Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Marvin 2009

Marvin2009 has now been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBFLG. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Marvin 2009

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PatCheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Marvin 2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong :

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

16 June 2019 In my previous ANI case, he dug up some of my old edits, and together some random news articles, engaged in soapboxing and slyly suggested that I'm a CCP spy.
22 May 2019 Soapboxing about the evils of CCP in a RFC comment about number of FLG members
29 April 2019 Similar soapboxing on talk page, attempting to discredit sources critical of FLG
31 March 2019 Calling for the removal of Chinese government sources, using a US-funded NGO as evidence
31 March 2019 Same as above
27 March 2019 Further soapboxing, accusing another user of being "50 Cent Party" (a slur against users deemed pro-CCP).
27 April 2019 Accused another user of being a "CCP apologist".
7 February 2016 Previously engaged in 3RR violations and demonstrated a clear disregard of WP policy, launching a 3RR case against the user who reported him [1]
6 December 2015 Accusing other users in the 3RR case of being "CCP sympathizers"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

6 Dec 2015 48 hour block for edit warring

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. [2]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User is a single purpose account whose major edits are in the Falun Gong related articles [3], demonstrating a similar editing pattern to User:Asdfg12345 and User:HappyInGeneral who were topic banned.--PatCheng (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Marvin 2009

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

Statement by MrClog

It seems to me that the awareness criteria are not met. The editor has received 1 DS notice more than 12 months ago, and the 48 hour block was not a AE block, but a regular admin action for violation of the 3RR. The editor has never participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement.[5] As such, this request should be denied. I will send a DS alert to the user now, but that's obviously too late. --MrClog (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Marvin 2009

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

This was previously discussed in the ANI thread, which wound up not being acted on, but in which Marvin 2009 said he will improve his talkpage etiquette, which is an issue raised here. Since the ANI thread ended, he's made just one edit, not in this topic-area. There is also the "awareness" issue noted above, which has now been addressed. I suggest we close this without action in the hope there will be no further issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that action shouldn't be taken here in the absence of a timely DS notice. The notice has now been supplied by User:MrClog. Though the 3RR block from 2015 was unrelated to any Arbcom sanctions, the page where they edit warred was Epoch Times, a publication that is associated with Falun Gong. If the user's behavior from now on suggests they can't edit neutrally about the Falun Gong, we may be back here soon. The ANI thread just mentioned was at this link. The best way to tell if ARBFLG sanctions are being violated is to watch out for soapboxing, whether in articles, talk pages or edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrajmir13

Stale/withdrawn. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Mehrajmir13

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mehrajmir13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Enforcement_of_restrictions :

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

This thread over his t/p contains 11 diffs of mine reverting several of Mehrajmir13's edits (with explicit edit-summaries), because the source did not support the content.

After I posted that message, the user ceased editing, all of a sudden only to return a month and a half later and immediately archive his entire t/p, including the above thread! This is perceived by me as an attempt at evading scrutiny.

Coupled with his usage of DYK to push POV-laden inaccurate hooks (vide here, here et al) to main page, he is a grave threat to our reputation as an encyclopedia.

Diffs of previous relevant warning/sanctions, if any

6 February 2019 Sitush warns him for unexplained removal of sourced content and whitewashing articles.
19 February 2019 Kautilya3 warns him for edit warring w/o indulging in any discussion.

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

Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 30 January, 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am asking for an indefinite topic ban from any article linked with "India-Pakistan conflict", broadly construed.

@Clog:-The editor is free to archive their t/p but is not free to avoid queries, related to their dubious editing. In that t/p message, I explicitly mentioned that returning to editing w/o answering will lead to an AE request. I though appreciate your proposals for a boomerang; some amount of humor is always necessary.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified over here.

Discussion concerning Mehrajmir13

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

Statement by Mehrajmir13

Statement by MrClog

A few notes:

The only diffs provided are the 11 diffs included in the talk page message by WBG on 20 February 2019, 2 DYKs from before that date and a diff of the user archiving their talk page.
The only diff provided regarding an edit after WBG warned the user February 20, is the user archiving their own talk page.
Assuming that a user archives their talk page (with a link to the archive on his talk page) as an attempt at evading scrutiny doesn't seem to be assuming good faith, to be honest. The editor is free to archive their talk page.
As such, it seems (based on the diffs provided) unnecessary to sanction the user in question, because no policies/guidelines have been violated since Feb. 20.
Boomerang for failing to AGF? Not sure, to be honest. This report could be an honest mistake from the reporter (maybe they forgot to add diffs from edits after Feb 20). Leaning towards no boomerang necessary.

