who I figured you were saying had also been blocked before, the "brand new disruptive (editor)" (Owaavaax), and the "recently blocked editor" (172.56.12.209). Herr Gruber (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While Gruber's tone and behavior may or may not be an issue I have never interacted with him significantly, so I cannot comment. Felsic's behavior however definitely is an issue. Most of these diffs are somewhat stale, because I have not been as active in the GC area recently. But they do serve to show a pattern of long term behavior and POV pushing in the area.

Previously trouted regarding incivility in the topic area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189#Felsic2

WP:POINT makes edits that even their own edit summary admits are "absurd" to make a point. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States&diff=725772043&oldid=725771847

WP:GAME nitpicks of sources https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States&diff=726090117&oldid=726087908

Consistently responding with snark and battleground attitude https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=726833304 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=726833589 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Rifle_Association/Archive_3#Criticism_-_is_that_all_there_is.3F

WP:GAME complete reversal of interpretation of policies and guidelines depending on if it fits their POV. Deletes content sourced to press releases specifically because they are sourced to press releases, but in very next edit (3 min) adds information sourced to press releases. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friends_of_NRA&diff=prev&oldid=725738838 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-capacity_magazine&diff=prev&oldid=725739186

Snarky/battleground comments, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, ultimately forcing an RFC that revived almost universal support against his position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=711809286 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=711436819 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=711427469 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=711428514 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=711428688

Talk:National_Rifle_Association/Archive_3#Civil_Rights.2FLiberties_Org_Categorization. Note that I made an involved SNOW close on the RFC, but that close was later confirmed by an uninvolved editor from ANRFC. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_21#Talk:National_Rifle_Association.23Civil_Rights.2FLiberties_Org_Categorization

Insistence that a LaPierre gaffe, which is not discussed in any secondary sources, must be discussed in equal depth to a gaffe by Carolyn McCarthy which has been discussed extensively in secondary sources for multiple years. Talk:Carolyn_McCarthy#Tucker_gaffe Talk:Wayne_LaPierre#Gaffes [[21]]

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm still reviewing the statements. However, I can already say it's never a good idea to let your frustrations get the best of you. (see edit summary). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A few additional notes. Herr Gruber (talk · contribs), if you're going to accuse another editor of being a POV-pusher, you best have some evidence to back that up. Please provide diffs. I'm already concerned that this editor's possible tendency for personal attacks are disruptive and unhelpful for such a controversial topic area. If they can't engage constructively, a short-term topic ban might be in order. I would like to see more from Felsic2 (talk · contribs) (or others) on any problematic edits in the article space. So far, I think this one is the only article edit up there. Please ping me when both of you put down your new information. Thank you! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• One more administrative thing: please keep your replies below your own statement. See instructions at the top of this page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the added info. It definitely looks like Felsic2 needs to heed the words of advice from this AE request in terms of how they interact with others on this topic. I'm adding Herr Gruber into this based on their responses to Felsic2. Both of you need to move past the personal animosity--which is not helpful and disruptive--when editing in this topic. At this time, I think a strong warning would be sufficient. A lot of the edits posted here are stale so I'd be uncomfortable with a topic ban for either editor based on this evidence. However, if either one of you (or both) is unable to change your conduct towards each other or on the article pages, a topic ban or interaction ban might be invoked. Unless there's substantially new information provided, this is where I'm sitting on this enforcement request. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Debresser (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:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_.282011.29 :

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

1. 21:14, 13 July 2016 First revert
2. 23:05, 14 July 2016 Second revert

BLP issues:

• Here Debresser agrees some of the sources that he restored (original revert [22] are not reliable for a BLP)
• Here, after admitting that some of these sources do not belong in a BLP, Debresser restores them anyway. They are still in the article, despite Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restoring_deleted_content. Debresser continuously makes improper reverts, edit-wars to restore them, and disregards clear prohibitions on doing so.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 29 June.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While the second revert is just outside of 24 hrs, the apparent gaming of the 1RR to restore contested material in a BLP merits attention I think. At present, the talk page section covering the material re-inserted in these reverts shows 3 editors agreeing that Debresser's material violates WP:UNDUE and yet Debresser has edit-warred the material into the article without modification. Repeatedly dismissing editors who disagree with him as "POV editors" and deciding that because he disagrees with them he may ignore them. This is a BLP and WP:BLP specifies that contested material stay out without consensus, as does WP:ONUS. Neither of those facts seems to impress Debresser, as the 24+2 hr revert above shows. Not one person has agreed with Debresser's position, and the edit-warring in a BLP should not be acceptable.

Debresser, the truth is that up to this point every single person that has commented on the issue has agreed your text is UNDUE. And that you edit-warred to restore it anyway. That has nothing to do with POV, or censorring, or whatever other buzzword you want to throw out without any type of logical reason backing it up. You are edit-warring in a BLP, and that should not be allowed. As far as Jerusalem, they werent flimsy grounds, and action was taken in a page restriction. nableezy - 15:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Debresser, I have implemented a proposal that so far has 3 users agreeing to and you alone opposing. Add that to the two other users who agreed the section you edit-warred in is UNDUE and we now have 5 users who do not agree with you, and you alone demanding that you be allowed to impose your position on the article. You have a curious understanding of what consensus is to say the least. nableezy - 15:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: I thought of it like the 3RR, but fair enough. Ive added the discretionary sanctions remedy to the request. The issue is the edit-warring against a substantial majority (unanimity in fact) of talk page participants in a BLP. If discretionary sanctions dont cover that then forgive me for bringing this here. nableezy - 18:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lol, ok fine, Debresser, I thought I was being charitable, but fine keep it open. If an admin would like to comment on edit-warring in a BLP to restore challenged material that 3 other editors had objected to in a topic area with discretionary sanctions I would very much like to see what they will say. nableezy - 01:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as DR/N, I was repeatedly personally attacked by Debresser, I made one complaint about it and my complaint is what was hidden. I asked for content to be discussed, but Debresser refused to leave personal issues out of the discussion. I really dont feel I should be admonished for not willing to have to wear a muzzle while another editor is attacking me. nableezy - 00:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right fine since you brought it up. The most recent edits by Debresser is another example of poor editing and using revert to try to force disputed changes in to articles, at times introducing BLP violations and violating WP:BLP's prohibition on restoring edits challenged as BLP violations. Restoring commentary pieces by people with no expertise on the subject to make negative claims about living people, restoring sources for direct quotes that they flat out do not include. That is I believe something called source misrepresentation, something that an encyclopedia should take seriously. And doing so with reverts even though the material has been challenged, and there is no consensus on the talk page to introduce the changes. Debresser ignores that and revert wars to include the disputed material and in the process introduces several BLP violations. Yes I reverted, I reverted BLP violations, BLP violations that should not have been re-introduced by Debresser in his reverts. I restored the stable consensus version of the article, or I tried, Debresser kept trying to push through his contested edits. nableezy - 02:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

I think it is about time WP:AE put a stop to attempts by Nableezy to discredit editors who disagree with his POV by posting bogus reports here. There was no violation.[23][24] The edits speak for themselves.[25][26]

So what does Nableezy do? He calls it "gaming the system by making edits 25 hours removed". The truth is that Nableezy and Spesis II are systematically trying to remove from Mahmoud Abbas unfavorable information.[27][28][29][30] First they used the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 argument. They when I, an 8 year editor with about 90k edits, make the same edit (with improvements), he tries to say sources are not reliable, when they are, or when good sources are readily available (see [31] and Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Unreliable_sources). They he tries to say it is recentism (see [32] and Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#WP:RECENTISM). Then he sees an outside opinion that it is undue,[33] so he plays that card too.[34] If he thinks it is undue, he could have rewritten it in shorter form, but all he has done is remove the paragraph altogether (see also further, that suggestions for a shorter version have been made, but still he reverts). In other words, Nableezy and Spesis II (whose POV is even more pronounced and who is, unfortunately, less a man of civilized discussion than Nableezy) try to fight this simple, well-sourced, neutrally worded and relevant paragraph by all means possible, in their POV efforts to censor this page. Please notice, that when that same uninvolved editor proposed a compromise,[35] I agreed,[36] but Nableezy rejected the compromise based on his personal vendetta against me.[37]

I tried to resolve the issue at WP:DRN (see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas.23WP:RECENTISM), but Nableezy sabotaged that too.[38] I have recently posted at WP:BLPN (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mahmoud_Abbas, to seek opinions from other editors, perhaps I am wrong with my arguments, but Nableezy has not yet posted there. I have seen Nableezy at work a lot, his POV is well-evident, but we have managed to reach many compromises, for which I respect him, and we are at good terms.[39] Even yesterday I was not afraid to change my opinion and agree with him on another issue.[40]. He has reported me here before recently (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Debresser), also on flimsy grounds, and no action was taken.

I would like to ask WP:AE to call upon this editor to stop censoring this article, stop his tendentious POV editing, stop misusing this forum as his tool to fight editors with different opinions, and stop seeing Wikipedia as a battlefield. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update Nableezy made another edit on this article, pushing his point of view and implementing a suggestion without consensus, while misusing the fact that he knows I can't revert, and in full disregard for my call to discuss at WP:BLPN, as well as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDIT WAR and the outcome of the discussion.[41] I repeat my call to sanction this editor. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem I agree with what you say. I do have a question for you. I took an active part in the talkpage discussion. I posted on WP:DRN, and on WP:BLPN, and it wasn't me who rejected the first and did not react to the second. I reverted well after 24 hours, and they weren't even identical reverts. How more am I to take part in discussion before editing an article under dispute to avoid accusations and having me dragged to WP:AE? Today, on this same article, Nableezy made a second revert,[42] 1 day and 14 hours after his previous edit,[43], even though the issue was still disputed on the talkpage. Is that enough time? Debresser (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update 24.7.16: Nableezy calls for another editor to edit war at Mahmoud Abbas in this edit. Please note that only two editors had posted previous, Nishidani on one side and me on the other, and in this post Nableezy says "I think you can restore that material now", as though this has been discussed and consensus has already been reached. Then in his next post he adds that he would make the edit himself, if not that he already made one revert today! And that he'll do it later today. He admits to gaming the system! Not to mention that this is what precisely what he (in bad faith) accuses me of. Likewise he is problematic at Israeli West Bank barrier, where a certain term is being discussed on the talkpage, and Nableezy makes an edit as though there is no discussion.[44] Likewise there he accuses other editors of not having reasons for their oposition,[45], even though those have been stated clearly.[46] In simple words, Nableezy is a tendentious editor, and he is making it impossible and unpleasant for other editors to deal with his edit warring and baseless accusations. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem Unfortunately, we see this issue diametrically opposite. I see two editors stonewalling, and me bringing arguments. They tricked you into believing it is me stonewalling by demanding I quote from policy. Do I need to quote from policy that information must be relevant and reliably sourced? I don't think so! Also please notice that two editors against one is not a serious claim of consensus, especially when those two editors simply claim consensus without answering my two questions. Because I repeated my two questions at least three times, and never yet received an answer! Please also see the WP:RS/N discussion, where uninvolved editors agree with me that the source is not good, and Nableezy and Nishidani show that they can't stand any opposition by posting long replies to every dissident opinion. That is behavior typical of tendentious editors. Lastly, why would I have WP:OWN issues with a page I only recently started visiting? I surely have no more of a WP:OWN issue than any other editor involved in this conflict. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that Nishidani trim his post of 737 words. I do see some fact misrepresented, but in order that I should be able to understand what the point of his long and tiring timeline is, and be able to reply to the point, it needs to be trimmed. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy closed this section as "withdrawn".[47] I undid that as an out of process closure. Nableezy is not authorized to close a WP:AE discussion, even if he is the one who started it. In addition, since I have asked for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against Nableezy here in return, that is something Nableezy can not withdraw. Debresser (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nableezy needs to be reminded about what is and what is not acceptable to bring to AE. My feeling is that a "TBAN" on bringing AE actions is suitable at this time. It should not be used as a method of content dispute and it's similar to a legal threat in that Nableezy uses this as a method of stifling edits and discussions. I find this somewhat similar to trying to ban pro-Israeli editors who have less than 500 edits who are making good edits to other articles.

When the man who is head of the Palestinian authority goes before the UN and repeats a claim that Israeli rabbi's are supporting well poisoning, which is picked up by Haaretz, Al Jezera, the NYT and Reuters, claiming it is undue is never going to fly unless it takes up a significant portion of their biography. Israel & Palestine land wars are inherantly part of his position. When he repeats a clearly massively controversial claim, it *will* get significant coverage. Recentism may otherwise be a good argument, except that there have been allegations for years about Israeli poisoning water sources. Abbas is just the latest and most high profile person to repeat them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I watched this go on on Mahmoud Abbas's page, but stayed out because a muckraking investigative journalist who revealed part of how Abbas was probably mislead, perhaps by a hoax, could not be used, since the source is a blog. That Palestinian wells are poisoned in the West Bank by a number of ultra orthodox people from rabbinically guided settlements like Susya is well documented by Israeli observers, but have never been done so on explicit rabbinical authority. The outcry re Abbas ignored this, and another kind of poisoning of the well took place in the press, and it's reflected here.