--MrClog (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: The editor is free to archive their t/p but is not free to avoid queries, related to their dubious editing. In that t/p message, I explicitly mentioned that returning to editing w/o answering will lead to an AE request. The point is that you have not provided any diffs that show that since the talk page message (Feb 20), the editor has been violating Wikipedia policies. If these diffs exist, please share them. If they do not, then apparently they have got your message at the talk page (even without them responding) and there is no reason why a sanction is necessary, because there is no current conduct issue of concern (For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased). --MrClog (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mehrajmir13

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

I've undone a closure of this thread by Winged Blades of Godric. Parties must not close their own requests, because there is a possibility that they may themselves be sanctioned (though probably not here). But they may declare their requests withdrawn. Sandstein 15:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's close this without action, either as withdrawn or as stale. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Corbett

For violating his topic ban, Eric Corbett is blocked for a month. The block may be lifted, either by myself on appeal or by another administrator, if Eric Corbett explicitly and unreservedly commits to observe the topic ban in the future, such that, in the administrator's judgment, the block is no longer needed to ensure compliance with the topic ban. To be clear, this does not require Eric Corbett to agree with or like the topic ban, ArbCom, or me. It just requires him to agree to comply with the ban as long as it remains in force. Sandstein 06:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Eric Corbett

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Eric Corbett (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/Interactions_at_GGTF#Eric Corbett topic banned

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

14:49, 1 July 2019. Eric accuses a candidate at requests for adminship of "poor judgement [...] in her membership of WiR". Eric's statement is a reference to WikiProject Women in Red, which is a "process or discussion relating to" "the gender disparity among Wikipedians [...] broadly construed", as specified in the above-referenced topic ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

GGTF enforcement log and ARBAE2 finding. Eric has previously been subject to numerous, escalating blocks for violations of the topic ban.
ARBAE2 enforcement restriction. "The Arbitration Committee [...] mandates that all enforcement requests relating to [the topic ban] be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours".

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: 18:57, 1 July 2019

Discussion concerning Eric Corbett

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

Statement by Eric Corbett

I think I referred to the candidate as "she" as well, so definitely worthy of sanction, I agree. Eric Corbett 19:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Newyorkbrad: "Are you willing not to agree to refer to WiR on-wiki in the future ...". I'm quite willing not to agree to anything in the future if it will help. Eric Corbett 22:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Montanabw: I think you misunderstand my position; block me for as long as you like, it will make to difference to me, only to the credibility of Wikipedia. Eric Corbett 22:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Newyorkbrad: In a word no, I will not agree to any such thing. Eric Corbett 22:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sandstein: Given the egregiousness of my transgression I really don't think that a month is anything like long enough. I'd suggest making it indefinite, until I apologise. Which will of course be never. Eric Corbett 13:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems from some of the "uninvolved" commentary that I may have failed to get my point across, so I will speak plainly. I don't care about the enforcement of any ArbCom sanctions one way or the other, and I care even less about anything that the WMF's T&S department might do. Eric Corbett 16:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Iridescent: You make a fair point, and I would have no objection whatsoever to any block that might satisfy those clamouring for my removal, but I do find the accusations of misogyny and disruption to be rather off the mark though and very disrespectful. I don't need to edit here, and have really only done so to help with a few FACs, against my better judgement. I might have entertained the idea of continuing with that to a limited degree, but not in this unnecessary hostile environment with constant harassment from the likes of Sandstein. Eric Corbett 22:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

Agree that this is a violation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Scope_of_topic_bans. El_C 19:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find Eric Corbett's statement deflective and unresponsive. El_C 19:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by cygnis insignis

Another plaintive cry for attention, as I read the block history, or trolling if there is still a difference. Dropping it at the RfA is a demand for a response. cygnis insignis 19:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: well said. And I say this: The initial comment was calculated to have that effect. The downplaying of the harm this can do to the community and real life people is not helping with the perception by those who are vulnerable to "grumpy" reactionaries and their legions of trolling lost boys driving others away. The idea is what? Give this a pass so the misogynists don't get to bent out of shape and do something worse? What is that phrase: Time is up!? cygnis insignis 19:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the attempt to characterise this as "extreme pettifogging over a very trivial technical breach" with a reluctant block that is somehow the fault of the WMF, is too clever in playing to supporters thinking up new ways to disrupt and blame others for Saint Fram's martyrdom. Blech! cygnis insignis

Statement by MJL

Since I filed this request, there clearly has been an escalation on the part of Eric. [6]

I'll probably post a more in depth statement later, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TracyMcClark: What? I'm still not home, so I can't respond to everything here. However, it's not a question whether Eric can vote (which is yes; Eric can), it's a question of whether he has to be civil about it and abide by the relevant topic bans. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I'd like to mention that this is currently happening under the backdrop WMF claiming that we, as a community, are unable to deal with incivility. It is also to say nothing of Eric's general escalation of rhetoric. [7][8][9][10] All of this was written after my previous report, so he clearly wasn't clueless to the current situation.
If you ask me, this is just evidence that Eric Corbett is slipping back into old habits and deliberately gaming the system here. If he gets blocked here, it shouldn't be for less than a month. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky caldron: I would say the diffs I just provided are not necessarily relevant to the gender discussions topic ban, but concern the civility topic ban. I had felt they would be helpful for administrators in assessing this case from a more generalized perspective. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky caldron: It's the same case. What do you want me to do? File a separate enforcement request? What reason do we have for being so narrow here? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky caldron: I respectfully disagree, but it looks like I may be the only one who does so in this case. My apologies for the stubbornness I've put on display here. :/ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to contrast this case with that of BorchePetkovski below. BorchePetkovski is a new user with an (apparently limited) understanding how Wikipedia works. They have thus far refused any plea to edit constructively and have been topic banned from all Macedonia related topics broadly construed. Well, since the imposition of that topic ban, they have made numerous minor edits in violation of it.[11][12][13][14][15][16] They have been much less than a communal timesink than Eric Corbett has been in my opinion, though. I was not once called overzealous for originally filing an AE request against them. Now that BorchePetkovski is back at AE, where are their defenders?
I've filed two requests here, and they both were for the same reason: when arbcom makes a decision, it matters. For BorchePatkovski, it was the discretionary sanctions in Macedonia. For Eric's topic ban, though; it came after a month long affair while Arbcom was deciding GGTF. After weighing a mountain of evidence (both for and against taking action), they decided to issue these sanctions exclusive to him. They aren't discretionary as was the case for BorchePatkovski; they're mandatory. The alternative to enforcing them is appealing them to arbcom.
Until that happens, we need to stop giving Eric special treatment. I can't speak beyond my limited experience here; but if this was me on the chopping block, I would probably be sobbing as I clung to my last bit of WP:ROPE. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: Wikilaw is a proposed project request on Meta btw- [the first thing I thought of].
I'm not trying to punish Eric for an infraction nor promote zero tolerance. I just want to see him conduct himself in a manner more fitting for a community I care deeply about. I've never interacted with him before last week, and my initial impressions of him were incredibly poor. If a one-month block is the silver bullet to help him step back for a bit, then that's what is needed here. Were he the least bit apologetic about his actions, I'd be singing a woefully different tune.
@Mendaliv: My preference for a month block is due to a number of reasons: (1) it's how long it took for arbcom to apply the original topic ban, (2) it's long enough to where the WP:FRAM nonsense will have likely been resolved, (3) it will give Eric sufficient time to reflect on his contributions to the project, and (4) it's preventative because he has indicated his unwillingness to abide by the parameters of the topic ban (thus we must assume he plans on further violations).
@Stephan Schulz: With the exception of the last thing you said, I couldn't agree more. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mendaliv: You are very mistaken in your inference of my second point. The intention is not to silence Eric, but to put a stop to these unnecessary sideshows he keeps causing. If he previous did not bring it up in the previous AE filing, [17] I'd be not mentioning it now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Dave's statement for it's raw honesty. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: This system allegedly makes sense to the veterans and admins here (but of course not to us newbies). I'm with you on this issue, though. I'd love to know where this Get Out of Jail Free card is, so I can get one myself. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