The edit history and the talk page show Debresser disagreeing with Nableezy, Sepsis, Zero, and Drsmoo, initially agreeing with Transporter Man's compromise then going back on his word, only then to reaccept it when a second mediation was proposed.

• At 22:46, 6 July 2016 , Debresser opened up a dispute resolution mediation over his disagreements with both Nableezy and Sepsis

• At 22:00, 7 July 2016. TransporterMan gave a third opinion (TALK) TM’s proposal that a paragraph was undue, and a summary sentence of the incident sufficed, which he provided,

This was accepted as a fair compromise by Nableezy here, and Debresser here,

At this point, both Nableezy and Debresser had accepted Transporter Man’s compromise by the 8th of July.

With this acceptance by both of the compromise, the dispute resolution process was rendered superfluous.

• Unaccountably, on the 13th rather than acting on the consensus TM’s timely compromise had produced, which he himself underwrote, Debresser reverted back precisely the text he had written, which Nableezy and Sepsis had rejected, and which Transporter Man in his mediation had also judged WP:Undue.

He effectively tore up the compromise.

• 16:45, 14 July 2016‎ TransporterMan asked Debresser and Nableezy to reconfirm their agreement to his mediated proposal so he could implement it.

• Debresser agreed formally while refusing to regard the compromise as binding, (I agree. At least for the time being. With no promise that I won't add more information or details if sources will continue to discuss this information and its ramifications.)

He did not agree because he signaled that TM could put in the consensual version, but that he, Debresser, was not bound by it. Frankly, that shows a total failure to understand the dispute resolution process. He had a watertight compromise underwritten by Nableezy, and ready to be implemented by TM, and said he wouldn’t promise to stick by it.

• 17:08, 14 July 2016 Nableezy agreed, on condition that Debresser abide by TM’s decision, i.e.’ If Debresser agrees to leave it as you suggested Im fine, but with the above comment no from me.’
• 17:48, 14 July 2016 Sepsis endorsed the first sentence in TM’s proposal, but for the record added he did not think the sec ond sentence necessary

At this point therefore, you had

• Nableezy and Debresser agreeing to TM’s suggestion on the 8th
• Debresser reverting to his preferred version and ignoring the compromise
• TM asking their consent to implement the compromise
• Debresser saying yes, but he won’t necessarily abide by it
• Nableezy saying yes, but only if Debresser stands by TM’s compromise
• Sepsis saying he doesn’t like part of TM’s compromise, but can live with it-
• Debresser goes to another board to get further opinions about his pre compromise version

TM’s compromise would not stick because Debresser would not undertake to be bound by it so

• 04:07, 15 July 2016‎. User:Zero0000 stepped in and offered a variant of TM’s proposal

• 12:12, 15 July 2016‎. immediately gained the assent of User:Drsmoo Drsmoo is usually on Debresser’s side of the general dispute, but accepted this second mediation

• 14:16, 15 July 2016‎ Debresser rejected Zero’s compromise replying that that 729870902 he preferred TM’s phrasing stating there are reasons to believe Abbas had no retracted.

That is a really, I mean really weird statement by Debresser, for TM’s version, which he approved, states that Abbas retracted.

• 15:37, 15 July 2016‎ Nableezy implements Zero’s suggestion.

I.e.Debresser once more was in a minority of one, over a compromise. Nableezy, Zero and Drsmoo had concurred on Zero’s version of TM’s compromise, Sepsis though partly dissatisfied did not veto TM's suggestion. In short, Nableezy wanted everything out, Debresser wanted everything in. Two compromises were tried. Debresser agreed with one, only to backtrack, and rejected the other. Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drsmoo. My apologies if I inadvertently offended you in writing:'Drsmoo is usually on Debresser’s side of the general dispute.' It (a) reflected my memory or impression that wherever we have co-edited you tend to disagree with the position I took (which of course is not a problem) (b) and in this case, you came independently to the same opinion I held. By noting this, I intended to pay you a compliment. I.e. you seemed to me to be making a call purely by your own lights, and not in terms of a reflex POV mentality that automatically takes sides, which is the curse of this place. That is an example of the ideal we should always strive for - not being predictable, despite any general POV in an editor's approach. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem. I've never known Nableezy not to adhere to a consensus, whatever it is. I've observed Debresser for years essentially ignoring it, while claiming it backs his edits. He is unresponsive to collaboration. Whatever behavioural parity you intuit, it ignores this difference (which is the basis of N's complaint), and the difference is significant.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of page control by Debresser and the reasoning behind it is incomprehensible, in that it takes this AE discussion as an apparent warrant to do whatever he wants. All behavioural problem become now 'content disputes' between one editor and several others under his reading. Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, you are distorting things;

Nableezy calls for another editor to edit war at Mahmoud Abbas in this edit. Please note that only two editors had posted previous,

My normal reaction to an irrational removal of impeccably sourced material is to wait before reintroducing it, if there is a 1R risk. And I only do so after addressing the talk page. (See my addition of an innocuous edit documenting what was missing on Pavel Florensky article, his anti-Semitism here, reverted immediately by another editor, and waiting a week for objections before restoring it this morning). As anyone who knows me, or my page will note, Nableezy is my expert on this. I don't understand the rule, and ask him whenever in doubt. Nableezy did not call on me to edit-war. He clarified that my usual worry re 1R was unfounded and that I was in my rights to restore what you deleted without a recognizable policy justification. Given that you rarely concede a point, and the removal had no policy basis and struck me as typical of a page control approach, I went ahead and reintroduced the source.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem. If the above edit flow analysis may be somewhat confusing. I note you call on us to provide specific diffs. Well, I would appreciate you and other admins analyzing the arguments on the talk page for the inclusion of Gilbert Achcar. Debresser introduced poor sources, claiming they were good, and now opposes the use of a world authority, with excellent publishing credentials, on the topic in question. Despite some days of extenuating discussion in which he has failed to produce a single policy ground for his objection despite frequent requests to do so, he has now reverted out the material, citing WP:BRD, which is not a polioy, against the verdict of the other two editors. I've seen this waffling stonewalling, without policy considerations, hundreds of times,- and just put up with it - though it is beyond me why he is never sanctioned for it. The above revert, in the context of the talk page discussion, is the quintessence of the problem reported. Please examine it. You cannot have it both ways. Use blogs from middle brow papers as RS when you like the content, and then challenge books reliably published by competent area authorities when you dislike it. Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem raised on the Mahmoud Abbas page is now repeating itself on the Israelites.