Corbett has been on parole for a long time. His last block of record was in 2015. I wish he hadn't taken a swipe at WIR (of which I am a member), but I recall with gratitude his support of my RfA a number of years back, so I owe him one here. In short, yes, he made a five word crack that was out of line, should have been struck, but striking it now would probably just inflame the drama. Here, I don't see a previous violation in the relevant section on the GGTF restriction since 2015, and that the record is confusing , nor any violation since 2012 of the RfA restriction. (If I am in error, please provide the diff). Given that the GGTF decision states that a one-month block is the standard remedy, but that two previous month-long blocks handed down in 2015 were reduced to a few days at most, I suggest that the admins make this a one-week block (thus more than the 24-48 hours he actually served for his most recent blocks in 2015). I'd take his "definitely worthy of sanction" remark above at face value (even if it drips sarcasm) and not let this escalate further. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Leaky

@Newyorkbrad: - I think you mean "Are you willing to agree not to...." Otherwise....

@Liz: Hi Liz. I'm am sure that Eric is entirely unconcerned, but I find your use of his surname to address him here as unnecessarily jarring and tbh, rather rude. I would not wish to be addressed as "caldron" Leaky caldron (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: This case concerns very specific issues relating to gender. In what way do the various posts you have linked on the Fram case by Eric Corbitt have a connection - however broadly construed - to gender issues? Leaky caldron (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Thanks. In fact, they have zero to do with gender and therefore nothing, on the face of it, to do with the case. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: The reported alleged breach is not about civility. The diffs and your comment appear to suggest that civility is implicated. It isn't. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: Eric has not disrupted RFA for years. He has a sanction which, AFAICR, he has assiduously followed. His comment at RfA was not disruptive n the sense of causing widespread chaos. Nor is this case about stopping him contributing to Framgate, or anything else for that matter. It is purely and simply to deal with an alleged breach of a 4 1/2 year old sanction relating to broadly construed gender issues. Any new sanction cannot be a coatrack to satisfy all sorts of editor wishlists. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (TracyMcClark)

Looks like Wikipedia's voting rights for "criminals" are being decided here so be aware while setting the precedent against Universal suffrage on Wikipedia.--TMCk (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Wikipedia will be much better off, when we start seeing editors as being non-gendered. There's no such thing as male & female editors. There's only 'editors'. The abolishment of GGTF & other such groupings, would be best. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Carrite

I agree with the sentiment that the timing of this (as well as the other) RFA is tantamount to strikebreaking, but that's really not the nominee's fault. I think the "poor judgment in Women in Red" comment is ill-formed, at a bare minimum, but according to terms of his probation, Corbett can not comment again to explain himself in the RFA thread. Tagging him for AE for this is completely a chickenshit line of argument, in my view. Decline. Carrite (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Espresso Addict

Tempers are running high everywhere at the moment; candidates running for RfA this week are seen by some as strike breakers. I would urge no action be taken against Eric Corbett on this occasion. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: I don't consider the RfA restriction "...topic banned from making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA." to be broken; commenters are required to explain their rationale and blank "Support" or "Oppose" votes can be discounted by the bureaucrats. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I have personally found Eric consistently helpful and friendly, a good collaborator and reviewer. In addition to his heaps of excellent content, often written in collaboration, he also did years and years of Good Article reviewing. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