• A redlinked editor raised a point, which Debresser removed as WP:Undue and unsourced.
• Well, the point made is a commonplace in scholarship, so I restored it, remodulated, with an impeccable source.
• Debresser removed it, saying my wording wasn't close enough to the source.
• I therefore, responding to his edit summary, rephrased the source to meet his objections
• Debresser in two edits erased even this modification, here while retaining the high quality RS, yet distorting its content, (which I transcribed in a note) and then here, where he just chucks the whole edit and source out.

All this removal, without any clear argument on the talk page. I could spend an hour listing many sources which state what the one source I did use states, the addition is not controversial in historical works on that period.Gary N. Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations, Oxford University Press, 2013 p.15 writes:

In the case of the people in question, the title “Samaritans” is basically one that non-Samaritans gave to this group. The terminology is based on the rare usage ha- šômĕrônîm, “the Samarians,” appearing in 2 Kings 17:29, translated in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as ὁι Σαμαρεῖται,”the Samaritans.” As such, the term is basically geographical in orientation. Yet šômĕrônîm –in this, the one and only case in which the ethnicon appears in the Hebrew Bible-ironically refers to the residents of the area of Samaria prior to the time of the northern exile. It does not refer, as if often thought, to the foreign immigrants, whom the Assyrian authorities imported into the land.

I'm guessing that Debresser simply doesn't like this since it contradicts a rabbinical tradition which maintains Samaritans are not Israelites, but Cushites. Personal involvement whatever should give no one warrant to interfere with the introduction of high quality modern scholarly sources, and his removal of yet another area specialist does not appear, again, to have any other policy ground than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm surprised he is repeating this behavior while the issue of intransigent removalism is still under discussion here for the earlier Msahmoud Abbas case.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani wrote "I've never known Nableezy not to adhere to a consensus, whatever it is. I've observed Debresser for years essentially ignoring it, while claiming it backs his edits." That is a fair summary of my experience with those two editors over many months. Zero^talk 13:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reject and take offense to User:Nishidani's claim that I am on any "side of the general dispute" and consider it a personal attack. My interest is in improving articles in a neutral way. This whole arbitration request, btw, is baseless. It started with an erroneous edit warring claim and then has shifted to attacking Debresser for having different views (those views being based on improving articles in a neutral way.) In this case, obviously Abbas' statement is notable due to the amount of press coverage it received. Drsmoo (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• So, you want an Arbcom-mandated 1RR restriction enforced against Debresser. For your evidence, you offer two reverts from two different days, nearly 26 hours apart. This isn't a Discretionary Sanction you want applied, it is a specific Arbcom remedy with a rigid meaning. Unless more evidence is presented of a 1RR violation, or the request changed to ask for enforcement of some other remedy that can be backed up, I'm going to dismiss this case on the grounds that no evidence of a 1RR violation as defined by Arbcom has been presented. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Thank you for reformatting it. This is a complex issue (as are all ethnic conflict topic areas), so its going to take a while for me to look into the background and context. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I need to read more through the evidence, but my initial thinking is the two reverts are a violation of the 1RR under the ruling. 3RR policy says a fourth revert just outside the 24-hour window is considered gaming the system and/or edit warring behavior. Not sure why the same logic wouldn't apply in the 1RR context. In this topic area, especially for a content dispute, if a revert is disagreed by another editor, there needs to be discussion. As I said, still looking through the lengthy statements, but this is my first read. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arbcom decision specifically states a 24-hour period. When they word things like that in an official ruling, there isn't much room for interpretation. However, it may be considered edit warring under the more flexible Discretionary Sanctions. It is a marginal case though, so if any sanction is recommended I would err on the side of a mild one. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, agreed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've taken the time to look through the diffs. Clearly, the personal animosity is proving detrimental to the dispute resolution process (see here & here). Still, while the content dispute is certainly heated, I don't see anything meriting a topic ban or sanction at this time. Upon full review, I would close with an admonition to Nableezy (talk · contribs) to cool his head and calm the tone of discussions; additionally, a warning to Debresser (talk · contribs) not to violate 1RR or reverse an edit too quickly without talk page discussion. If things escalate and get worse, we can address it then. It wouldn't be a bad idea to edit in another part of the wiki for some time, but that's just personal advice. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Debresser:, I may be reading it wrong, but it looks like the two new diffs you cite are removals from different sections, not reverts of the same material. Due to the nature of these articles, I think an all-around good idea is to discuss any substantive changes to avoid miscommunication or confusion. The wall of text above is hard to parse at times because of its complexity, so it'd be helpful for editors to pinpoint particular edits they feel demonstrate the need for discretionary sanctions. Otherwise, this just seems to be a heated content dispute and a reminder for editors to chill would be the only thing required. Tl;dr, I'm open-minded here but don't see anything glaring yet. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks everyone for the additional responses, it's greatly appreciated. I'm seeing some concerns about Debresser (talk · contribs)'s behavior on the Mahmoud Abbas page. These reverts suggest a kind of ownership of the page. 1 2 3. When I say it's a good idea to discuss substantive changes on the talk page, that's not a license to revert anything just because you disagree with it. I'm describing good practice. The Gilbert Ashcar argument on the article's talk page also looks like stonewalling. The editors there want a discussion about the policy merits/demerits of removing a paragraph and each time Debresser seems to avoid answering and/or throw questions back, making the conversation go nowhere. This, on top of my original concerns about 1RR, suggest a short-term sanction might be in order. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

David Tornheim (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

David has previously been warned multiple times at ANI and by admins for battleground, edit warring, aspersions about COI, and general tendentiousness:

1. Warned March 2015 at ANI of a block for battleground behavior in GMOs with another ANI a week later.
2. Warned Feb. 2016 by Spartaz.
3. Warned May 2016 by Laser brain.