As this is on an RfA I started, what I'm about to say should be taken with a large dose of WP:INVOLVED. (For what it's worth, I'm not bothered about Eric voting on it, and I'm pretty sure neither Valereee or Megalibrarygirl are either). In the past, I would have said something like "aww jeez not this again", but MJL is right that if we don't sort this out, there's a risk that the WMF T&S will do it for us. With that in mind, Eric, if you want a self-requested indefinite block à la Bishonen, just respond here in the affirmative and I will do the deed, and I will try and persuade those here not to enact any formal Arbcom-enforced sanction. If anyone else thinks such an action is unacceptable, please state so. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I think one should look at the remark by Hans Adler on Eric's page. It goes to the heart of, if the extreme monitoring of p's and q's introduced recently, the problem of making 'civility' (operatively this means 'etiquettish fusspottery') the baseline for everything here. Most of us see dozens of edit summaries, talk page comments which can be read as snide, impatient, acerbic etc.every day. If we are to demand that some consequential grammar of neutrality take command of every editor before they comment, that opens the door to endless complaints like this (I've often considered leaving Wikipedia because I find the daily harassment no problem: it's the damned strain of trying to live up to the politically correct that is stuffing up my pleasure in vernacular thinking). Really, who gives a flying Donald Duck? Why note such trivia? Particularly in this newer climate, which promises to give massive scope for grassing any and everyone on the strength of a single diff, and where we are at risk of confirming a precedent whose status is yet to be confirmed. Auden, I think to George Plimpton, once remarked:'I think if men knew what women said to each other about them, the human race would die out.' I've never told that to either men or women without it getting a solid laugh. If Auden had written that here, you'd probably get a complaint re either gynephobic or androphobic sexism, depending on the sex of the sensitive plaintiff. Let Mrs Testy get the better of Mr.Testosterone by all means, and vice versa, but it is all unutterly tedious twitter. We're not here for that.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL Wikilaw is not internally coherent: it is profoundly context bound, - to me it is rather like Alice in Wonderland and basically I prefer that to living under a rigorous regime of 'zero tolerance' and absolute logical consistency- and analogies, while your's has a certain thoughtful cogency, rarely hold up. I've seen known sockpuppets under a new handle screw admins, unbelievable bad editors obtain bans over trivia against editing adversaries, etc.etc. Eric's obstinacy invokes a penalty. Punish the infraction by all means, but not the attitude - he knows that- but I can understand contextually the reason. He doesn't object to a sanction. Neither did I when, for different reasons, I refused to self-revert, on being taken to AE for an (inadvertent) IR violation. I could have got off scot-free by just reverting. My problem was - the egregiously bad editor I reverted had falsified a source, and I couldn't bring myself to revert false information back into an article. So I got a strong sanction by one of the admins I admire most, with no rancour. He applied the law, one must take it on the chin. That dispute, in my view, like this perhaps, shouldn't have got here, because the ultimate ratio for these disciplinary functions is to block behavior that is inhibiting encyclopedic work, not to engineer the proper attitude conducive to making everyone happy.Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

Here’s a thought. If a block is needed let it be four hours: the amount of time between the comment and the filing of this report (1449 to 1858 UTC). Given the concern is disruption through the comment, the recognition that Eric has violated by a community member means that counteractions to any disruption were underway. Given there are no allegations of ongoing disruption from the comment, I don’t know if there’s need for anything more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about preventive vs punitive strikes me as a bit nonsensical. If four hours is punitive, how is a month not? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that MJL’s second point, that a goal here is to prevent Eric from participating in the ongoing discussion about the WMF’s role in enforcing enwiki community norms counsels against such a long block. The goal of AE should never be to silence people, but to prevent disruption. I mean, worst case, block him until the RFA he commented on closes. That would prevent him from disrupting RFA. Otherwise we’re just talking about sanctioning “just because”, which is not only contrary to policy but would be manifestly unfair. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

Doing something because you're worried that otherwise the WMF will do it is exactly the same as just letting the WMF do it. No comment on any other aspect of this; if Eric doesn't care, I won't either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Is Women in Red even part of the gender gap among Wikipedians topic? Women in Red is about the disparity in articles about men and women, not about Wikipedians. How is this even a part of the topic area? I understand that the GamerGate case has been expanded to include any discussion about editors or article subjects but I dont see where Eric's topic ban, specific to the Gender Gap Task Force and related discussions, has been expanded to include article subjects and not editors. nableezy - 20:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

IMHO this should be declined, Mainly because I like the guy and feel he's a valued editor here - It's a lame reason but meh ... it's a reason nonetheless. –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

So, someone wants to cite Eric for jaywalking. Come back when you have some meat to add to the potatoes....otherwise this is simply petty.--MONGO (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

So this is the level of bureaucratic idiocy we have come to. Eric Corbett may oppose an administrator candidacy for reasons related to a subject for which he has been topic banned, but may be punished for a brief, clear, and nondisruptive statement of his reasons. It would be better if ArbCom acknowledged that such a sanction is inimical to the basic principles of community decisionmaking that underlie the process for selecting administrators and declare that the sanction as originally framed was overbroad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Ok so I’m new around here; can someone please clue me in on what it is that’s so great that Eric does/did that gets him this walking-on-eggshells treatment from so many veterans? Is it writing FAs or is there more? Because I have a hard time understanding how he, or other “unblockables” (like Fram), can rack up a history of so many sanctions, and yet still be described as a “net positive” by so many editors. What is up with the “yeah, they’re a total a-hole, but damn can they write well!” line of thinking? Is there any consideration for how many other people are out there who can write FAs but don’t because of the non-collegial environment? Do the veterans just think those prior sanctions were unwarranted, and that’s why they’re not respected? I really don’t get why long-standing jerks are routinely coddled on this website. Appreciate anyone giving me a clue. Thanks. – Levivich 02:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Eric Corbett

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

@Montanabw: Please note that the case states that violations may result in a block of up to one month, not that a one-month block is the standard remedy. @Eric Corbett: Are you willing not to agree to refer to WiR on-wiki in the future, in order to help resolve this? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As Mr. Wolfe would say, Pfui on me. @Eric Corbett: Please excuse the typo. Are you willing to agree not to refer to WiR on-wiki in the future, in order to help resolve this? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bishonen: It's an approach that has sometimes worked for me in defusing situations in the past, though it obviously didn't in this instance. That said, any block for this infraction seems harsh to me, and a one-month block for a one-sentence comment certainly seems disproportionate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Corbett will not agree to the most basic of conditions to not violate his topic ban again, offers no explanation and seems indifferent to whether he is blocked over this infraction. Does that sum things up? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The request has merit. The edit violates the topic ban at issue. And Eric Corbett agrees that it does. I would impose a one-month block. (Disclaimer: I supported the RfA at issue, without participating in any discussion. I don't think this makes me involved here, but parties may disagree.) Sandstein 11:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the maximum block length of a month is necessary.

Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. Blocks and bans should therefore be as long as is likely needed to deter future misconduct. Because they are not intended to punish past misconduct, they do not need to reflect the degree of disruption that triggered them. Given the long block log of Eric Corbett, and his dismissive attitude towards the sanction and this request, it is questionable that even a one-month block will deter Eric Corbett. But any shorter block will make him even less likely to comply with the sanction from now on.
As others have said, in the light of WP:FRAM, it is important to reaffirm that ArbCom sanctions (especially related to harassment) are binding, whatever their merits may be, and are effectively enforced. Otherwise, we invite WMF staff to continue their unaccountable and intransparent sanctioning practices. Sandstein 19:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against sanctioning for this, especially for a whole month, because I think it's a trifling matter. So far I seem to be alone in that, in this section. But in relation to Eric's "deflective and unresponsive" and sarcastic replies I would point with all the emphasis I can muster to Editors have pride. A good essay, which I think should be required reading for any admin who thinks answers such as Eric's indicate he's "indifferent". @Newyorkbrad: I very much respect your understanding of these things, and hesitate to refer you to some essay. Nevertheless it's a shrewd essay, so perhaps just take a look at what it says about the likely consequences of asking an editor to "agree to edit constructively"? Would Archie Goodwin have agreed to such a thing? (Note for Sandstein: I obviously disagree with your proposed sanction, but I don't think you're involved.) Bishonen | talk 16:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