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

Battleground

• Aspersions towards editors at talk section titled Scrubbing of views of scientists that have concerns about GMOs

• Taken to Jimbo Wales talk page to rant and cast aspersions with the talk section labeled Monsanto must be pleased while opening talk sections on this non-content discussion at article pages.[48][49]

• In the midst of doling out battleground and aspersion comments, they also accuse editors of not trying to work with them [50] (i.e. WP:POT).

• Often refers to editors as "pro-industry" as a vague aspersion as part of the battleground mentality even in their responses below.

Edit warring and WP:DRNC

1RR was imposed in this topic, and arbs mentioned that WP:GAMING of it should be handled by DS. That sanction was meant not only to allow quick action on simple violations, but crack down on long-term edit warring behavior that doesn't explicitly cross 1RR.

David very often reverts basically demanding in edit summaries that material cannot be changed without their approval even when they don't attempt to open up initial talk page discussion on it, which runs entirely against WP:DRNC.(just need to read edit summaries here)[51][52][53][54] However, when it comes to David's own edits, they pull a full 180 and try to edit war content back in they are already aware didn't have consensus such as this string (some intermediate edits not included).[55][56][57]

A recent example of this pettiness is at Atrazine. A new editor added a few wikilinks,[58] but also added one to a reference title that I removed while leaving the others in the body. [59] David again resorted to a revert and ask questions later approach, but was quickly reverted by another editor reiterating that wikilinks in reference templates are problematic.[60] In the meantime, David took to the article talk page to cast aspersions towards me because the specific edit I reverted had a somewhat ranty edit summary[61] rather than David focusing on the extremely minor content issue at hand of ref formatting.

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on September 2015.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After patiently trying to work with David Tornheim in the GMO topic for years now, it appears they cannot edit in the topic calmly without engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND that only serves to agitate the topic. A lot of this has not been single acute events easily dealt with at AE, but persistent under the radar sniping, etc (also quickly hit the maximum diff and word space because of it). This has become especially pronounced after the admin-moderated RfC closed where their behavior has continued inflaming the topic while other editors try to focus on content and keep things civil. I'm at a minimum (i.e., WP:ROPE) suggesting a 0RR restriction for David to reduce at least some of their behavior issues, but I'll leave it to others to discuss how to address the larger battleground behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: I overall like your sanction idea over a broad topic ban (it would also work if we ever get people casting aspersions about the parallel organic industry too). Whether it's a warning or this sanction, more severe sanctions are expected if an editor continues problem behavior after either instance, so I'm curious how this would functionally differ from yet another (would-be-4th) warning. Just procedural things for admins to mull over, but I'm hopeful it will cut out this toxic behavior that has persisted after the RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I've tried to keep to the word limit focusing on David, so I'm going to keep my comments extremely brief on the somewhat separate matter of EllenCT. Ellen actually has not cooled off outside AE and indicated they are still not seeing that the continued aspersions towards me are inappropriate.[64] My Arbcom comments have more detail on history if need be. Similar to David, they've been warned at ANI for aspersions etc.[65] and is coming fresh off a near-unanimous topic ban[66] for this same behavior in economics where this casting of aspersions about select corporations could be a gray zone (like this) in the current ban. I won't comment on this AE further unless an admin asks me something, but I'm on board with whatever action simply gets this behavior to stop (I've probably been trying to ignore it far too long) while accounting for what hasn't worked in the past. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[67]

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.

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise here. King has long sought sanctions for me. I am not alone, King and Tryptofish are constantly asking editors to be sanctioned for pointing out or challenging pro-industry POV edits. This constant push from these two started at GMO ArbCom and picked up ([68] [69]) right after Jytdog was topic banned from GMOs (e.g. against Prokaryotes (here), Wuerzele [70], Vergilden [71], Minor4th [72], DrChrissy [73], SageRad [74], Petrarchan47, etc.). Yet, King files here saying I have the WP:Battleground mentality. His first diffs are from a year ago where Jytdog was harassing me for standing up to his behavior that has been so aggressive that he has been indef. blocked.

King cannot stand when I point out pro-industry edits that remove well sourced RS. When I recently pointed out his editing habits here, one of the closing admins said that his edits "twisted" the result of the RfC [75], yet he continued [76]. Even Tryptofish said King's edits were concerning [77].

If it doesn't conform with the industry view, King identifies the source as "fringe" to justify removal from articles:

• GMO labeling is "fringe" and "psuedoscientific":

"We really don't even need to give the viewpoint the time of day in this article (GMO food), so there's no reason to bring it up." [78]

• Precautionary Principle and GMO [79]

• Intellectual property rights [80]

• Regulations on GMOs abroad [81]

This filing is retribution for shedding light on pro-industry editing [83].

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV is policy.

The "Casting aspersions" sanction is being used here to prevent anyone from raising issues of edits that violate the WP:NPOV policy, if the POV edit favors industry. Unacceptable.

King even admits he wrote the sanction to keep people from calling attention to his editing.

This logic of "casting aspersions" appears to be:

(1) if editor X claims that editor Y makes an edit that favors industry, then

(2) editor X is *always* wrong for saying so, even if the edit favors industry.

(3) editor Y's edit need not be reviewed to see if it is pro-industry.

(4) We must assume good faith that no edits are ever pro-industry or lack WP:NPOV.

(5) calling an edit pro-industry implies the editor is paid by industry or a "shill"

I hope it is obvious such logic makes it impossible to address pro-industry POV issues.

Item (5) ignores other explanations:

• We cannot infer motivation of anonymous editors. I did not ascribe motivation; I showed evidence of POV with diffs.
• Does an American Zionist's pro-Israeli edits imply payment from Israel?

Now, Can anyone look at my diffs above and with a straight face say those edits are not pro-industry?

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lord Roem's request, I started 1 week break from GMO article/talk page editing. Tryptofish who talks about WP:battleground below continues. [84] --David Tornheim (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited on these topics for at least a year, until today, but I strongly approve of David Tornheim's recent work on the issue. I am a proponent of genetic engineering, which I see as no different in principle than animal husbandry and crop hybridization, but I am opposed to the present commercial situation where rampant consolidation has led to monoculture issues in agriculture instead of robust competition between seed producers.[85][86][87]

My primary issue is with Kingofaces43. My first interaction with this editor was in asking his opinion of the most reliable WP:MEDRS-grade source on the relationship between bee population decline and neonicotinoid insecticides. He responded with Fairbrother, et al (2014) "Risks of neonicotinoid insecticides to honeybees", which is not a comprehensive literature review, and the meager review it includes is not on the title's topic. In fact, it includes only a short review of very select sources on, "guidance in the United States and Europe for assessing the risks of pesticides to honeybees" -- not at all on the risks themselves. The paper says, "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division." Bayer CropScience is the largest producer of neonicotinoid insecticides. Kingofaces43 has never explained why he considered that the most reliable source on the topic, saying, "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed." [88] But he never addressed the fact that the review was not on the title's topic, and has since joined attacks on me at every opportunity, even when they pertained to areas that he has never edited on.