[Since my comment was addressed, excuse me for writing in this space, even though, like Sandstein, I participated in the RfA.] The question is what do we do about a user who violates their Arbitration-mandated restriction and then "plainly" says they don't care about having done so. Do we accept it again as De minimis non curat lex? And the next time? And the time after that? By all means, I'm open to suggestions. El_C 17:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I've already said I don't think Sandstein is involved, and I don't think you are either, if it's just about participating in the RFA. You should feel free to post in this section. Bishonen | talk 17:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Clearly, this editor is a boon to the project. And he definitely should take pride in that. I don't think that is in dispute by anyone. Cost/benefit-wise, he is a net positive. That having been said, what do we actually do? I'm happy to go with Newyorkbrad's softer touch over Sandstein relative heavy-handedness, but there has to be something, anything. El_C 18:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. The last AE was 10 days ago. If this is closed as "no action" - what happens if we're back here in 10 days? Do we just declare the restriction null and void? - I suppose the action then would be to punt to ArbCom at WP:ARCA, and see if they have solutions.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric won't thank me for saying this, and I consider this complaint extreme pettifogging over a very trivial technical breach (the comment being reported essentially parses as "the candidate is active in a project I consider disruptive and as such I don't trust their judgement", which is a perfectly legitimate oppose regardless of whether one agrees with it or not). However, given that we're currently driving Wikipedia full-tilt towards a cliff-edge exit from the WMF over the principle that Arbcom is the final arbiter of decision-making on English Wikipedia, that means a willingness to abide by Arbcom's bad decisions as well as its sensible ones. Very grudgingly endorse blocking, with the proviso that (provided Eric is willing to do so) we open a WP:ARCA to get the "gender gap broadly construed" provision more narrowly defined, as restricting Eric from making this kind of comment was clearly not what the committee had in mind when these restrictions were drafted. (Clarification; I'm certainly not suggesting the maximum one-month for something this trivial.) ‑ Iridescent 18:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seriously pissed off, because this situation was trivially avoidable by Eric. The comment about timing is fine. The comment about WiR is a stupid mixture of mysogny and the chinese whispers version of guilt by association. I think that in addition to the GGTF sanction, there also is the 2012 RfA comment ban. This does have an exception for simply stating his preference without engaging in threaded discussion, but this is very close to the line. The only reason I'm only lukewarm is that I doubt a block will help. I also blocked the user under his former name back in 2012, but I think WP:UNINVOLVED applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me add one thing: I think a reasonable block is the least bad outcome here. But I disagree with the argument that just now we need to be particularly strict about upholding ArbCom decisions. Basic fairness requires that we do not base our decision on something external to and irrelevant with respect to the problematic behaviour. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A minor violation, but a straightforward one. I see no reason not to enforce the sanction here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons discussed above, I am closing this as follows: For violating his topic ban, Eric Corbett is blocked for a month. The block may be lifted, either by myself on appeal or by another administrator, if Eric Corbett explicitly and unreservedly commits to observe the topic ban in the future, such that, in the administrator's judgment, the block is no longer needed to ensure compliance with the topic ban. To be clear, this does not require Eric Corbett to agree with or like the topic ban, ArbCom, or me. It just requires him to agree to comply with the ban as long as it remains in force.

Cinderella157

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

Request concerning Cinderella157

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: K.e.coffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cinderella157 (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/German war effort#Cinderella157 German history topic ban

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

19 June 2019, edit pertaining to Waffen-SS reenactment
20 June 2019, same
1 July 2019, same.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cinderella157 performed three edits at World War II reenactment, dealing with the subject of reenactment activities around Waffen-SS, the combat branch of the German SS.
Cinderella157 has previously been reminded of the topic ban by Bishonen in an unrelated matter: "Please don't return to old battles in an area that you're topic banned from" 5 March 2019.
I requested that they self-revert 20 June 2019. Cinderella responded to my request that he did not believe that the article fell under the topic ban and performed the revert that I listed as diff #3. I'm therefore bringing the matter here for admin review.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Cinderella157

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

Statement by Cinderella157

The edits are not about the Waffen-SS. They are not about the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945. This is really too long a bow to draw to construe that they are. That is my sincere belief (as I responded to KEC).[18] They are about two relatively recent events categorised as "controversies". The first being in the US, where a US congressional candidate offended people by dressing up in costume, and the second, in the UK where two (reported) neo-nazis were filmed running-off at the mouth.

The ban imposed was specifically not about WW2 more broadly, as Drmies appears to be construing. There is explicitly not an interaction ban with KEC. I cannot speak to TonyBallioni's intentions (they have not been recorded) but link to this discussion.[19]. I did raise concerns regarding transparency which relate back to statements now being made. I referred to WW2 reenactment at the case request as being contradictions between KEC's actions elsewhere and what they were alleging in the subject case.

TonyBallioni has identified their participation in the case. The think the same is true of Drmies.

Yes, I used rollback to revert two edits which were essentially the same that had been previously reverted and for which there were comments. I forgot that there were no comments and had intended to comment that previous version (after edits by Hohum and Xx236 were of "better" weight in respect to the tag. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

@Drmies and Galobtter: the wording of the topic ban that passed was written by me as an uninvolved case participant, IIRC, so commenting up here. In my view, this is a violation of the sanction. I wrote it the way it was to intentionally prevent any editing related to the Nazi-era. It was drafted with this statement in mind, where Cinderella157 had compared K.e.coffman’s work to a Nazi era atrocity. Note that historical re-enactment was also included in that statement by Cinderella157, so I’m not sure how he can’t see the connection. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella157, while the ban was changed to allow you to participate in content about the Pacific Theatre of the war, the ban as written was explicitly larger than WW2: it limits you from commenting on anything broadly related to the Nazi-era. As an example, you should not be commenting on the Nuremberg trials even though they occurred after 1945 because they were about crimes that happened during the war. Reenactment of the Second World War regarding Germany and restoring content around the Waffen-SS and German armed forces of the Nazi-era is similar to this, and 100% falls within the scope of a WP:TBAN, which was linked in your sanction and posted on your talk page. The ban also notes that it is broadly construed, which the TBAN policy helpfully links to. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cinderella157