It is obvious that Monsanto engages in coordinated and sustained efforts to astroturf.[89] I recommend sanctions against those who try to censor contrary efforts.

Reply to Tryptofish

@Tryptofish: I am not stating or trying to imply that Kingofaces43 is personally editing on behalf of Monsanto. The evidence I have presented stands by itself. I note that he claims on his user page to be employed working on pesticides. I do not understand his perspective on these issues, and I have even less understanding of yours. EllenCT (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kingofaces43

I withdraw my comment from September 2015 regarding being convinced Kingofaces43 was a paid shill at [90]. I stand by the remainder of the statement, and until an explanation is forthcoming, I remain very suspicious of the possibility. Perhaps if Kingofaces43 didn't show up to demand sanctions against me every time anyone else has ever complained about me, especially regarding topics on which Kingofaces43 has never edited, I would likely feel considerably less hounded. EllenCT (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is my strong belief that David Tornheim is not the problem editor here. In brief, any careful examination of the edit histories of his detractors show an obsession with the GMO topic, and with creating an environment which is toxic to anyone who questions their methods. I'm hoping this clear overreach by the filing party will make it obvious that we are dealing with a case of tendentious editing, per WP:TEND. Again, just looking at a few diffs is insufficient, what needs to be considered is the larger pattern. I thank all Arbs and admins considering my statement. Jusdafax 19:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I see both The Wordsmith and Laserbrain are commenting in the "uninvolved admins" section. The content aside, I ask that they remove the comments at once, and if they fail to do so that a truly uninvolved administrator redact their comments. Again, these two admins are hardly uninvolved, despite claims to the contrary. Jusdafax 19:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that David has pinged, at User talk:Coffee, all of the administrators who were involved in supervising or closing the GMO RfC, [91], and that's a good thing. I'll add a ping to Laser brain, whom he overlooked. I suggest that any decision here should wait for their input.

David cited a diff by one of those admins (KrakatoaKatie). I'd like to add a diff of what I said in response at the time: [92].

I see editors seem to be saying that Kingofaces is editing on behalf of Monsanto, or at least strongly implying it. It would be helpful if they would actually present evidence to back those accusations up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David has added a diff for his statement that "Even Tryptofish said King's edits were concerning": [93]. I urge administrators to see what I actually said there: I wasn't criticizing King, but rather trying to reach out to David after the RfC in what I hope you will agree was a friendly and well-meaning way. (I ended up reverting it, by the way.) Here is how David responded to me the next day: [94], [95]. And what's "Even Tryptofish" about (rhetorical question)? And David says that I'm always trying to get other editors sanctioned, which is strange given that just a few days ago I posted this here: [96]. When I saw this AE filed, I didn't want to escalate it, because I hoped that things would calm down, but seeing what David is continuing to say about me, I've brought up these things that have, indeed, been bothering me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, with each passing day the GMO thing is getting more and more battlefield-y. Now, from EllenCT: [97]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Admins who want to look at pages where disputes are most active at the moment (besides Jimbo's talk), I think it's Genetically modified food controversies and Kevin Folta. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this post by EllenCT goes beyond aspersions, into a direct personal attack: [98]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat in agreement with MastCell. I'm willing to try things as The Wordsmith proposes, and I agree that David is capable of being a beneficial contributor to GMO content. Then again, there is a difference between being capable, and actually doing it, and I'm pretty sure that there will just be another AE pretty soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled onto this page from Jimbo's page. The pro-monsanto person that made the initial complaint wrote 900 words and (by my rough count) 32 diffs. The top of the section says he's supposed to keep it to less than 500 words and less than 20 diffs. 209.197.171.107 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement here begins and ends with closing the RFC. I agreed to help close it because this is not a subject area in which I have any edits and no history of enforcement in the area (to my knowledge and recollection). I fail to understand, however, how the RFC can be interpreted to delete or add additional text other than what was agreed to by consensus over a month of discussion.

The results of the RFC now need to be enforced by uninvolved administrators, and I have no desire or plans to comment further in this AE request or in the GMO area. Katie^talk 15:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's long past time David be topic banned from GMOs and Monsanto and anything related. As he states on his user page, he's an activist in the real world and taken part in many anti-industry campaigns. That activism has now firmly found its way into his editing as shown by King's diffs where he's soap boxing the same stuff in multiple places. Similar behavior was displayed during the recent GMO RFC where kept posting the same arguments in multiple areas of the talk page. The same arguments he's posted above, that confuse regulation with scientific research, which most editors clearly didn't find compelling. That fact didn't stop the bludgeoning. Capeo (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Mastcell here. Look at the example David gives above to make his case. It basically amounts to any edit he perceives as "pro-industry" is inherently a POV edit. For one, rather than say pro-industry he could simply say the edit doesn't seem neutral or gives undue weight, etc. On the contrary though, if he disagrees it's pro-industry and pro-industry equals a POV edit. This issue is not going away. Capeo (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should take a conservative attitude when considering intervening to deal with less than ideal ways of arguing. I'm mostly against the arguments of the anti-GM movement, they do make some valid points, but on most issues I disagree with the political stance taken in Europe against GM-foods. The way David argues can have some tabloid-like elements in it, ArbCom may have ruled that this isn't actually allowed. However, in principle, it's better to let the community itself correct someone who steps a bit over the line and steer that person back toward presenting his/her arguments in an acceptable way. It's best to only intervene when such feedback doesn't work and what we see is a degeneration in the topic area due to the contributions of that person. I don't think that's the case here.

E.g. the thread title used on Jimbo's talk page may not be ideal when judged by rigorous standards, it's not something you can use in a scientific paper, but it's not all that untypical for tabloid style newspapers. So, it is actually within the editorial standards of how people in daily lives like to communicate. The scientific nature of this topic also adds an extra layer of protection. The community has already decided to apply strict guidelines that give priority to scientific articles, this automatically creates a solid wall protecting the topic area from degenerating due to bad arguments. If this were a political topic without a hard scientific core, e.g. Scientology, or Israel/Palestine, then one has to be far more proactive in intervening to prevent the editing in the subject area from degenerating. Count Iblis (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I agree that one should intervene using sanctions where necessary, but don't underestimate the positive effects of a minor infraction triggering a response from the community like this response by Jimbo Wales, this can work better than imposing a sanction. Count Iblis (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read David Tornheim's propоsals in the last RFC(GMO). As for me it was detailed analysis with reference to the reliable sources. I was very disappointed when any sources from peer-reviewd journals with criticism were simply ignored by community. Just as was ignored last scientific review on this topic by toxicologist (Domingo, 2016)

As to Kingofaces43 I was faced with his behavior here when he without a rational explanation moved significant data from lead and here when he stated that it is "original research" to compare 64%-101% and 23%-33% (protective impact of conventional and GM soybean) and that "the actual percentages are undue weight (simply not needed information for our audience)". Despite the fact comparison was in other source. As far as I see, I am not only one who noticed Kingofaces43 non-neutrality. Personally I'm not very interested in Kingofaces43 motives. But it is obvious for me, Kingofaces43 edits pull topic into biotechnology and pesticides advertising, especially it they continue without balance from editors like David Tornheim.Cathry (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors on the receiving end of the "Monsanto must be pleased" post, I have to say I find some of the proposed remedies here disappointingly limp, and strongly suspect they will not improve things. Surely, given the long history of warnings, either a site ban or topic ban is the right course of action now. This follow-up posting[99] in response to this AE only further shows that Mr Tornheim is incorrigible. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Sigh I was hoping the RfC would solve these issues, but it seems I was wrong. There have been multiple editors on all sides of this topic area behaving poorly for quite a while. I would really rather not have to topic ban anyone; most people involved here contribute good content. Still, something needs to be done and I doubt admonishments will achieve anything. I'd rather find another option that has more surgical precision. I'm going to continue researching this dispute and try to find another path. Other admins are welcome to chime in. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm disappointed that this topic is now being prosecuted on Jimbo's talk page, and I'm unclear about the motivations for doing so. He rightly pointed out that the statements that Monsanto is "pleased" and that this filing is retaliatory are unhelpful. I believe they indicate continued battleground us-versus-them mentality in this domain. I'm likewise disappointed that involved editors continue to be comfortable labeling each other's edits as "fringe", "pseudoscience", "pro-industry", etc. The continued insinuations that editors are involved with or motivated by Monsanto are very troubling, and if anything requires sanctions, it's that behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Count Iblis: I don't want to see anyone sanctioned, and I share the sentiment expressed by The Wordsmith just above that I was hoping this wouldn't appear here again (the heavy "sigh" as well). However, I'm quite fed up with this practice of bringing up Monsanto's financial interests and implying that some editors are so-aligned. ArbCom was quite clear that such accusations were not to be made without evidence, so David and EllenCT (currently) and others (in the past) are trying to shimmy around it by name-dropping Monsanto in the vicinity of editors' names and then walking away whistling with their hands in their pockets like nothing happened. --Laser brain (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  How about crafting a sanction along the lines of "X is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed"? The wording would probably need to be tweaked, and maybe some exception for specifically discussing article content (you can't edit Monsanto if you can't talk about the actions of Monsanto), but I'm thinking something like this might be applicable to multiple editors and could cut out the aspersions without issuing a heavyhanded ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @NeilN, Lord Roem, Coffee, Newyorkbrad, and EdJohnston: Pinging recently active AE admins to offer counsel on the best way to move forward. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jusdafax: I have a hard time believing you're not familiar with WP:INVOLVED, but please note that The Wordsmith and I have dealt with this topic only in an administrative capacity and are therefore uninvolved. Familiarity != involvement. --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  One could argue that Jusdafax's comment is blatant aspersion-casting, no? Making unsupported accusations about other editors? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems that way, yes, and I'm awaiting his response to Seraphimblade's comment below. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jusdafax: You have, in this request, accused two administrators of inappropriately acting while involved. This is a serious accusation, and without any evidence, constitutes casting aspersions. Please either provide your evidence for this claim, or retract it. This similarly applies to anyone else who is participating in this request—if you are going to accuse other editors of misconduct, you must present evidence to support your accusation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Got pinged, so I took a look at all the statements to wrap my head around this. I'm of a similar mind with The Wordsmith: I don't think a topic ban would be helpful here. Your suggestion of a restriction on discussing motivations is interesting, but I wonder how enforceable it'd be in practice. Also, it seems like it could be easily circumvented? I'd need to really see some specific wording on that, though I'm open-minded on innovative solutions here. At this point though, I feel tossing out a tban would be handling this with too blunt an instrument. There's certainly battleground behavior here and if it continues after the discussions spurred by this AE request, I'd then be open to imposing a short-term ban. Right now? Everyone needs to chill, take a step back. It wouldn't be a bad idea for all involved to voluntarily edit in other areas for a week to let things cool off. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The ideal enforcement would be escalating blocks if broken, and the "broadly construed" should take care of gaming. "Civility parole" and ideas similar to it were popular 8-10 years ago, and were successful more often than not. My draft wording would be "X is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed. This restriction does not apply to discussing these organizations or persons as part of the normal editorial process for article content. If this restriction is violated , or an attempt is made to game them, any uninvolved administrator may impose a block of up to one week. After repeated infractions, escalating blocks may be used up to six months. All blocks under this restriction are to be logged as a Discretionary Sanction." If it works, it might be worth bringing back for other editors and areas where casting aspersions are common, like ethnic conflict topics. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The more I think about it, the more I'm liking this kind of focused remedy. I'd want to add something in the second part of the restriction, the "as well as the actions of corporations," because as written that might be too broad? My rough read on the policy debate is that there's a dispute as to the legitimacy/illegitimacy of different research on the topic. There's definitely a way to debate that without impugning the character or motivation of other editors. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  A major issue here is that various editors are accusing each other of being paid shills, or just sort of indirectly implying that Monsanto must be manipulating the content, saying another editor's name casually, and claiming they weren't making a specific accusation while the implication was obvious. I'm open to rewording that part if you can think of a better phrasing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the restriction on discussing each editor's motivations in and of itself captures that? If someone says 'you obviously support Monsanto' or 'you're an activist and are trying to ruin the research' or whatever, that's already included. Perhaps adding 'on the wiki' into the second part to clarify this is about alleging company manipulation of article content, not a ban on discussing the company itself (because it's obviously going to come up in terms of the actual merits of this debate). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  My concern is stopping things like this, where for the most part editors aren't mentioned by name but the insinuation is clear. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. What do you think about adding 'on the wiki' (or something like it) to that second phrase? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that works great. I'm on board with your proposed sanction. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, also. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good, that's settled. Now the last question is who to apply the new sanction to. I believe David is the obvious choice, however I think this edit probably merits giving EllenCT a warning for battleground conduct. The diff of her being convinced Kingofaces was a paid shill was over a year ago, plus in Arbcom-space. Stale and out of our jurisdiction (plus retracted), so I see no evidence presented that would justify placing her under the same restriction. Jusdafax was warned by Seraphimblade for aspersions in this very thread, and has not repeated it, so I also don't see any reason to apply it there. Are we in agreement? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeable to applying the sanction to David and warning EllenCT. --Laser brain (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to keep my responses organized-- I'm not opposed to the suggestion of MastCell, Ed, and Seraphimblade for an outright topic ban in lieu of The Wordsmith's more limited proposal. I'm not set on any particular outcome, though I will note that every admin to have reviewed this agrees something must be done. Any uninvolved admin may impose a sanction. I'm inclined to say his wikilawyering during this AE (see here) shows he doesn't even recognize the issue with his conduct, or doesn't care. An aspersions-only restriction might very well be too limited then. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It sounds like you guys have reached a consensus, so I'm not trying to upset the applecart at this late date, but I don't quite understand the thought process here. Why is a topic ban categorically off the table? Frankly, this seems like a black-and-white case where one is justified. David Tornheim's record here indicates, in my view, that he is a tendentious editor on this topic motivated by a desire to Right Great Wrongs; that he views all opposition to his editorial agenda as de facto evidence of hidden industry ties; that he routinely characterizes his perceived opponents as industry shills with zero evidence; and that he's been warned repeatedly for all of these behaviors—which keep occurring in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions where we should be particularly firm in addressing them. I've been doing AE stuff for nearly 8 years, and this is one of the clearest cases of battleground editing I can recall.