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

Cinderella157, I don't understand what I'm missing here. Are you going to argue that a WW2 reenactment is unrelated to WW2 and thus to your topic ban, given the relation between WW2 and the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945? Because otherwise these seem to be pretty obvious violations. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see now that you do. It seems pretty clear to me that this falls under the topic ban and is thus a violation. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Cinderella, if one is banned from editing topic X, and one edits "reenactment of topic X", it is not a stretch to say that one violated the topic ban. It's the opposite of a stretch, really. To my fellow admins: this is one of those cases where I don't see how a block will do much good; I'd rather have an editor promise to be on better behavior and not try to skirt around a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks a clear violation to me too. I would refer Cinderella157 to WP:TBAN and WP:Broadly construed: a topic ban from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945 - that history which of course includes the Waffen-SS - would also include the topic of reenactment of Waffen-SS and so on. Continuing previous disputes with Coffman in the area doesn't look good either, and seems precisely the kind of behavior this topic ban was imposed to stop. (As a side note, Cinderella157, your use of rollback here is inappropriate per WP:ROLLBACKUSE.) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BorchePetkovski

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

Request concerning BorchePetkovski

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Thryduulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

30 June 2019 [20] - Makes an edit to Macedonians (Greeks) linking to Macedonians (ethnic group)
All edits 25 May-4 June [21] are directly related to Macedonia or Macedonians.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

24 May 2019 Indefinitely topic banned from all areas pertaining to Macedonia, broadly construed, indefinitely
6 June 2019 - I gave a warning on their talk page noting that all their post-topic ban edits were in violation, and that future violations would likely result in blocks.

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.
18 May 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I was tempted to just issue a 24 hour block after MJL made me aware of the edit, but it is already 2 days old and they only appear to edit sporadically so I'm not sure if something likely to be symbolic is best? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[22]

Discussion concerning BorchePetkovski

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

Statement by BorchePetkovski

Statement by MJL {RE: BorchePetkovski}

Thank you for pinging me Thryduulf.
It certainly doesn't give me any pleasure to see this user get banned. Initially, I was really concerned my reporting them to AE originally was rather WP:BITE-y, but then I know they know how to use a talk page.[23][24][25] That just makes me think they must be deliberately ignoring the talk page messages they've gotten so far (whether or not that is with mal intent, I cannot say).
The ridiculous part to me was that this was all avoidable were they to either abide by the topic ban or had originally promised to work more constructively with others. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BorchePetkovski

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

They've only made about 80 edits and have already managed to get themselves topic banned from Macedonia; both before and after the topic ban, every edit they've made, as far as I can tell, is related to Macedonia. I think they should be indefinitely blocked - this would be a specifically indefinite, not infinite block, and they can unblocked as soon as they file an appeal where they indicate an understanding of what a topic ban is and what areas they would continue to edit in. The issue here is that they don't edit often enough for any short block not just be symbolic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Flagrant violation of their topic ban (which, full disclaimer: I am the one who applied) — agree with Galobtter. El_C 17:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C and Galobtter: AE can only do 1 month on the first block. We could theoretically normal admin action block them, but to me, that seems to go against the idea of having limits on AE actions for first violations of AE sanctions, and I'd rather not get into the "1 month AE, rest non-AE" thing for first AE blocks. I think a 1 month block, explicitly allowed to be reduced, would serve the same purpose, and also serve as a final warning of sorts. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni my intention was a regular admin block, as that's what I would do if this was a regular topic ban. To my understanding, for WP:AC/DS blocks there is no "initially up to one month, then up to year" - there is only a limit of one year, since it has its own enforcement provisions separate from Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: enforcement of restrictions. To me, the point of limitations on the length of AE blocks is that they are not as easy to overturn as regular blocks, and so I don't see issue with going straight to an indef block. I think that an indefinite block which could be overturned in days if they appeal would best accomplish the goal of allowing them to edit productively in other areas, if they wish too, while not wasting further time if they don't. But, a 1 month block would serve the same purpose, as you say, and so I have no objection to that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

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