  It's pretty clear that he views this topic area in Manichean terms, and that is not going to change. You are forbidding him to openly impugn other editors' motivations (something that shouldn't need to be said in the first place, much less after countless prior warnings, and a vague sanction which will lead to further wikilawyering around edge cases). But he still clearly believes that those who disagree with his edits are Monsanto shills, and he's still going to act and edit according to that belief. His attitude and presence are toxic to the topic area. This sanction is cosmetic, at best, and does nothing to address that toxicity. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand where you're coming from. After reading the diffs presented and having observed editors in this area for several months, my first instinct was for a topic ban. However, I think sometimes we jump to that too quickly at AE. If we topic banned everyone who has behaved badly, there wouldn't be anyone left editing the topic. David is perfectly capable of contributing positively, I've seen it firsthand. Civility parole-like restrictions have sometimes worked in the past when we've had an editor with great content work but trouble interacting with others. I thought it would be a good idea to show kindness and try to eliminate the bad behavior while still allowing David a voice. If it fails then the options of blocking or banning are still available, but I believe it to be worth giving a try. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see anything "quick" about proposing a topic ban here; quite the opposite. David Tornheim has been racking up warnings for battleground behavior for nearly a year and a half with no discernible change in his behavior. The fact that we're still not seriously considering a topic ban exposes those warnings as completely toothless. I also disagree with the framing around "kindness". By giving David Tornheim additional latitude (or "kindness", if you prefer), we're being actively unkind to the subset of constructive, well-behaved editors who have to deal with him. We're prioritizing his continued ability to edit in this topic area (where he's demonstrated that he's a poor fit with this site's expectations and goals) and implicitly assigning zero value to the time, effort, and goodwill of other, less strident contributors. I don't view that as kindness. That said, I also see that you guys have worked hard to come up with a plan here and so I will shut up at this point and let you work. MastCell ^Talk 00:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am late to this discussion, and I do see the merit of a restriction on aspersions, but this section at Talk:Jimbo Wales is hard to ignore. This is the one where David Tornheim put 'Monsanto must be pleased' in a header. It is hard to believe that this can be accepted as good-faith editing. I'd favor a topic ban for anyone who has already engaged in casting aspersions of this magnitude. It is unreasonable to require advance warning that this is sanctionable. It leaps to the eye as a violation of our norms. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a bit late to the party too it seems (I had to actually get enough time to dig through this mess), but I share the concerns of EdJohnston and Mastcell. At the very least, David Tornheim needs to be topic banned for totally unnecessarily blowing up this issue. Jimbo's talk page is not a rule-exempt zone, and editors are expected to abide the same restrictions there as anywhere else. There comes a point at which we've tried "kindness" and warnings enough times, and we need to conclude at that point that if it hasn't worked it probably won't. I think we're at that point with David Tornheim, and that there needs to be a topic ban placed. Maybe we could make it time-limited to see if some time away from the area helps cool things down. I also would advocate for a topic ban, or at the very least a logged final warning, for EllenCT. Even in this request, she's interrogating people about their real-life identities and speculating as to what they might do for work. That is not acceptable, and to do it in an enforcement thread shows either a total disregard for or an inability to follow our standards of conduct. Comment on the edit, not the editor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Based upon the forum shopping David Tornheim is doing at ARCA (thanks to Lord Roem for posting the link), I now won't support any less than a full topic ban on David Tornheim, especially given that he's casting the same aspersions that I explicitly warned another editor against engaging in above. Unless anyone strenuously objects, I'll be placing such a ban. His only "evidence" for wrongdoing was a link to an old ARCA where he made the same accusations, and no wrongdoing was found. "I said it before" isn't evidence. EllenCT has at least cooled it, so I'd be more willing to consider the narrow restriction proposed above in her case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems consensus is shifting. After seeing feedback from other admins here, and taking into account the stunt at ARCA and continued poor behavior at Jimbo's talkpage, I believe that my initial proposal won't work. I now see no viable option other than to endorse a topic ban for David, and aspersion restriction for EllenCT. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• After reflecting on recent comments here by other admins and observing David's recent behavior, I concur with a topic ban for David and restriction for EllenCT. --Laser brain (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As no one on the ArbCom has indicated any interest in supporting the requested "stay" at ARCA, and it seems we've come to a rough consensus here, going ahead as proposed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]